The Boy Scouts of America: A New Member of NAMBLA?

Kristi Kane

The Boy Scouts of America is a wonderful organization that teaches boys the importance of goal-setting, community service, teamwork and leadership. What a marvelous and superior alternative to pornography and countless hours of video gaming that seem to plague boys these days.

So, if I were on the National Advisory Board of the BSA, one of our new mottoes would be “NO SURRENDER!”

“No surrender!” to companies like AT&T, UPS, Intel and Merck who have taken the road of the morally obtuse and politically-correct by refusing to fund the BSA because the BSA won’t take the risk of having a boy or man who is open and vocal about being sexually attracted to boys and other men working within their  private organization.

(By the way, the only mention the BSA makes of sexuality in any way, shape or form, is in their pamphlet that comes with all scout books on the prevention of sexual abuse and what to do if you are ever in a situation that you feel you are being sexually abused. This is a pamphlet that scouts and parents are to go over together. And when I had that discussion with my then eight-year-old son that there are other people who might like to touch his privates to get their jollies, it was sobering.)

The United States Supreme Court’s decided on June 28, 2000 (in Boy Scouts of America et al v Dale) that the constitutional right of freedom of association allows a private [emphasis added] organization like the Boy Scouts of America to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The case was closed for everyone but the homosexual lobby.  After several years of intense pressure by way of literally defunding the BSA until they yielded, the BSA has penned the following “resolution” to be voted on this month (May).

You can read the proposed BSA Resolution here.

By way of strong warning, “Lessons from Gay Scouting in Canada,” Bradlee Dean states:

 “In 1998, Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent. Many scouting camps and offices were closed, and staff was laid off.

Boys who become scouts to receive a healthy, moral upbringing are instead becoming lifetime victims of criminals who prey on children. Even worse is the lack of justice these young boys receive. Canada’s epidemic of child sex abuse is largely swept under the rug to protect pederasts.”

This is the result of “compromising” and “yielding.” My question is this: If the homosexual lobby and their sympathizers cared about the future of a private organization like the BSA, and knowing their presence would in effect nearly destroy that organization because their beliefs and the “Scout Oath” are so polar opposite of  each other, why would they want to be members? Look at what happened in Canada. And it can and will happen again right here in the United States if the resolution is carried.

For a brilliantly written article that shines further light on this debacle, go here.

To voice your opinion, please contact the Boy Scouts of America.

BSA National Council: 972-580-2000.  Or, email:  nationalsupportcenter@scouting.org

Better yet, contact your local Boy Scout Council and ask that the person who will represent the council as a voting member receive your input.

Are you wondering about the acronym NAMBLA?  It stands for:  North American Man Boy Love Association.

 

Unpopular Opinions

Diane Robertson

To have the opinion that the definition of marriage should not be changed to include same sex couples is very unpopular this spring.

Dr. Ben Carson, renowned, pediatric neurosurgeon at John Hopkins has stepped down as Hopkins Commencement Speaker.  Some Hopkins students and faculty petitioned against Carson as the commencement speaker after his comments at the National Prayer breakfast and his comments about gay marriage while on the Sean Hannity show.  When asked about the Supreme Court cases regarding gay marriage Carson said:

“Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”

Rotham, the dean of John Hopkins medical school, criticized Carson’s comments as being “hurtful”.

Carson apologized for his comments, but still opted not to speak. In an email to Rotham, Carson said:

“Someday in the future, it is my hope and prayer that the emphasis on political correctness will decrease and we will start emphasizing rational discussion of differences so we can actually resolve problems and chart a course that is inclusive of everyone.”

Dr. Carson is a great man who with hard work moved from a childhood of severe poverty to world renowned surgeon. It is a shame the John Hopkins’ students will not get the opportunity to learn from a man who has lived the American Dream to its fullest potential.

In a similar story in Grosse Point, MI, the student club, “Young Americans for Freedom,” raised the $18,000 and secured school approval to have former Senator Rick Santorum come to South Point High to speak to the students about “Leadership”. When the school superintendent, Dr. Thomas Harwood, got word of the event, he cancelled it.  After enough student and parent outrage the superintendent decided to allow the event to occur.

The student group claims that the Superintendent cancelled the event based on Santorum’s views on  gay marriage and education. The Superintendent is now denying this and saying that it was cancelled because Santorum had not sent in a copy of his speech. Santorum never received a request for his speech. The students who organized the event as well as parents complained about the cancellation. Under pressure, the superintendent compromised to allow the event to continue if students attending have a signed permission slip.

Langston Bowens, an 18-year-old senior at South Point High School, said some teachers became angry when Santorum’s appearance was announced. He said they sent video clips from Santorum’s speeches to the principal and the district superintendent, demanding the event be canceled.

“The teachers called Santorum a bigot and a racist,” Bowens said. “They said he is controversial and shouldn’t speak in front of students.”

Santorum has said:

“This issue has always been about our First Amendment rights to freely share our views. Sadly, it wasn’t until the superintendent faced tremendous pressure from parents, students, the media and even a few of his colleagues at the school that he relented. It is unfortunate that students are required to get permission slips from their parents to hear a speech on leadership and public service.”

I find it difficult to believe that educators deem it educational to bring in planned parenthood and pro-gay groups that teach about explicit sexual practices in the names of “equality”, “anti-bullying”, and “safe sex” without calling for parent permission, yet the same people would require permission slips for students to hear a speech on “leadership” simply because the speaker is a strong enough person to support traditional marriage in the face of tremendous opposition.

 

 

Dilemma for The Boy Scouts of America: Protect Children or Homosexuals?

Kristi Kane

On February 6, 2013, (the BSA’s 103^rd birthday), the Boy Scouts of America was to announce its decision regarding the acceptance of homosexuals into their organization both as leaders and as scouts. It was announced that the decision would be delayed until the Boy Scouts annual meeting in May 2013.

Why would the Boy Scouts of America need to decide on this? They would in effect be overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in their favor. On June 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court (Boy Scouts of America et al. v Dale) held that the constitutional right of freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”

The Scout Oath (or Promise) says:

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
And to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

 The Boy Scouts of America does not believe that a homosexual lifestyle is a “morally straight” one.

Even though the Supreme Court gave its decision on this subject in 2000, many homosexuals will not rest until the Boy Scouts buckle. An opinion piece on a gay advocacy website, OpEdNews.com, reflects the depth of their disdain:

 “As a private club, the US courts have ruled that the Boy Scouts are welcome to take this last, lonely, loathing stand against civil rights. For an organization that has existed 102 years and that congratulates itself for upholding the highest moral principles, it is sad that the Boy Scouts would flaunt such an appalling ignorance of history, morality, common decency and democracy.”

The real heat has come from the withdrawal of donations from corporations like Intel, UPS, AT&T and the Merck Foundation have recently suspended funding of the Boy Scouts of America with a nod from GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), until the ban on gay scouts and scout leaders is lifted.  Brian Grill, Merck Foundation, explains: “We cannot continue to provide support to an organization with a policy that is contrary to one of our core beliefs. We remain ready and willing to re-consider our funding position in the event that the Boy Scouts of America were to revise its policy.”

In “Lessons from Gay Scouting in Canada,” Bradlee Dean warns:

“In 1998, Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent. Many scouting camps and offices were closed, and staff was laid off.

Boys who become scouts to receive a healthy, moral upbringing are instead becoming lifetime victims of criminals who prey on children. Even worse is the lack of justice these young boys receive. Canada’s epidemic of child sex abuse is largely swept under the rug to protect pederasts.”

Father Benedict Groeschel of Larchmont, New York is considered the Catholic Church’s expert on Catholic Priest abuse. He says that 90 percent of the child abuse by Catholic Priests is done by homosexuals, and they represent only 10 percent of the total priests. These data are confirmed by a John Jay School of Criminal Justice study. This means that homosexual priests abuse children 81 times as frequently as heterosexual priests!

The Boy Scouts of America has sufficient justification to ask homosexuals to not serve as Scoutmasters. 

 Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, stated, “The notion that we need to protect homosexuals more than we need to protect children…has been a disturbing trend.”

Randall Stephenson, executive board member of the Boy Scouts of America and CEO of AT&T is slated to become chairman of the BSA board in 2014. You read that correctly. One of the men responsible for pulling funding from scouting because of its “anti-gay” policy is set to become its chairman next year.

It’s not too late to let the Boy Scouts know what you think.

BSA National Council:

Phone number:    972-580-2000
Email:           nationalsupportcenter@scouting.org

 

Education: Third Cycle, Is there Hope?

Maddi Gillel

Editor’s note:  This is the third in a series on education.  To see “The High Water Mark,” go here, the second article, “The Nose Dive,” is here.

The value of the second cycle is that many have learned the hard way what works to make a country strong, healthy, prosperous, safe, and independent  in every way.

In his book Back to Basics: The Traditionalist Movement That is Sweeping Grassroots America, Burton Yale Pines expressed the yearning of the vast majority of Americans to get America back on track.  There is a call for reform in many areas:

1-     A revival of quality education by the national  commission (A Nation at Risk: The  Imperative for Educational Reform)

2-     A return to the free- market system with less intervention by government so that millions of new jobs can be created.

3-     A restoration of moral and spiritual values in both private and public life.

4-     A reduction in taxes; federal, state, and local.

5-     Paying off the national debt.

6-     Turning public welfare programs into workfare, education, and job-creating opportunities instead of allowing millions of Americans to become permanently trapped on the poverty level.

( Burton Yale Pines)

There are many in our  society who are doing what they can to resist that which weakens our country and encourage that which makes our country strong and free once again.  There are websites that are forwarded  to thousands to keep others aware of the news of the day; there are blogs such as this one, to encourage strong families, financial responsibility, and a return to values;  many more of our representatives understand and uphold the constitution and know how this country should be governed; many families have remained sufficiently intact that they have been raised by parents and grandparents who lived during the high water mark of our society; technological knowledge is at an all- time high, which has its downside, but the upside is that more can stay abreast of advancements in every aspect of our society –law, medicine, marketing, agriculture, retailing, engineering, education, political science, etc.

Many parents recognize the weakness of the education system and choose to home school their children- and this has been going on for quite some time.  Those children are in turn growing up, getting married, and home schooling their own children.

A College/University education was at one time,  thought to be the only way to make a good living, but many are choosing the trades (plumbing, electricity, carpentry, masonry,)  which  is  less expensive, takes less time, and will afford an ability to provide for one’s family ( of course keeping a strong work ethic in mind).  Keep in mind, that one can do a lot of reading and studying about any subject on earth in his own spare time and become an ‘educated’ person – there is formal education and informal education and a truly ‘educated’ person depends on his own volition.

There are an increasing number who are becoming more aware of the democratic process and are staying in contact with their representatives – through technology.  We can even sign petitions ‘on line.’

More reporters and journalists and radio hosts are choosing to be independent of ‘political correctness’ and can thusly keep their readers/listeners  apprised of what the real story is, as opposed to sticking to the talking points-‘ business as usual.’

To sum up, it is no mystery why billions are poured into education.  The ‘powers- that- be’ know that they have got to protect this institution. They can then do as they wish so children are raised to think along the lines of:  indifference to education (reading, writing, and math) socialism, religious and moral apathy, subjection to outrageous behavior from others (bullying, assault, profanity, vulgarity, negative peer pressure, etc.) and a lack of understanding and appreciation of the constitution.

Once again, and as usual, the home is crucial in teaching our children values, reading, math, writing, citizenship, financial responsibility, and family stability.

There is hope.

Stripping the Religious of their Right to Speak Up

Diane Robertson

The purpose of government is to regulate human relationships– society. A good government supports and protects the family as the basic and most important unit of society. An important part of protecting the family is allowing freedom of religion which in turn lends support to families.

A bad government regulates religion and religious expression thereby ridding families of that support. Both removing support from the traditional family and regulating religion gives the government more power over the people.

Charles Donovan (son of James Donovan an OSS officer in the Nazi Army from 1944 to 1945) wrote, “Under the pretext that the churches themselves were interfering in political and state matters, [The Nazis]would deprive the churches, step by step, of all opportunity to affect German public life.” (America the Last Best Hope vol II, Bennett, William J… Nashville, TN. 2007. pg. 214)

The regulation of religious freedom and expression is once again beginning to be set in place by governments all over the Western World. This is occurring mostly as religious teaching about homosexuality conflict with anti-discrimination laws and gay marriage.

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights ruled religious beliefs cannot justify discrimination against same-sex couples. The Court ruled against Lillian Ladele, a public registrar, dismissed for refusing to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples, and Gary McFarlane a counselor who provided psycho-sexual therapy to couples and stated in a work meeting that treating same sex couples was incompatible with his beliefs. Both were fired from their jobs and both have lost law suits against their employers.

In the United States the 6^th Circuit Court of appeals ruled that university diversity policies trump the First Amendment’s protections of religious freedom and religious expression. Crystal Dixon was dismissed from her university post after she wrote a personal letter to the editor of a local newspaper objecting to the characterization of homosexuality as being the same as race.

Cases like these are very common and similar outcomes are becoming the norm and even expected to be the norm. During his inauguration address, President Barak Obama declared:

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

This sounds nice—all are equal. For religious people, it isn’t nice. What it means is the religious teaching –in almost every religion– that homosexuality is a sin is discrimination. Therefore, anyone who believes that part of their religion is a bigot. As pro-family blogger Nathan Cherry stated:

There is a concerted effort to solidify religious people seeking to live out their religious convictions as bigots engaging in discrimination. This is why “conscience protections” will fail, because ultimately the state or federal government will decide that equality trumps religion and religious convictions will be defined as discriminatory.

If people seeking to live out their religious convictions are considered bigots engaging in discrimination because of government policies then, like Nazi Germany, governments today will become successful in depriving the churches, step by step, of all opportunity to affect public life.  Families will be left with some form of freedom of worship, but no longer freedom of religion.

Where Have We Gone Wrong?

Rachel Allison

I was wide awake at 4:30 this morning.  My husband came downstairs ten minutes later.  Neither one of us could sleep, and so we sat together and just talked.  Our conversation covered mixed topics, but I was surprised at how often we returned to the topic of the recent Connecticut shooting.  “Did you receive the email about mental illness?”  discussion…change of topic…

Then “I wasn’t able to watch the news yesterday.  I heard they were showing the faces of the victims. I can’t see their faces.  It’s too painful.” Discussion.  Change of topic.

Then “As I drove to the bank yesterday I was listening to Dennis Prager.  He asked his radio audience to listen to a rabbi and a Catholic Priest talk about the tragedy of the shooting, but before playing the clip he asked us to notice the one word that was carefully avoided.  I tried to determine what word he was referring to, but couldn’t. It was ‘God.’  Prager’s point? ‘How can we talk about a tragedy like this and leave God out of the discussion?’ We have become so sensitive to the far left’s godless agenda that we guard our speech so as not to “offend.””…more discussion…

I’m sure that our dialogue is not much different than most conversations at this time of unbelievable shock and sorrow.  We are grieving for the families of the innocent victims.  I can’t even begin to imagine the mental and physical anguish they are living right now.  We are grieving for our society where something like this can happen.  And I, like many, am grieving for a society that doesn’t understand the comfort, strength and peace that comes from a strong and solid belief in God. There are many who will ask, “Why did God allow this to happen?”  God does not allow this to happen.  Our society and our culture have allowed this to happen.

We have focused too long on political advantage. We have catered to the few who have learned to speak loudly and adamantly against God, virtue, and goodness. Too many of us who know better have allowed ourselves to be submissively silent…even when we fully recognize the faults of their philosophy.  When we unite our voices…when we stand just as strong…perhaps the Godless will listen and rethink their anger.  I’m grieving for them also.  How empty their lives must be.

One of the topics discussed with my husband early this morning was how to react with people who overconfidently verbalize their prowess on a subject when in reality they haven’t a clue.  Those who dismiss God are in this category.  There are too many facts…too much substantiated evidence.   Millions recognize His hand in their lives every day. I am one of those.

“Great truths are often violated by our speech, but they are also outraged by our silence, and made ineffective by our dullness and by our lack of confidence, faith and enthusiasm.”  Sterling W. Sill

Can Freedom of Speech Even Survive?

Diane Robertson

One of the great things about America has always been freedom of speech. What a joy it is to be able to say or write something contrary to the government or popular opinion and still be safe and often respected.  This week, Americans used this right by voting. Four states voted on gay-marriage. The majority in these states chose either to legalize gay-marriage or not to add an amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Gay-marriage has become a highly inflammatory issue, as proven this past summer with Chick-fil-a. Before and after the Chick-fil-a conflict, there have been some severe reactions to a difference of opinion concerning gay-marriage. This makes me wonder: Can freedom of speech continue alongside same sex marriage?

By now, most of us have heard of Angela McCaskill, an employee at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. After having worked at Gallaudet for over 20 years, she has now been placed on administrative leave because of pressure from some students and faculty.  Her offense: She signed a petition in Maryland that added a referendum to the November ballet that asked voters in the state to vote yes or no in favor of “The Civil Marriage Protection Act”.  A majority “yes” legalized same-sex marriage in Maryland beginning January 2013.

It doesn’t matter that as chief diversity officer, McCaskill, helped open a resource center for “sexual minorities” on campus. Her job is in trouble because she wanted the legalization of same-sex marriage in her state to be decided by the people. Gallaudet is a federally chartered university—which means it is funded by the federal government. If Gallaudet was a private university then it would be within the university’s rights to hire and fire employees for things such as incompatible political views. As a public school, Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz, has breached the first amendment by putting McCaskill on leave for signing a legal petition.

John Fund, from National Review Online lists similar cases in his article, “The New Blacklist”:

Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, the state’s largest nonprofit performing-arts company, donated $1,000 to the “Yes on 8” campaign. Protests from the composer of the Broadway musical Hairspray and many other show-business people soon forced him to resign.

Similarly, Los Angeles Film Festival director Richard Raddon was forced to step down after it was revealed that he had donated $1,500 to “Yes on 8.” The festival’s organizer put out a statement saying, “Our organization does not police the personal, religious or political choices of any employee, member or filmmaker.” Behind the scenes, however, many of the festival’s board members pressured Mr. Raddon to resign.

Another incident happened in February when a 14-year-old homeschooler became the subject of cyberbullying, vicious name-calling, and death threats after testifying before the Maryland state senate against “The Civil Marriage Protection Act”.

More recently in Washington a volunteer working in support of traditional marriage, and a pregnant bystander, were confronted by an angry homosexual activist. The women had to call the police to end the confrontation.

And in Maine, Katelyn Daniels, a 14 year old girl wrote to the Portland Press Herald (Katelyn’s letter is the last on the page, scroll to the bottom to find it) describing what happened while her youth group—children 7 to 17—stood outsides with signs asking people to vote in favor of traditional marriage:

On one occasion, a middle-aged man with children in the back seat of his SUV deliberately drove up onto the sidewalk. He was dangerously near the children as he continued accelerating, plowing over 15 of our marriage signs and covering a span of more than 100 feet. The little ones were very scared.

He pulled off only to avoid hitting a telephone pole, and we saw him laughing as he sped away. The police chased after him and when confronted, the man claimed that he was “distracted.” Thankfully, a nearby store captured the entire crime on video.

On another occasion, a car drove by and the passenger leaned out the window, exposing his private parts. I was embarrassed by this lack of decency.

We children endured people calling us names, throwing things at us and hundreds upon hundreds of people sticking up their middle fingers and screaming X-rated profanities. And they call us hateful people?

Before there was any change in the law, these instances have had a chilling effect upon free speech. It makes one wonder who voted in favor of gay marriage out of fear of having his or her name published. And now, as more states legalize gay-marriage, one might ask how many people will be willing to risk a job or their personal safety to offer an opinion contrary to those supporting gay-marriage.

If same sex marriage were to be legalized throughout the United States would freedom of speech survive?

Acceptance of Diversity or All-out Indoctrination?

Rachel Allison

Just over eighteen months ago a friend of mine heard about a program being presented at a high school across town.  It was advertised as a  Pinal County LGBTQ Youth Summit.  (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) Recognizing that such a program could prove provocative, we decided to sit in on the event.

There were several teachers, and adult presenters, but my friend and I were the only parents in attendance. There were probably forty students who attended the mini conference.   All were asked to sign in with name and contact information.

Among other pro-gay groups, “One in Ten” Leadership was at this summit to promote safety and acceptance of those who are in the above category.  They claim that eighty percent of their work is helping schools, counselors, and administrations create safe schools for transgendered youth. But they also admit that their camps promote ways to empower youth who think they are or may be LGBTQ.

An openly gay young man conducted the program.  But before the meeting even started he had worked the crowd and had won us all over with his charisma and charm.  He talked to all of us for just a few minutes about the support his team was there to offer, and then a video clip from ABC news was shown that depicted the fatal effects that bullying had on a heterosexual young man. I hate bullying, and this film portrayed its cruelty.  Of course our hearts went out to the young man in the video…but we were a bit confused by the presentation of heterosexual bullying when the presentation was supposed to be about gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual abuse.  We didn’t know if there were documented cases of gay bullying or not, but they didn’t discuss it if there were.

At this point in the presentation it was announced that all the adults were supposed to go to one classroom, and all the youth were to go to another classroom.  This did not sit well with either my friend or me, but we recognized ourselves as “outsiders” in this group so we followed orders.  We were “taught” that there is a difference between sex and gender.  We were told that expanding our understanding to include a gender spectrum may be challenging, uncomfortable and even painful…that it requires bucking a lifetime of training, socialization, assumptions and practice, and that it would challenge our moral, religious and cultural traditions…..  Well, their philosophy certainly does all that!  I tuned in and out of the dialogue, as I was more concerned about what was being taught to the vulnerable youth in the next classroom.

All of these memories came flooding back as I read the article posted on World Family News,  “Gorham Middle School Officials Apologize for Diversity Day Discussion.” According to the article Gorham Middle School recently hosted representatives of a group called PRYSM, Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine, to talk about gender diversity and discrimination.  When it was learned that homosexual foreplay was discussed, the Principal knew a major apology was in order.

After reading the article, it would not surprise me if the very group that came to our city and state taught inappropriate dialogue to the youth who were alone in their classroom.   I wonder if adults were actually present at Gorham Middle School.  Perhaps the youth and adults were separated just like the presentation in Arizona that I attended.

Parents, please tune in to all that your children are being exposed to.  There are elements of society who would love nothing more than to indoctrinate the lonely, vulnerable and confused.  (Having had five teenagers I witnessed the lonely, vulnerable and confused moments of their pre-adult years OFTEN.)  If your child insists on attending diversity presentations offered at school, accompany him.  And whatever else happens, do NOT let him/her go into a room with Gay agenda promoters, unless accompanied by you or an adult that you trust COMPLETELY.

What has Happened to the Country I Love?

Rachel Allison

Without trying to openly express an opinion on the upcoming United States Presidential Election I will admit that I was disgusted by the ad comparing the loss of virginity to voting for our President, Barak Obama.  Have we become so calloused to what is morally unacceptable that we as adult citizens would not demand such public display of sexual innuendo to be taken off the airwaves?  I know that we see much worse in the movies and television sit coms, but this ad was made to target the young.  It sanctions and even encourages their thinking toward passing from girl to woman with the loss of virginity.  All of that, while it cheapens the voting process and the man running for the highest and most honored position in the nation many of us hold dear.

Peggy Noonan, author and columnist for the Wall Street Journal recently wrote,

“About 15 years ago, a TV interviewer noted my concern at the damage I thought was being done by the highly violent, highly sexualized nature of our culture, of our movies and TV and music. It will make us more brutish, I’d argued, and some will imitate what they see.”

“The interviewer was good-humored but skeptical: ‘Hollywood makes a lot of comedies. Why don’t we see the country breaking out in laughter?’”

“Violence is different,” I said,” because there are unstable people among us, and they are less defended against dark cultural messages. The borders of the minds of the unstable are more porous. They let the darkness in. You can go to a horror movie and be entertained or amused: “This is scary, I love getting scared, and I love it because I know it isn’t real.” But the unstable are not entertained by darkness. They let it in. They are inspired by it. Sometimes they start to live in the movie in their heads.…as did the Aurora theatre shooter, when he said, “I am the Joker”  and then began his massacre.”

I completely agree with Ms. Noonan’s assessment.  And I believe that pushing sex has just as much power over the immature, the vulnerably lonely, and the curious.

Noonan wrote, “Everyone knows our culture is poisonous, and nobody expects that to change.”  Unfortunately I think she may be right there too, but for the love of my country, our culture, and my family I’m going to do my best to dilute the poison.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary stated, “The spiritual immune system of an entire civilization has been wounded.”  He is talking about the United States of America…a country founded by God-fearing men and women whose belief in God drove them to a new and brutal land where many would die in the cause they held dear.

How far we have spiraled downward…and I am reminded again of why great nations fall.  Two of the reasons:

1.  They lose their religious convictions and defy basic morality.

2.  They become obsessed with sex.

We may recognize the beginnings of the end when our President himself defies basic morality and allows a campaign ad to obsess over sex.

 

Ever wonder what things would be like if same-sex marriage were legalized?

Ann Bailey

Ever wonder what things would be like if same-sex marriage were legalized throughout the U.S.?   Gallaudet University’s recent suspension of their chief diversity officer gives us a clue.  Why was Angela McCaskill – the first deaf African American Woman to earn a Ph.D. from Gallaudet -suspended from her job?  She signed a ballot petition giving Maryland citizens the opportunity, in November, to vote on recently passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage.  She and about 80,000 other Marylanders signed the petition.

Dr. McCaskill thought it was a good idea to let the people of Maryland decide the definition of marriage.  Now the university is “making her pay.”  So much for the tolerance and diversity crowd!  Once again we see that for gay advocates and people on the left of the political spectrum, tolerance runs only one way.  The University’s President, T. Alan Hurwitz, confirms this observation by stating:  “Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer.”  Wow…. And he said that with a straight face!

If these open-minded, diverse, and tolerant individuals behave this way when same-sex marriage is not the law of the land – or the state – one can only imagine what their attitude (and their actions!) will be were they ever to have the force of law behind them.

That brings me to some other examples of what might occur if same-sex marriage became the law of the land.  These examples come to us from Canada where same sex marriage was legalized in 2005. The state of Minnesota has a constitutional amendment defining marriage on their ballot for November and the group Minnesota for Marriage have put together an interesting video on consequences of same-sex marriage in Canada.  You might say “Well, Canada has different laws than the U.S. and that won’t happen here.”

All I can say to that is “it already is.”