New state law requires LGBT history in textbooks
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Friday, July 15, 2011
Sacramento --
Public schools in California will be required to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans starting Jan. 1 after Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a controversial bill to add the topic to the social sciences curriculum.
Textbooks now must include information on the role of LGBT Americans, as well as Americans with disabilities, though California's budget crisis has delayed the purchasing of new books until at least 2015.
"History should be honest," Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."
The governor called the legislation, SB48, introduced by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, "historic."
The law - the first of its kind in the nation - adds the two groups to an existing list of minority and other groups that are required to be part of the social sciences curriculum.
Safer schools
Gay rights supporters heralded Brown's action as a major victory. They said the law will help make public schools a safer place for LGBT students as well as give those students, and their classmates, examples of accomplished and important LGBT people.
Throughout the debate on the measure, backers noted the recent spate of suicides among young LGBT people and said it would help to combat bullying that typically occurs beforehand.
Opponents, however, fiercely opposed the measure, citing religious objections to homosexuality and questioning whether such instruction is necessary. They expressed dismay with Brown's signing of the bill.
"If children in other countries are learning math and science, and American children are learning about the private lives of historical figures, how will our students compete for jobs in the global economy?" said Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster (Los Angeles County), the vice chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Education.
Beyond California
The provision on inclusion in textbooks could reach beyond California, too, as many book publishers tailor their texts to California's standards because of the state's large population. The bill does not prescribe how schools will teach the subject, and Leno said that decision will be made by local school officials and teachers.
"What the bill calls for is for the contributions of LGBT people to be included," Leno said, adding, "We wrote it broadly for a reason. We would be subject to more criticism than we've already been getting if we were more dictatorial."
Leno said the mandates apply broadly, though, telling reporters it would affect kindergarten through high school curriculum, "and, of course, in an age-appropriate way."
Gay rights advocates said they will be vigilant about making sure schools across California comply.
Carolyn Laub, the founder and executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which works to establish gay-straight clubs in schools, said such clubs exist in 55 percent of California's high schools.
"We'll certainly be letting all of our constituents know about this bill, and when it goes into effect I can assure you there will be thousands of students" watching to see how it is implemented, she said.
Proponents have cited slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk as a person with historical significance, along with events such as the Stonewall Riots in New York City that helped launch the LGBT rights movement as examples of topics that could be taught.
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a Democrat, praised Brown's move, saying, "Our history is more complete when we recognize the contributions of people from all backgrounds and walks of life."
Cutting into class time
Still, opponents questioned the effect the bill would have and the need for explicit instruction for all students about a relatively small group.
The bill "does absolutely nothing to reduce bullying, improve the poor state of our education system, ensure students graduate or prepare them for global competitiveness," said Paulo Sibaja, legislative director of the Capitol Resource Institute, a socially conservative organization in Sacramento. "Instead it diverts precious classroom time away from science, math, reading and writing, and focuses on the agenda of a small group of people."
education
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Monday, October 4, 2010
Free Speech for Whom?
4 Oct 2010
The Washington Times Daily
Michigan assistant attorney general defends his anti-gay blog as free speech.
LANSING, Mich. (AP)
An assistant attorney general is using his personal blog to target the openly gay leader of the University of Michigan’s student assembly, calling him a racist with a “radical homosexual agenda.” The lawyer claims that when he’s not at work, he has the right to say whatever he wants.
But the vociferous criticism has raised questions of just how far a civil servant can go, and whether A n d r e w Shirvell’s online attacks — which include putting a swastika over a gay-pride flag in a photo of 21year-old Chris Armstrong — should affect his job.
So far, Attorney General Mike Cox says no. Mr. Cox called Mr. Shirvell immature and his blog posts “distasteful,” but said he has the right to free speech. But Mr. Cox said he was troubled that the 30-year-old lawyer videotaped police breaking up a party at Mr. Armstrong’s offcampus home in Ann Arbor over Labor Day weekend.
“Part of the video is being outside this young man’s house at 1:30 on a Sunday morning. Clearly, I wouldn’t recommend that to any state employee to be doing,” Mr. Cox told the Associated Press on Thursday. “That being said . . . it’s not something where I can walk in one day and say, ‘I don’t like what he has on there, let’s broom him.’ He has First Amendment protections.”
Mr. Shirvell went on personal leave Thursday and is subject to a disciplinary hearing when he returns, Cox spokesman John Sellek said Friday. Personnel rules restricted Mr. Sellek from saying if Mr. Shirvell was on leave because of the outcry.
Mr. Shirvell posted the video on his blog, called Chris Armstrong Watch, which he began in April. In the Sept. 5 posting, he accused Mr. Armstrong of hosting the party with the intent to “liquor-up underage freshmen and promote homosexual activity in an effort to recruit them to the homosexual lifestyle.”
Mr. Shirvell has repeatedly called on Mr. Armstrong to resign. He has criticized Mr. Armstrong’s friends and put their Facebook postings on his blog.
The university on Thursday banned Mr. Shirvell from campus, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in 2002, saying he was targeting the elected student body president “in a reprehensible manner.”
“As a community, we must not and will not accept displays of intolerance,” President Mary Sue Coleman said.
Mr. Shirvell didn’t respond to phone and e-mail messages from the AP. But he told CNN last Tuesday that he regards his antiArmstrong push as a political campaign, not a personal attack.
“This is just another tactic bringing awareness to what Chris really stands for,” Mr. Shirvell said. “The substance of the matter is, Chris Armstrong is a radical homosexual activist who got elected partly funded by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund to promote a very deeply radical agenda at the University of Michigan. . . . I’m a Christian citizen exercising my First Amendment rights.”
Denis Dison, spokesman for the Washington-based organization, denied that the fund donated money to Mr. Armstrong’s campaign earlier this year. Mr. Dison said that Mr. Armstrong, who was an intern with the fund two summers ago, told him about Mr. Shirvell’s actions and he urged him to report Mr. Shirvell to police.
“It sounded like it was getting a little strange,” Mr. Dison said. “I think everyone thinks it has crossed the line.”
“If I’m a gay person living in Michigan, this does not instill confidence that the attorney general’s office has my best interests at heart,” he added. “It’s surprising that you would keep an employee who would damage the credibility of the work that you’re trying to do in the state.”
Mr. Armstrong has applied in Ann Arbor for a personal protection order, Mr. Sellek said. A hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Mr. Armstrong has publicly said little about Mr. Shirvell or the blog. During a student assembly meeting Monday, he said he wouldn’t “succumb to any unwarranted attacks,” according to the Michigan Daily newspaper.
gay
The Washington Times Daily
Michigan assistant attorney general defends his anti-gay blog as free speech.
LANSING, Mich. (AP)
An assistant attorney general is using his personal blog to target the openly gay leader of the University of Michigan’s student assembly, calling him a racist with a “radical homosexual agenda.” The lawyer claims that when he’s not at work, he has the right to say whatever he wants.
But the vociferous criticism has raised questions of just how far a civil servant can go, and whether A n d r e w Shirvell’s online attacks — which include putting a swastika over a gay-pride flag in a photo of 21year-old Chris Armstrong — should affect his job.
So far, Attorney General Mike Cox says no. Mr. Cox called Mr. Shirvell immature and his blog posts “distasteful,” but said he has the right to free speech. But Mr. Cox said he was troubled that the 30-year-old lawyer videotaped police breaking up a party at Mr. Armstrong’s offcampus home in Ann Arbor over Labor Day weekend.
“Part of the video is being outside this young man’s house at 1:30 on a Sunday morning. Clearly, I wouldn’t recommend that to any state employee to be doing,” Mr. Cox told the Associated Press on Thursday. “That being said . . . it’s not something where I can walk in one day and say, ‘I don’t like what he has on there, let’s broom him.’ He has First Amendment protections.”
Mr. Shirvell went on personal leave Thursday and is subject to a disciplinary hearing when he returns, Cox spokesman John Sellek said Friday. Personnel rules restricted Mr. Sellek from saying if Mr. Shirvell was on leave because of the outcry.
Mr. Shirvell posted the video on his blog, called Chris Armstrong Watch, which he began in April. In the Sept. 5 posting, he accused Mr. Armstrong of hosting the party with the intent to “liquor-up underage freshmen and promote homosexual activity in an effort to recruit them to the homosexual lifestyle.”
Mr. Shirvell has repeatedly called on Mr. Armstrong to resign. He has criticized Mr. Armstrong’s friends and put their Facebook postings on his blog.
The university on Thursday banned Mr. Shirvell from campus, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in 2002, saying he was targeting the elected student body president “in a reprehensible manner.”
“As a community, we must not and will not accept displays of intolerance,” President Mary Sue Coleman said.
Mr. Shirvell didn’t respond to phone and e-mail messages from the AP. But he told CNN last Tuesday that he regards his antiArmstrong push as a political campaign, not a personal attack.
“This is just another tactic bringing awareness to what Chris really stands for,” Mr. Shirvell said. “The substance of the matter is, Chris Armstrong is a radical homosexual activist who got elected partly funded by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund to promote a very deeply radical agenda at the University of Michigan. . . . I’m a Christian citizen exercising my First Amendment rights.”
Denis Dison, spokesman for the Washington-based organization, denied that the fund donated money to Mr. Armstrong’s campaign earlier this year. Mr. Dison said that Mr. Armstrong, who was an intern with the fund two summers ago, told him about Mr. Shirvell’s actions and he urged him to report Mr. Shirvell to police.
“It sounded like it was getting a little strange,” Mr. Dison said. “I think everyone thinks it has crossed the line.”
“If I’m a gay person living in Michigan, this does not instill confidence that the attorney general’s office has my best interests at heart,” he added. “It’s surprising that you would keep an employee who would damage the credibility of the work that you’re trying to do in the state.”
Mr. Armstrong has applied in Ann Arbor for a personal protection order, Mr. Sellek said. A hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Mr. Armstrong has publicly said little about Mr. Shirvell or the blog. During a student assembly meeting Monday, he said he wouldn’t “succumb to any unwarranted attacks,” according to the Michigan Daily newspaper.
gay
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Our Friends: The Religion of Tolerance
I am sure this was on all the news stations.
Saudi diplomat seeks asylum in US
Sunday, 12 Sep, 2010
WASHINGTON: A Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles reportedly has asked for political asylum in the United States, claiming his life is in danger if he is returned to Saudi Arabia.
The report Saturday by NBC News quoted the diplomat, Ali Ahmad Asseri, as saying that Saudi officials have ordered him back to his country because he is gay and had become a close friend to a Jewish woman. Asseri in a letter also reportedly criticised the role of militant imams in Saudi society.
NBC said that Asseri, who is first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, was questioned by the Department of Homeland Security after he applied for asylum.
The department declined comment to The Associated Press when asked about the diplomat. A call to Asseri's lawyer was not returned Saturday.
gay
Saudi diplomat seeks asylum in US
Sunday, 12 Sep, 2010
WASHINGTON: A Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles reportedly has asked for political asylum in the United States, claiming his life is in danger if he is returned to Saudi Arabia.
The report Saturday by NBC News quoted the diplomat, Ali Ahmad Asseri, as saying that Saudi officials have ordered him back to his country because he is gay and had become a close friend to a Jewish woman. Asseri in a letter also reportedly criticised the role of militant imams in Saudi society.
NBC said that Asseri, who is first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, was questioned by the Department of Homeland Security after he applied for asylum.
The department declined comment to The Associated Press when asked about the diplomat. A call to Asseri's lawyer was not returned Saturday.
gay
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Barney and his version.
House Votes to Allow ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE
The New York Times
May 27, 2010
WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The provision would allow military commanders to repeal the ban. The repeal would permit gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.
It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill, which the House is expected to vote on Friday. The repeal would be allowed 60 days after a Pentagon report is completed on the ramifications of allowing openly gay service members, and military leaders certify that it would not be disruptive. The report is due by Dec. 1.
The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.
Supporters of the repeal hailed it as a matter of basic fairness and civil rights, while opponents charged that Democrats and President Obama were destabilizing the military to advance a liberal social agenda.
“On Memorial Day, America will come together and honor all who served our nation in uniform,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a floor speech, noting the symbolic timing of the debate. “I urge my colleagues to vote for the repeal of this discriminatory policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and make America more American.”
Separately on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar measure allowing the repeal.
The vote, in a closed session, was 16 to 12, with one Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, in favor of the repeal, and one Democrat, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, in opposition.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the committee, said he believed that the full Senate would support permitting the repeal.
Like the House amendment, the Senate measure, which is expected to come up for a vote soon, would allow Pentagon leaders to revoke the ban 60 days after the military study group completes its report and President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, certify that it would not hamper military readiness and effectiveness or “unit cohesion.”
Mr. Obama and Mr. Gates favor repealing the ban, as does Admiral Mullen, who, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February, called for a repeal.
In a statement, Mr. Obama said he was “pleased” by the votes.
“This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity,” he said.
But chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have objected. In letters solicited by Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, they urged Congress to delay voting on the issue until after the Defense Department completed its report.
After the committee vote, Mr. McCain said he would continue to fight a repeal when the bill reached the Senate floor. “I think it’s really going to be really harmful to the morale and battle effectiveness of our military,” he said.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, who sponsored the repeal measure, said, “The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy doesn’t serve the best interests of our military and doesn’t reflect the best values of our country.”
“Bottom line,” Mr. Lieberman, added, “thousands of service members have been pushed out of the U.S. military not because they were inadequate or bad soldiers, sailors, Marines or airmen but because of their sexual orientation. And that’s not what America is all about.”
The Armed Services Committee approved the broader policy bill by a vote of 18 to 10, with Mr. Webb and Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, who also opposed the repeal, supporting the broader measure.
With liberals in Congress being asked to vote on an unpopular war spending bill, Democratic leaders there have been pushing to finally do away with a ban that many in their party view as discriminatory and unpatriotic.
The Senate approved the spending bill Thursday night and the House is expected to vote on it early next month.
As the House headed toward the vote, the debate was often emotional.
In a floor speech on Thursday, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, denounced the policy that requires gay men, lesbians and bisexuals to keep their sexual orientation secret if they want to serve.
Mr. Frank noted that the Israeli military, which he called “as effective a fighting force as has existed in modern times,” does not bar gay men or lesbians from service. Mr. Frank, who is openly gay, also said that he would be criticized — rightly, he said — if he were to suggest that gay men and lesbians be exempted if a military draft were needed.
[Not quite true Mr. Frank. You may wish all you like, but it simply is not so. The IDF allows anyone to enlist (gay or not), and you have a choice - to be openly gay and public about it, or not. If you choose to NOT be public and announce to the world that you are gay, you may make it into a combat force. If you believe it is best to tell the world about your great joy, you will not serve in any combat position. That Mr. Frank is the IDF policy, not what you intimate.]
Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House, accused Democrats of trying to use the military “to advance a liberal social agenda” and demanded that Congress “put its priorities in order.”
Other Republicans said the military was a unique institution and its rules sometimes had to differ from civilian society.
“We are dissing the troops, that is what we are doing,” said Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Republicans also questioned if the military leaders who would make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the ban.
Democrats who backed the repeal compared the vote to the racial integration of the military and hailed the action as allowing all Americans who wanted to serve to do so.
“In the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is long past time for Congress to end this un-American policy,” said Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is openly gay.
Democrats accused Republicans of mischaracterizing the proposal, by suggesting it would unsettle the troops. “This policy will happen only when the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stay that it is the right thing to do for this country,” said Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey.
sex
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE
The New York Times
May 27, 2010
WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The provision would allow military commanders to repeal the ban. The repeal would permit gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.
It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill, which the House is expected to vote on Friday. The repeal would be allowed 60 days after a Pentagon report is completed on the ramifications of allowing openly gay service members, and military leaders certify that it would not be disruptive. The report is due by Dec. 1.
The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.
Supporters of the repeal hailed it as a matter of basic fairness and civil rights, while opponents charged that Democrats and President Obama were destabilizing the military to advance a liberal social agenda.
“On Memorial Day, America will come together and honor all who served our nation in uniform,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a floor speech, noting the symbolic timing of the debate. “I urge my colleagues to vote for the repeal of this discriminatory policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and make America more American.”
Separately on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar measure allowing the repeal.
The vote, in a closed session, was 16 to 12, with one Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, in favor of the repeal, and one Democrat, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, in opposition.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the committee, said he believed that the full Senate would support permitting the repeal.
Like the House amendment, the Senate measure, which is expected to come up for a vote soon, would allow Pentagon leaders to revoke the ban 60 days after the military study group completes its report and President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, certify that it would not hamper military readiness and effectiveness or “unit cohesion.”
Mr. Obama and Mr. Gates favor repealing the ban, as does Admiral Mullen, who, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February, called for a repeal.
In a statement, Mr. Obama said he was “pleased” by the votes.
“This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity,” he said.
But chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have objected. In letters solicited by Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, they urged Congress to delay voting on the issue until after the Defense Department completed its report.
After the committee vote, Mr. McCain said he would continue to fight a repeal when the bill reached the Senate floor. “I think it’s really going to be really harmful to the morale and battle effectiveness of our military,” he said.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, who sponsored the repeal measure, said, “The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy doesn’t serve the best interests of our military and doesn’t reflect the best values of our country.”
“Bottom line,” Mr. Lieberman, added, “thousands of service members have been pushed out of the U.S. military not because they were inadequate or bad soldiers, sailors, Marines or airmen but because of their sexual orientation. And that’s not what America is all about.”
The Armed Services Committee approved the broader policy bill by a vote of 18 to 10, with Mr. Webb and Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, who also opposed the repeal, supporting the broader measure.
With liberals in Congress being asked to vote on an unpopular war spending bill, Democratic leaders there have been pushing to finally do away with a ban that many in their party view as discriminatory and unpatriotic.
The Senate approved the spending bill Thursday night and the House is expected to vote on it early next month.
As the House headed toward the vote, the debate was often emotional.
In a floor speech on Thursday, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, denounced the policy that requires gay men, lesbians and bisexuals to keep their sexual orientation secret if they want to serve.
Mr. Frank noted that the Israeli military, which he called “as effective a fighting force as has existed in modern times,” does not bar gay men or lesbians from service. Mr. Frank, who is openly gay, also said that he would be criticized — rightly, he said — if he were to suggest that gay men and lesbians be exempted if a military draft were needed.
[Not quite true Mr. Frank. You may wish all you like, but it simply is not so. The IDF allows anyone to enlist (gay or not), and you have a choice - to be openly gay and public about it, or not. If you choose to NOT be public and announce to the world that you are gay, you may make it into a combat force. If you believe it is best to tell the world about your great joy, you will not serve in any combat position. That Mr. Frank is the IDF policy, not what you intimate.]
Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House, accused Democrats of trying to use the military “to advance a liberal social agenda” and demanded that Congress “put its priorities in order.”
Other Republicans said the military was a unique institution and its rules sometimes had to differ from civilian society.
“We are dissing the troops, that is what we are doing,” said Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Republicans also questioned if the military leaders who would make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the ban.
Democrats who backed the repeal compared the vote to the racial integration of the military and hailed the action as allowing all Americans who wanted to serve to do so.
“In the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is long past time for Congress to end this un-American policy,” said Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is openly gay.
Democrats accused Republicans of mischaracterizing the proposal, by suggesting it would unsettle the troops. “This policy will happen only when the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stay that it is the right thing to do for this country,” said Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey.
sex
Monday, May 3, 2010
It's Against the Law ...
... in Britain, to say that homosexuality is a sin!!
Something terribly wrong with this.
Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin
A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.
The Telegraph
By Heidi Blake
1:05PM BST 02 May 2010
Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.
The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.
Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.
Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.
“I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said.
“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn't apply.”
Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech.
Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.
“The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” he said.
“Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."
Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.
During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.
The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.
He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”
The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.
At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab.
He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.
Mr McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing on Friday at Wokingham magistrates court and is now awaiting a trial date.
The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases.
Harry Hammond, a pensioner, was convicted under Section 5 of the Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying “Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord” while preaching in Bournemouth.
Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested and charged in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff. The case against him was later dropped.
Cumbria police said last night that no one was available to comment on Mr McAlpine’s case.
gay
Something terribly wrong with this.
Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin
A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.
The Telegraph
By Heidi Blake
1:05PM BST 02 May 2010
Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.
The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.
Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.
Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.
“I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said.
“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn't apply.”
Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech.
Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.
“The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” he said.
“Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."
Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.
During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.
The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.
He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”
The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.
At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab.
He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.
Mr McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing on Friday at Wokingham magistrates court and is now awaiting a trial date.
The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases.
Harry Hammond, a pensioner, was convicted under Section 5 of the Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying “Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord” while preaching in Bournemouth.
Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested and charged in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff. The case against him was later dropped.
Cumbria police said last night that no one was available to comment on Mr McAlpine’s case.
gay
Friday, January 8, 2010
Our Way of Life, or Them: Survival of our Civilization or Death by Stupidity. American prison treatment versus their way.
If you have the inclination to visit, say ... Iran, you may wish to ensure you (as a female) cover your head before you leave the aircraft, or rather, if you wish to leave the aircraft, you must ensure you have your head covered. There are consequences if you do not. Mind you, there are also consequences if you wander around Tehran (any part) wearing tight fitting jeans, t-shirt, and a hijab. The t-shirt and jeans have to go, or they must be covered with a manteau-type top (covering your rear-end). If you do not, there will be consequences and if you are one of those enlightened Western women, the consequences will be truly primitive to your standards.
If you are gay, living in Tehran (and like people everywhere), you wish to meet and greet other gays, requiring you to go to parks or places typically inhabited by gays, you may wish to be careful. Quite often the police will arrest you, take you back to their station where you will be repeatedly raped, before you may end up released. This also applies to prostitutes, although a little different. The police have a temporary marriage form filled out first, then they rape you, and send you on your way. There are consequences.
In Iran, many of the protestors from the June and December protests against the mullah-led regime, have reported arrests, beatings, and ongoing rape while they are held in the dreaded Evin prison. Many protestors (both male and female) who end up being released, tell of being raped regularly throughout the day by groups of men (guards). They tell of terrible humiliation - having photos taken (particularly of the men) being raped or forced to perform oral sex on guards, and then when released, threatened with the exposure of the photos. Those released are the lucky ones - many have simply disappeared in Evin. There are consequences.
In Egypt, the stories that are told of prison experiences make the events seen in 'Midnight Cowboy' appear downright desirable. A gay Arab, living in Israel, traveled to Egypt for a vacation that according to him was not for sex, rather just for rest. He was arrested, taunted, humiliated, and finally after several weeks thrown into a prison cell 6x6, in his underwear. He shared the cell with rats, roaches and all kinds of maggots. Even when an officer of the guard reprimanded the guards for allowing the Arab-Israeli guy to sit in maggots, rats, and shit, little changed - he received a very thin mattress, a shirt and pants, and a plastic trashcan that he could use as a toilet. Eventually after 40 or so days, the man was released.
You do not want to violate Ramadan in Egypt either - breaking Ramadan - eating or smoking during the month could get you arrested and thrown into prison, or fined up to $2,000. There are consequences.
In Pakistan, you surely do not want to violate Ramadan, or prison will be your future. During the 2009 Ramadan, estimates are that more than 3,300 people were arrested for eating or smoking during Ramadan (in public). Of these, 76 were foreigners. Depending upon when you are arrested, your visit to the court could be considerably much later. Spending one day in a Pakistani prison is worse than any time in a Turkish cell.
You most certainly do not want to go to Pakistan and make it known you are a Christian. Abid Javed Francis was 31 years old when he was arrested and beaten in front of his mother for not paying a bribe.
It was not simply the beating by one police officer, more than 11 were involved in the actions against Francis. The police demanded $125 from his family, who could not afford it, only to have the bribe increase to $625. His family lives in one of the slum settlements in Karachi.
The police upped the ante by charging Francis with illegal arms dealing - several days after he was arrested. Shortly after the illegal arms charge was filed, it was amended - Francis was charged with stealing a motorbike instead.
Francis was left in a cell in his underwear for a couple weeks, beaten constantly, and when his mother was told she could see him, he was stripped to his underwear, on a stretcher in an open area, exposed to chill. He died a few days later from internal injuries sustained while in custody. There are consequences.
One could go on all day and go through another thirty countries with these exact same, or worse stories, but it is truly a wasted effort, not to remember the lives taken by barbarians, but because it does not and will not change. If you plan on visiting Saudi Arabia, you might wish to leave your Bible at home. Some people do carry their Bible, perhaps because it is better reading than most novels, or perhaps because they wish to find a closeness with the past and with God that only the Bible, not Time magazine, can provide. If you do take your Bible with you, understand that at the airport you arrive at, you will be searched. Very much like the way you are searched leaving LAX or any American airport, you are searched as you ENTER the Saudi Kingdom. If they find a Bible on your person or in your cases, it will be, in front of you, put into a shredder. This is actually a better option than what could happen. If you have two or more Bibles, you are arrested, and put into a Saudi prison - perhaps Al Hayar. And for several days you could be chained to the door so that you cannot sit down or sleep. Sleep deprivation will then play havoc with your mind. In one case, one prisoner faced 5 days, then 11 days, then 14 days at different intervals, of sleep deprivation. There are consequences. Your cell is no different than the one in Egypt, and your food appears through a hatch in the door, a concrete slab serves as a bed and fluorescent lights beat down on you 24 hours a day. I would think that is preferable to nail extractions, or whippings, electric shock, or cigarette burns, which all occur.
You could end up in a Saudi prison for any number of reasons - as a Westerner, you sit down with a female who is an acquaintance from work, to talk about your family or your work, and bing bang bong, you are arrested. You cannot speak to a female who is not your wife, sister, mother. There are consequences.
The torture in Saudi prisons is perhaps more refined than you find in Pakistan, but no less deadly - beatings, punching, kicking, being thrown around the room, having your testicles stood on, being lain down on the floor in a hog-tied position, hands shackled behind your back and attached to your ankles, and then beaten over the soles of your feet, followed up perhaps by falanga - where you are strapped over a metal bar and hung upside-down off the floor so that your feet and buttocks are prominently exposed, and then you are beaten across the soles off the feet, across the buttock, and then every once in a while if you are unlucky, a quick shot into the scrotum.
Not that your Saudi captors care when they rape you (males) in an office down the hall from the cells, in the next room are dozens of officers or agents sitting and talking while you are raped. Everyone knows what happens and what goes on - in fact a few may take turns doing you, before you are returned to your cell. There are consequences.
By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jan 8, 7:24 am ET
ISTANBUL – The Turkish wife of a Jordanian doctor who killed seven CIA employees in a suicide attack in Afghanistan says her husband was outraged over the treatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison and the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defne Bayrak, the wife of bomber Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, said in an interview with The Associated Press that his hatred of the United States had motivated her husband to sacrifice his life on Dec. 30 in what he regarded as a holy war against the U.S.
Bayrak also said Friday, "I think the war against the United States must go on."
Turkish police questioned and released Bayrak on Thursday. But she says police confiscated a book she had written called "Osama bin Laden the Che Guevera of the East."
There are consequences for your actions. There are only two sides (with slight degrees of variation on one side and none on the other) - you are either on one side or the other, you are not unbiased in a war that can end one of two ways. For me, it is clear - I want my family, my children, my grand children, my civilization to survive, and I accept the necessary actions that must be taken to ensure the survival of our way of life. Winston Churchill said it long before, and I am certain scores of historical figures before him - we need those men who will do, what the rest of us will not, to ensure we can sleep safely in our beds at night.
I understand the philosophical argument - we are better, we must show we are better, we ... and we will lose while we show how great we are, our children will be enslaved or killed, and our culture destroyed. But, you will be able to write in a journal, that will be hidden away for several hundred years, that we did not infringe upon anyones liberty or wants, wishes, or feelings.
I am cognizant of the emotional reaction opponents will have to my comparisons - they will argue I have no idea or clue what I am saying, that nothing is similar, and I am conflating issues that are wholly unrelated. I would argue that they are related and more so, show Americans as a great deal more compassionate and tolerant than any Arab prison / country, even at the worst of Abu-Ghraib. Yes, bibles and sexual preference, and eating during Ramadan are different from terrorism and from war criminals. I would expect the preferential Bible eater to be treated better (I combined them intentionally). A country that imprisons someone for possessing a Bible, beats and tortures them for whatever their crime, beheads them, or rapes them repeatedly for being gay, and fines and imprisons people for eating during Ramadan (which is not by the way, religiously sanctioned by the Koran - the actions which are taken by police) - will be even more horrifying in the treatment of political prisoners or terrorists. They do not humiliate, they rape. The humiliation we were shown, was bad, but does not come close to anything we know of the treatment people face every day in Arab prisons. We are also not selecting random people to imprison, individuals selected or collected are far less innocent than their lawyers claim. After all, OJ's lawyers forever claimed he was innocent, still do. The proof is in what happens when these killers, I mean innocent men, are released from their 1 Star lodging in Guantanamo. They very nearly and immediately go off and blow themselves up, trying to kill as many innocents as possible. I hope their lawyers can sleep.
There are consequences in the war against terror, and for those individuals who do not understand we are at war with a fascist ideology, they need to stand aside and allow those 'rough men' Churchill spoke of, to do their duty. Even if the individuals do not want to be saved, the 'rough men' will save them anyway, because that is what they do. They know the consequences if they don't.
If you are gay, living in Tehran (and like people everywhere), you wish to meet and greet other gays, requiring you to go to parks or places typically inhabited by gays, you may wish to be careful. Quite often the police will arrest you, take you back to their station where you will be repeatedly raped, before you may end up released. This also applies to prostitutes, although a little different. The police have a temporary marriage form filled out first, then they rape you, and send you on your way. There are consequences.
In Iran, many of the protestors from the June and December protests against the mullah-led regime, have reported arrests, beatings, and ongoing rape while they are held in the dreaded Evin prison. Many protestors (both male and female) who end up being released, tell of being raped regularly throughout the day by groups of men (guards). They tell of terrible humiliation - having photos taken (particularly of the men) being raped or forced to perform oral sex on guards, and then when released, threatened with the exposure of the photos. Those released are the lucky ones - many have simply disappeared in Evin. There are consequences.
In Egypt, the stories that are told of prison experiences make the events seen in 'Midnight Cowboy' appear downright desirable. A gay Arab, living in Israel, traveled to Egypt for a vacation that according to him was not for sex, rather just for rest. He was arrested, taunted, humiliated, and finally after several weeks thrown into a prison cell 6x6, in his underwear. He shared the cell with rats, roaches and all kinds of maggots. Even when an officer of the guard reprimanded the guards for allowing the Arab-Israeli guy to sit in maggots, rats, and shit, little changed - he received a very thin mattress, a shirt and pants, and a plastic trashcan that he could use as a toilet. Eventually after 40 or so days, the man was released.
You do not want to violate Ramadan in Egypt either - breaking Ramadan - eating or smoking during the month could get you arrested and thrown into prison, or fined up to $2,000. There are consequences.
In Pakistan, you surely do not want to violate Ramadan, or prison will be your future. During the 2009 Ramadan, estimates are that more than 3,300 people were arrested for eating or smoking during Ramadan (in public). Of these, 76 were foreigners. Depending upon when you are arrested, your visit to the court could be considerably much later. Spending one day in a Pakistani prison is worse than any time in a Turkish cell.
You most certainly do not want to go to Pakistan and make it known you are a Christian. Abid Javed Francis was 31 years old when he was arrested and beaten in front of his mother for not paying a bribe.
It was not simply the beating by one police officer, more than 11 were involved in the actions against Francis. The police demanded $125 from his family, who could not afford it, only to have the bribe increase to $625. His family lives in one of the slum settlements in Karachi.
The police upped the ante by charging Francis with illegal arms dealing - several days after he was arrested. Shortly after the illegal arms charge was filed, it was amended - Francis was charged with stealing a motorbike instead.
Francis was left in a cell in his underwear for a couple weeks, beaten constantly, and when his mother was told she could see him, he was stripped to his underwear, on a stretcher in an open area, exposed to chill. He died a few days later from internal injuries sustained while in custody. There are consequences.
One could go on all day and go through another thirty countries with these exact same, or worse stories, but it is truly a wasted effort, not to remember the lives taken by barbarians, but because it does not and will not change. If you plan on visiting Saudi Arabia, you might wish to leave your Bible at home. Some people do carry their Bible, perhaps because it is better reading than most novels, or perhaps because they wish to find a closeness with the past and with God that only the Bible, not Time magazine, can provide. If you do take your Bible with you, understand that at the airport you arrive at, you will be searched. Very much like the way you are searched leaving LAX or any American airport, you are searched as you ENTER the Saudi Kingdom. If they find a Bible on your person or in your cases, it will be, in front of you, put into a shredder. This is actually a better option than what could happen. If you have two or more Bibles, you are arrested, and put into a Saudi prison - perhaps Al Hayar. And for several days you could be chained to the door so that you cannot sit down or sleep. Sleep deprivation will then play havoc with your mind. In one case, one prisoner faced 5 days, then 11 days, then 14 days at different intervals, of sleep deprivation. There are consequences. Your cell is no different than the one in Egypt, and your food appears through a hatch in the door, a concrete slab serves as a bed and fluorescent lights beat down on you 24 hours a day. I would think that is preferable to nail extractions, or whippings, electric shock, or cigarette burns, which all occur.
You could end up in a Saudi prison for any number of reasons - as a Westerner, you sit down with a female who is an acquaintance from work, to talk about your family or your work, and bing bang bong, you are arrested. You cannot speak to a female who is not your wife, sister, mother. There are consequences.
The torture in Saudi prisons is perhaps more refined than you find in Pakistan, but no less deadly - beatings, punching, kicking, being thrown around the room, having your testicles stood on, being lain down on the floor in a hog-tied position, hands shackled behind your back and attached to your ankles, and then beaten over the soles of your feet, followed up perhaps by falanga - where you are strapped over a metal bar and hung upside-down off the floor so that your feet and buttocks are prominently exposed, and then you are beaten across the soles off the feet, across the buttock, and then every once in a while if you are unlucky, a quick shot into the scrotum.
Not that your Saudi captors care when they rape you (males) in an office down the hall from the cells, in the next room are dozens of officers or agents sitting and talking while you are raped. Everyone knows what happens and what goes on - in fact a few may take turns doing you, before you are returned to your cell. There are consequences.
Now, compare that to Guantanamo Bay.
Halal food, more than a dozen choices of food, three meals a day, time to worship, a Koran, doctors on call 24 hours a day, visits by the International Red Cross, attorney visits (all without American guards in the room during these visits).
This does not mean it is a paradise, certainly not. A window, bed, sheets, heating and air, food, toilet (to their specifications), clothing ... of course it is not a paradise. The majority of the 300 or so men held in Guantanamo were caught attempting to kill American soldiers and or as a result of direct links to terrorist groups or individuals. Is there anyone innocent among the 300 or so. It is not impossible, but it is not likely.
Use common sense, which I understand is in short supply by 30-40% of the American electorate and quite likely a larger percent of the world body, but try. Why would CIA or the army, or whoever it is that puts people into Guantanamo, spend the energy, time, and money to put someone who has, with 100% certainty, no connection to terrorism or anyone involved in terrorism into a prison that will fill space and cost money. Ok, so they don't care about the cost. Flying a plane across the world with a few people on it, fuel costs to transport to Cuba, the food and upkeep for the guy while he stays in Guantanamo, and the eventual release of details about the prisoner ... all for no reason. I apologize, but I do not believe CIA works that way as a matter of policy. Nor does anyone in our system. Now, in Egypt, the cost to keep the guy is maybe a gallon of gruel a month - reasonable, and doable. Not going to break any bank.
Now to Abu Ghraib - what happened at Abu Ghraib. Humiliation. Simulated sex. Prisoners forced to perform oral sex or simulated oral sex on other prisoners. Fear tactics - prisoners were made to believe they could be electrocuted. Most was psychological. The dogs did not bite them, rape them, eat them, or piss on them. The guards did not beat them nor rape them. Abu Ghraib is a prison divided in two. One half of the prison is for criminals, run by the Iraqis. Common criminals get put into the Abu Ghraib prison. In the middle is the administrative, medical section. And on the other end is the terrorist prisoner side. Common run of the mill criminals did not get put into the political section run by the Americans, BUT which included Iraqi doctors who would visit the prisoners or care for any prisoner taken to them for medical issues. Several doctors who were involved in working at Abu Ghraib have written about their knowledge of events and how disproportionate the coverage by the US media of killers and terrorists.
I do not suggest the images show tolerable behavior by American guards, rather they should have been relieved of duty and dishonorably discharged.
The electrical threat - not real. It was imaginary, unlike the electrical shocks that did occur in Saudi Arabia. It was intended to make them believe ... and they did. Was it torture - it was certainly very strong psychological intimidation, right before they got to return to their cells, get dressed, eat, and sleep on their bunk.
It does not in any way, remotely come close to the actions in ANY country I mentioned above or for that matter in any of the other 30-40 I could go into detail about.
The men in this section of the prison were not common people - were any innocent, more likely yes, given how some of them ended up in Abu Ghraib (as compared to Guantanamo). Many of the men involved were within the Saddam regime, torturers, or involved in efforts to undermine US control and kill Americans.
Do I feel bad for any of them? IF any were truly innocent of any and all charges, yes. For the rest - no.
Americans were held hostage by the Iraqis. When the US invaded Iraq, we moved so quickly that supply lines had to catch up, and a few times, were lost and attacked. Lori Piestewa was the driver of one such truck part of the 507th, a mechanical repair team, used to service or repair vehicles. In the front seat with her was Jessica Lynch. Lori Piestewa was the first female and first mother, murdered in Iraq. I understand that for the bleeding hearts, she isn't a part of any story - but she should be.
When their vehicle came under attack, she was wounded. When she and Lynch realized they could not continue the fighting, along with several other males in their group, they surrendered. Piestewa was wounded, but alive when they surrendered. The Iraqi killers, shot her dead, in the vehicle, and took Private Lynch. Lori Piestewa was not only the first female and first American mother murdered in Iraq, but she was also a Hopi and Mexican. She had two children, and she bravely fought off the murderers until the very end. Unfortunately, Lori did not look like her friend. Jessica Lynch was also wounded, but she was blonde, blue eyed, and fair skinned. She was of more interest to the Iraqi killers than Piestewa.
Several other men were taken with Lynch. Wounded, perhaps, but alive. How do we know this? The murderers had little time before US forces would arrive on the scene. They had to act quickly and carrying away dead bodies is not an easy task.
We also saw how these prisoners were treated by the Iraqi government and their killers.
They were all dead, while the above fool, marched around lifting and picking at the soldiers dead bodies all the while smiling for the camera. This was shown on Iraqi TV in the hours before US forces ended the regime of death.
Perhaps you have seen the above image, perhaps the ones in color. It shows an odd image of several dead Americans, with their pants undone at the button or zipper. Odd. Almost as if someone was inspecting them under their pants, either before they were executed or after. Of course the Iraqis claim the men were not executed. Hard to believe when the soldier has a hole in his head - you know, the place where his helmet was. Our military investigated these images and the events, after we took Baghdad and had access to these people - the men were indeed executed, and then hastily buried in a shallow grave, in a pile.
When Lynch was freed, the Americans involved located the bodies, and without implements, dug up the bodies by hand, all the while acting as quickly as possible given the bombings and shooting outside the hospital, to take them home.
Jessica Lynch has never spoken or written of the events in the room she was held, and that is her right - no one should have to relive it. In all likelihood, the men involved were killed and are now being diddled by Satan.
There is a difference in how Iraqis were treated in Abu Ghraib and how American war prisoners were treated by the Iragi Government, how terrorists are treated in Guantanamo, and how foreigners are treated in Arab prisons. The media ignore some, play down others, and blow up into a mountain only what Americans did in Abu Ghraib. As a result of the US media blowing Abu Ghraib up into an atrocity to end all atrocities, more than a dozen people died in rioting and attacks around the world, when that information became public. It became a rallying cry for every anti-American on earth, and more recently, resulted in the deaths of a half-dozen Americans in Afghanistan - at least, according to the bombers wife.
By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jan 8, 7:24 am ET
ISTANBUL – The Turkish wife of a Jordanian doctor who killed seven CIA employees in a suicide attack in Afghanistan says her husband was outraged over the treatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison and the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defne Bayrak, the wife of bomber Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, said in an interview with The Associated Press that his hatred of the United States had motivated her husband to sacrifice his life on Dec. 30 in what he regarded as a holy war against the U.S.
Bayrak also said Friday, "I think the war against the United States must go on."
Turkish police questioned and released Bayrak on Thursday. But she says police confiscated a book she had written called "Osama bin Laden the Che Guevera of the East."
There are consequences for your actions. There are only two sides (with slight degrees of variation on one side and none on the other) - you are either on one side or the other, you are not unbiased in a war that can end one of two ways. For me, it is clear - I want my family, my children, my grand children, my civilization to survive, and I accept the necessary actions that must be taken to ensure the survival of our way of life. Winston Churchill said it long before, and I am certain scores of historical figures before him - we need those men who will do, what the rest of us will not, to ensure we can sleep safely in our beds at night.
I understand the philosophical argument - we are better, we must show we are better, we ... and we will lose while we show how great we are, our children will be enslaved or killed, and our culture destroyed. But, you will be able to write in a journal, that will be hidden away for several hundred years, that we did not infringe upon anyones liberty or wants, wishes, or feelings.
I am cognizant of the emotional reaction opponents will have to my comparisons - they will argue I have no idea or clue what I am saying, that nothing is similar, and I am conflating issues that are wholly unrelated. I would argue that they are related and more so, show Americans as a great deal more compassionate and tolerant than any Arab prison / country, even at the worst of Abu-Ghraib. Yes, bibles and sexual preference, and eating during Ramadan are different from terrorism and from war criminals. I would expect the preferential Bible eater to be treated better (I combined them intentionally). A country that imprisons someone for possessing a Bible, beats and tortures them for whatever their crime, beheads them, or rapes them repeatedly for being gay, and fines and imprisons people for eating during Ramadan (which is not by the way, religiously sanctioned by the Koran - the actions which are taken by police) - will be even more horrifying in the treatment of political prisoners or terrorists. They do not humiliate, they rape. The humiliation we were shown, was bad, but does not come close to anything we know of the treatment people face every day in Arab prisons. We are also not selecting random people to imprison, individuals selected or collected are far less innocent than their lawyers claim. After all, OJ's lawyers forever claimed he was innocent, still do. The proof is in what happens when these killers, I mean innocent men, are released from their 1 Star lodging in Guantanamo. They very nearly and immediately go off and blow themselves up, trying to kill as many innocents as possible. I hope their lawyers can sleep.
There are consequences in the war against terror, and for those individuals who do not understand we are at war with a fascist ideology, they need to stand aside and allow those 'rough men' Churchill spoke of, to do their duty. Even if the individuals do not want to be saved, the 'rough men' will save them anyway, because that is what they do. They know the consequences if they don't.
American prisons
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
LOVE, Marriage and DC
Very odd - this action by the city council. Very odd. More than 55% of the district is comprised of African-Americans. And guess what? Overwhelmingly, that group opposes same-sex marriage. Odd isn't it. The district has 13 city workers - council members if you will, all elected members of a population that hovers around 590,000, plus a mayor -Adrian Fenty. 6 members of the 13 are African American - including Marion Barry, former Mayor. He and Yvette Alexander, also African American voted against the bill.
Interesting and odd.
There is a point to all this and I will get to it - the argument that persuaded several members was the financial benefit of allowing gay-marriages. Thousands would flock to DC to get married, and all that revenue would come pouring in. Millions, by the accounts mentioned in the column below - they must have been listening to a soothsayer - and the millions will role in. I can imagine what they saw before their wondering eyes - dollar signs. In this time of economic uncertainty and cut-backs, the council had to cut-back and they want to ... expand, not cut, to save their own jobs, and their constituents. Millions and millions and millions. I am certain the council members in favor of this argued that it would bring in at least $20 million in revenue, while the opponents mentioned the revenue would be closer to a couple million.
Then we have the Catholic Church pulling out, and with it, all the resources it provided .. for free. Now the Council will have to PAY for those resources previously FREE. Yet, with $22 million in revenues, a few million for previously free resources would not reduce the economic benefit by very much ... except for the African-American community nearly and overwhelmingly opposed to same sex marriages.
Every council member has to get re-elected. Over 55% of the city is black.
Now the benefits may seem less important when your job is on the line, except several members have very nicely carved out wards where they will feel little impact in an election year. A few will. Is it enough? One reasonable question would be, how do I know, and based upon what evidence, that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same sex marriages. Admittedly, the only support I have immediately at hand is a couple years old, and was done by Donald Haider-Markel and Mark Joslyn in 2005 -
Who votes more often - men or women - in local elections?
The very real threat to their jobs, the cost of the Church pulling out of DC social services leaving the city to pay the costs - suddenly it is not as attractive as it once was.
I would proffer the following: THEY know it will fail, either when brought before 55% of the population who will oppose it, or with Congress becoming involved, it will fail, BUT they will have raked in some cash, and gays who wish to get married will have yet another opportunity to create yet another bulwark in their battle - even when it is rescinded, they will continue the argument. We were married and now we mare discriminated against, due to the fact our marriage is no longer recognized (regardless of the silliness of their position). All these attempts are aimed at the Constitution - that is the ultimate aim with all such efforts across the country. When millions have been married - it will become an issue the Court will have to address as to legality and transferability from place to place/state/city.
A battle is under way, quietly being waged, according to the supporters, a battle for equality and fairness versus hate and discrimination.
16 Dec 2009
The Washington Post
by Tim Craig
D.C. Council approves same-sex marriage
Economic impact could reach $22 million in 3 years; foes try to sway Congress, courts
The District was on the verge Tuesday of becoming the sixth place in the country to legalize same-sex marriage after the council gave final approval to its bill allowing the unions.
The legislation would allow couples from anywhere in the country to marry in the city. Those couples who live in the District would be entitled to all rights afforded to heterosexual married couples under District laws.
Although a final signature on the bill by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) could come by the end of the week, same-sex marriage opponents vowed to step up their effort to get Congress or a court to block the initiative during the 30-day congressional review period.
The 11 to 2 council decision, which caps a nearly year-long debate, set off a wave of excitement across the gay community, both locally and nationally. “In many ways, this is the final prize,” said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two people on the council who are openly gay.
According to an analysis by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, more than 10,000 same-sex couples from across the country could get married in the District over the next three years if the measure becomes law.
The analysis, created in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s historic council vote, estimates that 2,000 gay couples who live in the District will marry shortly after the law takes effect. But the bulk of the weddings, which could pump millions of dollars into the regional economy, would probably be out-of-state couples unable to marry in their own states, according to the analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. It concludes that at least $5 million, and perhaps as much as $22 million, would be generated by same-sex weddings in the District over the next three years.
Local and national gay rights leaders note that opponents face a difficult fight: Both the DemocraticHouse and Senate and President Obama would all have to block the legislation, which is unlikely.
But council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the bill’s sponsor and the other openly gay member on the council, cautioned that Congress also could unravel the measure through budget maneuvers in future years.
“ There is no question: We are going to have to be defending it and defending it and defending it until the other side realizes they are losing more votes by being tethered to the past,” Catania said.
Several opponents of same-sex marriage warned that the celebrations were premature. They are seeking a public vote on the issue, and some are meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday.
“God’s war has just started,” Bob King, a community activist who lives in Northeast, said a few
Columnist Robert McCartney will discuss the D.C. Council’s vote on same-sex marriage during an 11 a.m. chat. Go to minutes after the vote. “Shame on them. We’re going to get to the ballot box through either the courts or the Congress. So tell everyone: Don’t let the marriage licenses start flowing.”
Still, same-sex marriage supporters heralded the council’s action, saying it helps the movement rebound from the stinging defeat suffered two weeks ago when the New York Senate rejected same-sex marriage.
“ This is a place people come to see the Constitution and understand what it means to be equal, so symbolically this means a great deal,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group that co-sponsored a party with the council Tuesday night.
Same-sex marriages are legal in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts, and next month, New Hampshire joins the list.
In the weeks leading to the council’s vote, the Archdiocese of Washington was engaged in a campaign to try to amend the bill because it feared that it would force its charities to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the committee that oversaw the legislation, said he was unable to reach an agreement with the church that would not lead to discrimination against same-sex couples, but church and city officials said they will continue their talks.
Deacon Maccubbin, the owner of the Lambda Rising bookstore in Dupont Circle, held a commitment ceremony with his partner 28 years ago but plans to rush off to get officially married as soon as it is allowed here. — Bob King, community activist.
“We have done the church wedding, but we want to have the license, right here in the District of Columbia,” Maccubbin said.
But Kathryn Hamm, president of GayWeddings.com in Arlington County, said many in the region’s gay community are cautious, knowing that it could be months before gay marriage is legal in the District. Hamm, whose company helps engaged couples find gayfriendly wedding vendors, among other services, said she expects a surge in interest in the new year.
During Tuesday’s council debate, members said their decision will tell the world that the District values equal and civil rights.
“ Today, I am very proud of our city,” said council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6). “I hope today we serve as beacon for those who have not been given full rights across our country.”
Council members Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), who represent neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, voted against the bill.
Barry said he could not support the legislation because he thinks that a majority of his constituents oppose it but acknowledged that the council was making history.
“This must be a proud day for you, David, Mr. Graham,” said Barry. “Just as it was a proud day for me when the voting rights bill was passed in 1965. But this is a democracy, and I reserve the right to disagree.” Staff writer Sandhya Somashekhar contributed to this report.
same sex marriage
“Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38, No. 2 (April), 233-239. They found that a majority of African Americans were opposed to same sex marriages and it was especially high among females (opposition to same sex marriages).
Interesting and odd.
There is a point to all this and I will get to it - the argument that persuaded several members was the financial benefit of allowing gay-marriages. Thousands would flock to DC to get married, and all that revenue would come pouring in. Millions, by the accounts mentioned in the column below - they must have been listening to a soothsayer - and the millions will role in. I can imagine what they saw before their wondering eyes - dollar signs. In this time of economic uncertainty and cut-backs, the council had to cut-back and they want to ... expand, not cut, to save their own jobs, and their constituents. Millions and millions and millions. I am certain the council members in favor of this argued that it would bring in at least $20 million in revenue, while the opponents mentioned the revenue would be closer to a couple million.
Then we have the Catholic Church pulling out, and with it, all the resources it provided .. for free. Now the Council will have to PAY for those resources previously FREE. Yet, with $22 million in revenues, a few million for previously free resources would not reduce the economic benefit by very much ... except for the African-American community nearly and overwhelmingly opposed to same sex marriages.
Every council member has to get re-elected. Over 55% of the city is black.
Now the benefits may seem less important when your job is on the line, except several members have very nicely carved out wards where they will feel little impact in an election year. A few will. Is it enough? One reasonable question would be, how do I know, and based upon what evidence, that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same sex marriages. Admittedly, the only support I have immediately at hand is a couple years old, and was done by Donald Haider-Markel and Mark Joslyn in 2005 -
Who votes more often - men or women - in local elections?
The very real threat to their jobs, the cost of the Church pulling out of DC social services leaving the city to pay the costs - suddenly it is not as attractive as it once was.
I would proffer the following: THEY know it will fail, either when brought before 55% of the population who will oppose it, or with Congress becoming involved, it will fail, BUT they will have raked in some cash, and gays who wish to get married will have yet another opportunity to create yet another bulwark in their battle - even when it is rescinded, they will continue the argument. We were married and now we mare discriminated against, due to the fact our marriage is no longer recognized (regardless of the silliness of their position). All these attempts are aimed at the Constitution - that is the ultimate aim with all such efforts across the country. When millions have been married - it will become an issue the Court will have to address as to legality and transferability from place to place/state/city.
A battle is under way, quietly being waged, according to the supporters, a battle for equality and fairness versus hate and discrimination.
16 Dec 2009
The Washington Post
by Tim Craig
D.C. Council approves same-sex marriage
Economic impact could reach $22 million in 3 years; foes try to sway Congress, courts
The District was on the verge Tuesday of becoming the sixth place in the country to legalize same-sex marriage after the council gave final approval to its bill allowing the unions.
The legislation would allow couples from anywhere in the country to marry in the city. Those couples who live in the District would be entitled to all rights afforded to heterosexual married couples under District laws.
Although a final signature on the bill by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) could come by the end of the week, same-sex marriage opponents vowed to step up their effort to get Congress or a court to block the initiative during the 30-day congressional review period.
The 11 to 2 council decision, which caps a nearly year-long debate, set off a wave of excitement across the gay community, both locally and nationally. “In many ways, this is the final prize,” said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two people on the council who are openly gay.
According to an analysis by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, more than 10,000 same-sex couples from across the country could get married in the District over the next three years if the measure becomes law.
The analysis, created in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s historic council vote, estimates that 2,000 gay couples who live in the District will marry shortly after the law takes effect. But the bulk of the weddings, which could pump millions of dollars into the regional economy, would probably be out-of-state couples unable to marry in their own states, according to the analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. It concludes that at least $5 million, and perhaps as much as $22 million, would be generated by same-sex weddings in the District over the next three years.
Local and national gay rights leaders note that opponents face a difficult fight: Both the DemocraticHouse and Senate and President Obama would all have to block the legislation, which is unlikely.
But council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the bill’s sponsor and the other openly gay member on the council, cautioned that Congress also could unravel the measure through budget maneuvers in future years.
“ There is no question: We are going to have to be defending it and defending it and defending it until the other side realizes they are losing more votes by being tethered to the past,” Catania said.
Several opponents of same-sex marriage warned that the celebrations were premature. They are seeking a public vote on the issue, and some are meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday.
“God’s war has just started,” Bob King, a community activist who lives in Northeast, said a few
Columnist Robert McCartney will discuss the D.C. Council’s vote on same-sex marriage during an 11 a.m. chat. Go to minutes after the vote. “Shame on them. We’re going to get to the ballot box through either the courts or the Congress. So tell everyone: Don’t let the marriage licenses start flowing.”
Still, same-sex marriage supporters heralded the council’s action, saying it helps the movement rebound from the stinging defeat suffered two weeks ago when the New York Senate rejected same-sex marriage.
“ This is a place people come to see the Constitution and understand what it means to be equal, so symbolically this means a great deal,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group that co-sponsored a party with the council Tuesday night.
Same-sex marriages are legal in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts, and next month, New Hampshire joins the list.
In the weeks leading to the council’s vote, the Archdiocese of Washington was engaged in a campaign to try to amend the bill because it feared that it would force its charities to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the committee that oversaw the legislation, said he was unable to reach an agreement with the church that would not lead to discrimination against same-sex couples, but church and city officials said they will continue their talks.
Deacon Maccubbin, the owner of the Lambda Rising bookstore in Dupont Circle, held a commitment ceremony with his partner 28 years ago but plans to rush off to get officially married as soon as it is allowed here. — Bob King, community activist.
“We have done the church wedding, but we want to have the license, right here in the District of Columbia,” Maccubbin said.
But Kathryn Hamm, president of GayWeddings.com in Arlington County, said many in the region’s gay community are cautious, knowing that it could be months before gay marriage is legal in the District. Hamm, whose company helps engaged couples find gayfriendly wedding vendors, among other services, said she expects a surge in interest in the new year.
During Tuesday’s council debate, members said their decision will tell the world that the District values equal and civil rights.
“ Today, I am very proud of our city,” said council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6). “I hope today we serve as beacon for those who have not been given full rights across our country.”
Council members Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), who represent neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, voted against the bill.
Barry said he could not support the legislation because he thinks that a majority of his constituents oppose it but acknowledged that the council was making history.
“This must be a proud day for you, David, Mr. Graham,” said Barry. “Just as it was a proud day for me when the voting rights bill was passed in 1965. But this is a democracy, and I reserve the right to disagree.” Staff writer Sandhya Somashekhar contributed to this report.
same sex marriage
“Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38, No. 2 (April), 233-239. They found that a majority of African Americans were opposed to same sex marriages and it was especially high among females (opposition to same sex marriages).
Monday, December 7, 2009
Hope, Sex, and Change: Pray a lot.
There really are not words.
Big government, more government - greater invasion of your privacy and into your daily affairs. This is bad when the president is a Republican, but for democrats, it is fine when the president is a Democrat and a liberal. Why? It defies logic.
Democrats are obsessively paranoid that government will tell them what to do, intrude on their privacy, and turn the state into Big Brother. The funny part is - Republicans want smaller government which would make that impossible. Oh no say the liberals, they pass laws, like the Patriot Act, that infringe on our freedoms. So I ask, who has had this law imposed upon them and lost any freedoms? Who? Give me dates, times, and section numbers you were charged with, or simply shut the heck up.
Republicans want to protect the country from bad people, mostly people outside the country. To that end, they enact laws to prevent the bad people, most of whom are smarter than you and I, from getting at you and I. That is what Republicans want. They are truly not interested in what you do in your bedrooms. they are not interested in what you do with your boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, or any other adult. THEY do not care. What Republicans, and Conservatives do care about is you and your (fill in the blank) doing or promoting your behavior in public, or in any place that can be seen by the public - NOTHING MORE!!! Honest. I understand that liberals cannot get their heads around this, but that is really their problem, not mine, well actually it is my problem ...
Liberals and Democrats on the other hand want BIG GOVERNMENT, they want the largest government possible to serve all the people - they want a government that educates, informs, medicates, employs, houses, feeds ... and they want their beliefs adopted, and to that end they use the education system to enforce their mediocrity and bad behavior on all of us. Admittedly, they wills ay it is not mediocre nor bad - and that I am judging ... just like all those Republicans. Except, I have to ask - is it not a judgement to tell me I am judging? Is it not a judgment to want everyone indoctrinated with your view on whatever? You may use a better term, one you prefer, like tolerance or compassion, but it really is just that simple, it is indoctrination.
I call it indoctrination, you call it educating. You call what someone else wants taught indoctrination, they call it education. So let's just accept the terms and move on.
Liberals want to indoctrinate the country, world if they could, with their particular world-view on various a sundry topics. Republicans have never been able to because education has not been a conservative bastion in almost 60 years. In that time, liberals have dominated and continue to educate our children with their ideas, their views, their opinions, their reality, and we are just supposed to accept it. Why? Because they know better, they are smarter, brighter, and better than the rest of us. I love arrogance and condescension. If it comes from the right, the left go into hysterics, but when they do it ... it is all good.
Now comes the point of this (I have pasted it from the site without editing) post.
If it were really all about gay and lesbian awareness and tolerance, sex would not be part of every discussion.
Fistgate: Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s 2000 Conference Promoted ‘Fisting’ to 14 Year-Olds
by Jim Hoft
Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 1990. In 2007 Kevin Jennings was paid $273,573.96 as the executive director of GLSEN. Recently he was appointed by the Obama administration to run the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education.
On Friday, Scott Baker from Breitbart-TV.com and Co-Host of ‘The B-Cast‘ submitted a shocking report on Obama’s deviant Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings. This report was posted at Gateway Pundit blog. Scott explained:
I was recently approached by a team of independent researchers that I have known for some time and have come to trust. They prepared this report involving ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Kevin Jennings and the organization he founded, GLSEN, and asked that I find a way to help draw attention to what they uncovered. Knowing that Gateway Pundit has followed Kevin Jennings since his appointment, as we have on The B-Cast (here, here, and here), and on Breitbart.tv (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), I felt this would be an appropriate place for this report.
Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).
GLSEN’s stated mission is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students. It encourages the formation of Gay Student Alliances and condemns the use of hateful words. GLSEN also strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying. To that end, GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims “furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students.” In other words, these are the books that GLSEN’s directors think all kids should be reading: gay kids should read them to raise their self-esteem, and straight kids should read them in order to become more aware and tolerant and stop bullying gay kids. Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own…
What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.
We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.
We knew that unless we carefully documented what we were reading, the public would have a hard time accepting it. Mere descriptions on our part could not convey the emotional gut reaction one gets when seeing what Kevin Jennings wants kids to read as school assignments. So we began scanning pages from each of the books, and then made exact transcriptions of the relevant passages on each page.
Warning: The following material is very explicit.
Scott Baker
Co-Founder, Breitbart.tv
Co-Host, The B-Cast
The material (here and here) is shocking and repulsive. The fact that Kevin Jennings’ organization GLSEN was promoting these books to children is very disturbing.
On Saturday, it was discovered that Kevin Jennings’ organization GLSEN sponsored a youth conference at Tuft’s University in March 2000. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money. An undercover journalist with Mass Resistance was at the conference and recorded a couple of the workshops. During one of the conference workshops an activist asks 14 year-old students, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?” This audio clip segment is also posted here.
That’s not all. The conference also included a workshop where GLSEN activists promoted “fisting” to 14 year olds. Here is the shocking clip where the activists promoted “fisting” to the students:
The conference included students, teachers, and local and national activists. Mass Resistance recorded this discussion at a 2000 GLSEN conference workshop for children. Here is the transcript:
If it’s all about tolerance, why is the following question necessary?
David LaFontaine, chairman of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the man who is mostly responsible for the Gay Straight Alliances in Massachusetts, tells us, “We believe very strongly that all students should not be sexually active in high school.”
Woman: Question is: What’s fisting?
Man: A little known fact is that you don’t make a fist like this. When they do it, it’s like this. This is a lot easier than this. [laughter]
Woman: You work your way up to it… [unclear] one finger, two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can’t take a hand.
It’s about tolerance? If Gay Straight Alliances are not about sex, why are the people who run Gay Straight Alliances telling students about fisting? What you did not see is the man leading the discussion positioning his hand and showing 14 year olds how to insert their entire hand into the rectum of their sex partner.
You just heard a public employee promote “fisting” to 14-year-olds. Kevin Jennings who ran GLSEN is now Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar.
To be clear, this post is not about supporting or not supporting gays or gay rights. This post is about the radical agenda of groups like GLSEN and activists like Kevin Jennings.
sex
Big government, more government - greater invasion of your privacy and into your daily affairs. This is bad when the president is a Republican, but for democrats, it is fine when the president is a Democrat and a liberal. Why? It defies logic.
Democrats are obsessively paranoid that government will tell them what to do, intrude on their privacy, and turn the state into Big Brother. The funny part is - Republicans want smaller government which would make that impossible. Oh no say the liberals, they pass laws, like the Patriot Act, that infringe on our freedoms. So I ask, who has had this law imposed upon them and lost any freedoms? Who? Give me dates, times, and section numbers you were charged with, or simply shut the heck up.
Republicans want to protect the country from bad people, mostly people outside the country. To that end, they enact laws to prevent the bad people, most of whom are smarter than you and I, from getting at you and I. That is what Republicans want. They are truly not interested in what you do in your bedrooms. they are not interested in what you do with your boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, or any other adult. THEY do not care. What Republicans, and Conservatives do care about is you and your (fill in the blank) doing or promoting your behavior in public, or in any place that can be seen by the public - NOTHING MORE!!! Honest. I understand that liberals cannot get their heads around this, but that is really their problem, not mine, well actually it is my problem ...
Liberals and Democrats on the other hand want BIG GOVERNMENT, they want the largest government possible to serve all the people - they want a government that educates, informs, medicates, employs, houses, feeds ... and they want their beliefs adopted, and to that end they use the education system to enforce their mediocrity and bad behavior on all of us. Admittedly, they wills ay it is not mediocre nor bad - and that I am judging ... just like all those Republicans. Except, I have to ask - is it not a judgement to tell me I am judging? Is it not a judgment to want everyone indoctrinated with your view on whatever? You may use a better term, one you prefer, like tolerance or compassion, but it really is just that simple, it is indoctrination.
I call it indoctrination, you call it educating. You call what someone else wants taught indoctrination, they call it education. So let's just accept the terms and move on.
Liberals want to indoctrinate the country, world if they could, with their particular world-view on various a sundry topics. Republicans have never been able to because education has not been a conservative bastion in almost 60 years. In that time, liberals have dominated and continue to educate our children with their ideas, their views, their opinions, their reality, and we are just supposed to accept it. Why? Because they know better, they are smarter, brighter, and better than the rest of us. I love arrogance and condescension. If it comes from the right, the left go into hysterics, but when they do it ... it is all good.
Now comes the point of this (I have pasted it from the site without editing) post.
If it were really all about gay and lesbian awareness and tolerance, sex would not be part of every discussion.
Fistgate: Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s 2000 Conference Promoted ‘Fisting’ to 14 Year-Olds
by Jim Hoft
Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 1990. In 2007 Kevin Jennings was paid $273,573.96 as the executive director of GLSEN. Recently he was appointed by the Obama administration to run the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education.
On Friday, Scott Baker from Breitbart-TV.com and Co-Host of ‘The B-Cast‘ submitted a shocking report on Obama’s deviant Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings. This report was posted at Gateway Pundit blog. Scott explained:
I was recently approached by a team of independent researchers that I have known for some time and have come to trust. They prepared this report involving ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Kevin Jennings and the organization he founded, GLSEN, and asked that I find a way to help draw attention to what they uncovered. Knowing that Gateway Pundit has followed Kevin Jennings since his appointment, as we have on The B-Cast (here, here, and here), and on Breitbart.tv (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), I felt this would be an appropriate place for this report.
Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).
GLSEN’s stated mission is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students. It encourages the formation of Gay Student Alliances and condemns the use of hateful words. GLSEN also strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying. To that end, GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims “furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students.” In other words, these are the books that GLSEN’s directors think all kids should be reading: gay kids should read them to raise their self-esteem, and straight kids should read them in order to become more aware and tolerant and stop bullying gay kids. Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own…
What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.
We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.
We knew that unless we carefully documented what we were reading, the public would have a hard time accepting it. Mere descriptions on our part could not convey the emotional gut reaction one gets when seeing what Kevin Jennings wants kids to read as school assignments. So we began scanning pages from each of the books, and then made exact transcriptions of the relevant passages on each page.
Warning: The following material is very explicit.
Scott Baker
Co-Founder, Breitbart.tv
Co-Host, The B-Cast
The material (here and here) is shocking and repulsive. The fact that Kevin Jennings’ organization GLSEN was promoting these books to children is very disturbing.
On Saturday, it was discovered that Kevin Jennings’ organization GLSEN sponsored a youth conference at Tuft’s University in March 2000. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money. An undercover journalist with Mass Resistance was at the conference and recorded a couple of the workshops. During one of the conference workshops an activist asks 14 year-old students, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?” This audio clip segment is also posted here.
That’s not all. The conference also included a workshop where GLSEN activists promoted “fisting” to 14 year olds. Here is the shocking clip where the activists promoted “fisting” to the students:
The conference included students, teachers, and local and national activists. Mass Resistance recorded this discussion at a 2000 GLSEN conference workshop for children. Here is the transcript:
If it’s all about tolerance, why is the following question necessary?
David LaFontaine, chairman of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the man who is mostly responsible for the Gay Straight Alliances in Massachusetts, tells us, “We believe very strongly that all students should not be sexually active in high school.”
Woman: Question is: What’s fisting?
Man: A little known fact is that you don’t make a fist like this. When they do it, it’s like this. This is a lot easier than this. [laughter]
Woman: You work your way up to it… [unclear] one finger, two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can’t take a hand.
It’s about tolerance? If Gay Straight Alliances are not about sex, why are the people who run Gay Straight Alliances telling students about fisting? What you did not see is the man leading the discussion positioning his hand and showing 14 year olds how to insert their entire hand into the rectum of their sex partner.
You just heard a public employee promote “fisting” to 14-year-olds. Kevin Jennings who ran GLSEN is now Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar.
To be clear, this post is not about supporting or not supporting gays or gay rights. This post is about the radical agenda of groups like GLSEN and activists like Kevin Jennings.
sex
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Pushing the Envelope
Dear Adam Lambert,
I know that I should include evidence in any statement I make concerning any issue or claim. I was raised this way both in academia and in the several years of law school - facts, facts, and more facts. Do not let emotions carry you away or you will find yourself carried back on your shield.
In this case, I don't care enough, although I am becoming annoyed with the claims you are making, along with the gay and lesbian consortium - that what ABC did and CBS after it, was either discrimination or bias.
I recall reading, and the facts of this will not disappear off the internet, within hours of your action at the AMA, that you were a performer and what do performers do - they push the envelope. You mentioned this several times within the first 24 hours. Then ABC received over 1500 complaints and your story changed, although no one called you on it for whatever reason - it was an unintended act, and look at Madonna and Britney kissing on television. Their kiss was neither blurred nor edited out.
Except you gave the facts away when you opened your mouth for the second time - you are a 'performer' and what do 'performers' do - they push the envelope, like Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osborne.
Which is it Adam? You are a performer pushing the envelope or it was an action that just occured without any thought. You are either pushing the envelope or it was an unintended act. It is NOT both. Performers who accidentally do something noteworthy did it by accident and do not receive any mention, rather they do their craft and live maturely. You, by your example, live to push the envelope. It would appear to me, based on all evidence available, that it was planned to push the envelope.
Adam, you do not push an envelope if it is accidental, unintended, happenstance, unexpected.
You push the envelope through intention, purpose, direct action with the goal of causing discomfort that will in turn force reconsideration.
Which is it Adam? Intentional with the goal of envelope pushing, or accidental and simply the act of a guy who wanted to kiss another guy who looked hot?
Madonna did it intentionally - to push the envelope.
No singer simply starts kissing their band members or back up dancers for fun - because they can't wait until the show is over. Poor judgment. Raging hormones pushed to the forefront by the glamour of stage, and fans. Acting out.
I suspect a couple 'performers' will now 'push the envelope' to make a statement. Perhaps Stefani Germanotta will kiss a back-up singer/dancer in her next performance (I so do not like the moniker she has adopted and prefer her real name to being gagged by gaga) - she will immediately claim solidarity with gays and champion equality, and march off to applause. What a role model.
In any case, Adam, you are left to figure out what it is you did and whether it was intentional (envelope pushing like Madonna and Britney) or accidental / spur of the moment (simply the desire to kiss a guy you have probably wanted to kiss publicly).
Your choice. Take a stand and accept the consequences.
sex
I know that I should include evidence in any statement I make concerning any issue or claim. I was raised this way both in academia and in the several years of law school - facts, facts, and more facts. Do not let emotions carry you away or you will find yourself carried back on your shield.
In this case, I don't care enough, although I am becoming annoyed with the claims you are making, along with the gay and lesbian consortium - that what ABC did and CBS after it, was either discrimination or bias.
I recall reading, and the facts of this will not disappear off the internet, within hours of your action at the AMA, that you were a performer and what do performers do - they push the envelope. You mentioned this several times within the first 24 hours. Then ABC received over 1500 complaints and your story changed, although no one called you on it for whatever reason - it was an unintended act, and look at Madonna and Britney kissing on television. Their kiss was neither blurred nor edited out.
Except you gave the facts away when you opened your mouth for the second time - you are a 'performer' and what do 'performers' do - they push the envelope, like Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osborne.
Which is it Adam? You are a performer pushing the envelope or it was an action that just occured without any thought. You are either pushing the envelope or it was an unintended act. It is NOT both. Performers who accidentally do something noteworthy did it by accident and do not receive any mention, rather they do their craft and live maturely. You, by your example, live to push the envelope. It would appear to me, based on all evidence available, that it was planned to push the envelope.
Adam, you do not push an envelope if it is accidental, unintended, happenstance, unexpected.
You push the envelope through intention, purpose, direct action with the goal of causing discomfort that will in turn force reconsideration.
Which is it Adam? Intentional with the goal of envelope pushing, or accidental and simply the act of a guy who wanted to kiss another guy who looked hot?
Madonna did it intentionally - to push the envelope.
No singer simply starts kissing their band members or back up dancers for fun - because they can't wait until the show is over. Poor judgment. Raging hormones pushed to the forefront by the glamour of stage, and fans. Acting out.
I suspect a couple 'performers' will now 'push the envelope' to make a statement. Perhaps Stefani Germanotta will kiss a back-up singer/dancer in her next performance (I so do not like the moniker she has adopted and prefer her real name to being gagged by gaga) - she will immediately claim solidarity with gays and champion equality, and march off to applause. What a role model.
In any case, Adam, you are left to figure out what it is you did and whether it was intentional (envelope pushing like Madonna and Britney) or accidental / spur of the moment (simply the desire to kiss a guy you have probably wanted to kiss publicly).
Your choice. Take a stand and accept the consequences.
sex
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Church, the DC Council, and Charity
The Catholic Church answers only to God, not to the whim of foolish humans who vacillate on any given issue depending on their political flavor of the day.
The Church has every right to act in accordance with what it believes, just as we, as individuals, have the right to stand up for a cause we believe in, to shout to the rooftops that we support a cause or idea, and argue for the defense of the right of anyone (which is legally construed to include entities - of which the Church would be one) to say and do that which is protected by our Constitution, and in the case of the Church, by a power considerably higher than human values.
Recently, the Church has informed the Washington D.C. city council that it will change its policy in regard to social services in the city, if the council approves a same-sex marriage bill.
Reverend Dr. Dennis W. Wiley, Pastor of the Covenant Baptist Church released a statement:
Yesterday, the leadership of the Catholic Church made clear that they are choosing a cynical political ploy over their call to serve the neediest among the community.
It is not political Mr. Wiley, any more than your comments are political. It is what the Church stands for - it cannot, and in all honesty must not bend to the will of man on issues much higher than how you (generic for the broader group outraged) feel about any given issue.
It is very simple - because YOU believe something does not make the opposite of what you believe HATEFUL or BAD. I understand that in your very enlightened position, you understand such judgments reflect on you, not the Church, and I would opine that you want to maintain the high ground, and appear OPEN and ENLIGHTENED, not petty and hateful yourself. Therefore, why will you not recognize the right of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to hold an opinion on matters of morality even if you and your very tiny frame of reference do not understand. You would not enjoy having the Atheists of America determine what scripture you must use, or how you address God in your sermons ... why do you believe it is justified to threaten and attack the Church for a decision it deems significant.
Catholics have a choice, to become Protestant and believe whatever it is they wish to believe about whatever they wish, or remain Catholic and adhere to the rules and policies of the Church. No one forces us to be Catholic or Protestant - we choose. If the actions of the Church offend Catholics in Washington, they may convert to one of the many other options available to them - choice. It is not for the Church to conform to man; man conforms to the Church, or goes elsewhere. The Church has a right to refuse to serve anyone it may wish to - if the individual does not conform to Church standards. EVERY church has this right and every church enforces it - you just do not hear about it when the Methodists discipline someone because quite honestly, no one cares. I feel that it actually would be very serious if the Methodists disciplined someone - when you have few rules, it is hard to violate anything.
It is that simple.
Some will call this a matter of hate - that the Church has a choice between doing the right thing and continuing charity to all or showing disrespect and hate.
So simple are the minds of enfeebled fools who spew stupidity at every opportunity, and so obvious to any sentient being.
Fools are attacking the Church for its right to hold people to standards, yet those who attack also hold a standard, yet due to the Church holding a different position that does not conform to the fools standard, the Church is attacked. Interesting irony.
Pathetic hypocrisy more like it.
church
Friday, October 23, 2009
Gay Sheep
What to do with gay sheep? Hmm. I know, let's adjust their hormones and see what we can come up with. Hold on, say some folks who fear having homosexuality bred out!
TimesOnline - London Times, December 31, 2006
The Sunday Times
Science told: hands off gay sheep
Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay
Experiments that claim to "cure" homosexual rams spark anger
Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of 'gay" sheep ina programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homsexuality in humans.
The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.
It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance their offspring will be homsexual. Experts say that, in theory, the "straightening" procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mother-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.
[There is considerably more, but I cannot type it all and the article is not available unless I pay for it.]
One further point from the article -
[Martina] Navratilova defended the "right" of the sheep to be gay. She said: "How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?" She said gay men and lesbians would be "deeply offended" by the social implications of the tests.
gay
TimesOnline - London Times, December 31, 2006
The Sunday Times
Science told: hands off gay sheep
Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay
Experiments that claim to "cure" homosexual rams spark anger
Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of 'gay" sheep ina programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homsexuality in humans.
The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.
It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance their offspring will be homsexual. Experts say that, in theory, the "straightening" procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mother-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.
[There is considerably more, but I cannot type it all and the article is not available unless I pay for it.]
One further point from the article -
[Martina] Navratilova defended the "right" of the sheep to be gay. She said: "How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?" She said gay men and lesbians would be "deeply offended" by the social implications of the tests.
gay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments