Archive for July 22nd, 2008

Homosexual High School Clubs Increase Risk of Suicide

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

If the moral issues do not sway opinions on homosexual clubs being allowed in schools, then maybe the increase in suicides associated with them will. Anyone who reads this site knows our stand on homosexuality — hate the sin, love the sinner. Why hate the sin? Because Jesus hates sin and the Bible calls homosexuality a sin — an abomination, in fact. Why love the sinner? Because Jesus loves us all and we are ALL sinners.
The glorification of all things ‘gay’ has contributed to our young people becoming confused about their sexuality. Back in the 50’s there was no such thing as ‘gay pride’, but today society has allowed homosexuality to become almost ‘the cool thing to do’. It is no longer popular to be in the majority — an alternative lifestyle is the ‘exciting’ way to go. Because of this, our kids are confused sexually.

The increase in risk of suicide should cause us all to stop and think about the message we are sending to kids regarding homosexuality. I am sure there are many reading this who can’t wait to post your nasty comments about my being homophobic or a fundamental fanatic. Actually, my point here is that there is no need for high school clubs that are grouped according to sexual orientation. When you were in high school, did you join the “straight” or the “gay” club? No. These kids are too young to be placing themselves in a box. A confused kid who considers himself gay at 15, then decides at 18 he is straight, is going to have a hard time fitting in anywhere. Anyway, why does everything have to come down to sex nowadays? Can’t kids just be kids without being labeled gay or straight?

Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity — a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.

The Washington Post recently ran a sympathetic article about a 15-year-old boy named Saro who described his homosexual feelings and how Gay Straight Alliance student clubs help such gay teens to deal with discrimination and bullying in high school and middle school. (See related article) “What the article failed to describe,” said PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs, “is the danger of young sexually confused teens self-identifying as gays at an early age. Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20 percent each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling. Early self-identification is dangerous to kids.

“Schools should not be encouraging teens to self-identify as gays, bisexuals or transgendered persons before they have matured. Sexual attractions are fluid and do not take on permanence until early adulthood. Rather than affirming teenagers as ‘gay’ through self-labeling, educators should affirm them as people worthy of respect and encourage teens to wait until adulthood before making choices about their sexuality. If teens are encouraged to believe that they are permanently ‘gay’ before they have had a chance to reach adulthood, their life choices are severely restricted and can result in depression.”

Griggs also notes that schools with Gay Straight Alliance clubs are notorious for suppressing ex-gay organizations or individuals supporting tolerance for the ex-gay community. “GSA clubs and their teacher sponsors make schools unsafe for anyone who has rejected the ‘gay’ label in their lives or who believes in ex-gay equal rights. Our efforts to reach all students are typically met with hostility and violence. Time after time, we have faced hostile gay students and teachers ripping up our ex-gay materials or demanding that we be banned from distributing our materials on campuses.”

The National Education Association’s Ex-Gay Educators Caucus recommends diversity and inclusion of the ex-gay viewpoint in public schools, but this is seldom the case, according to Griggs. “What we find is that Gay Straight Alliance leaders and their school officials routinely suppress the ex-gay viewpoint and bully into silence anyone who dares to speak up for ex-gay equality and tolerance. If schools truly cared about diversity, they would include the diversity of the ex-gay community. Former homosexuals and their supporters should have the same kind of access to public schools that GSA clubs currently enjoy.”

Original Link

Dems Working to Foil Ban on Same-Sex “Marriage” in California

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

No surprise here…

The Democratic National Committee is actively working to foil the campaign to ban same-sex “marriage” in California.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) contributed $25,000 on February 28 to Equality for All for the purpose of opposing the proposed California marriage protection amendment known as Proposition 8. Equality for All is a homosexual group that pledges to defeat Prop 8 “one voter at a time.” According to the group, “a loss in November will dramatically slow, if not halt, progress toward full equality for LGBT Americans.”

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, argues that the DNC is slipping further outside mainstream America. He asserts the DNC is advocating legalization of same-sex marriage by “go[ing] against the majority of Americans who support the historical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and…donating a substantial amount of money to this radical homosexual organization that is promoting so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ ….”

Original Link.

Oil Prices Surge, Congress Responsible

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

Please contact your Congress person and Senator about this. Do not let them leave for the year in October with this issue unresolved. Command them to open up our domestic oil reserves.

The Institute of Energy Research says a dramatic increase in lease protests is threatening American energy supplies — and that the U.S. government is to blame in part for record-high oil prices.

Brian Kennedy is the senior vice president of public affairs with the Institute of Energy Research (IER). He says that despite the price of oil remaining at record highs, Congress has failed to do anything to increase domestic supplies.

According to the IER, lease protests have increased from 167 per year between 1997 and 2000 to 1,180 per year between 2001 and 2007. Kennedy maintains that instead of fixing the problem, “lawmakers are really just legislating some sound bites instead of really some sound solutions to help lower prices for consumers.”

Original Link.

Dems Fighting Parental Consent to Abortion

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

As we have pointed out on this blog in the past, if you child needs, non-life threatening medical treatment, they must have parental consent. Except for abortions.
Isn’t abortion a major medical procedure? Of course it is. Since it is an abortion though, the killing of innocent, unborn children, that relieves it of all reasonable responsibility.
That is wrong.
Congress has attempted to pass a law that required abortion providers to receive parental notification before a child can get an abortion.
Of course the Democrats are blocking it.

The [The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act] would prevent transporting a minor in a state that has a parental notification requirement to a state that does not have the law, in order to obtain an abortion. Spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Douglas Johnson explains it.

“This particular bill deals with the practice in which minor girls are taken across state lines often for the purpose of avoiding state laws that give the parent some right to be involved in the [abortion] process. And this is the type of activity, since it does involve crossing state lines, that only Congress can address,” Johnson points out. “We would require in this bill that an abortionist notify the parent back in the home state except in very rare and extreme circumstances before proceeding with an abortion.”

Johnson is convinced Congress is going against the will of the people. “Well, the American public is overwhelmingly in support of requiring that an abortionist notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor, but we’ve seen the Democratic congressional leadership block this legislation for several years’ running now,” Johnson explains.

In spite of high public support, Johnson says the measure continues to be tied up in Congress by the Democratic majority.

Original Link.

Obama Removes American Flag From Campaign Jet

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

Seems to me that a potential candidate for President of the United States should desire to show his patriotism and allegiance to the country he wishes to run. Makes one wonder……If he is elected, will he replace the flag with his signature ‘O’ on Air Force One?

As part of a month-long aircraft makeover, a painted American flag was removed from the tail of Sen. Barack Obama’s official campaign airplane and was replaced with the presidential candidate’s trademark “O” symbol.

The refurbished 757 was unveiled to members of the news media today, 41 of whom boarded the craft and took off to meet Obama in Amman, Jordan, where the presidential candidate will stop as part of a Middle Eastern and European tour.

Obama traveled to the Mideast earlier this week on board a separate airplane.

Fox News blogger Bonny Kapp, traveling on Obama’s new airplane, reported:

“The North American jet that flew Obama and his traveling crew around for much of the primary season was refurbished with new seats and power for each passenger a must on the campaign trail. And the plane that once had an American flag on its tail now sports the Obama ‘O.'”

Original Link

Sixteen Wounded in Copycat Bulldozer Attack in Jerusalem

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

The Pali terrorist are desperate. The border wall and closed border crossings are working. They can’t get armed gunmen across. They can’t get homicide bombers across. They have to resort to bulldozers.

Sixteen people were wounded, one of them moderately, as a bulldozer driver went on a rampage in central Jerusalem Tuesday afternoon in an apparent attempt to recreate the terror attack in the capital earlier this month.

The vehicle reportedly left a construction site near Yemin Moshe neighborhood and set off towards Liberty Bell Park (Gan Hapa’amon), near the corner of Keren Hayesod and King David streets. It drove a distance of approximately 160 meters, attempting to overturn a bus and crashing into four other vehicles – one of which it flipped over. The man was then shot dead by a civilian and a border policeman.

Original Link.

“What’s the Matter with Canada?” by Chuck Colson

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

How is this for irony? Recent actions by Canadian human rights groups have observers alarmed for the state of human rights in Canada. That is because the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal do not give a fig about protecting human rights. Their mission is suppressing free speech.

Maclean’s magazine was hauled before these two “quasi-judicial” bodies when it published excerpts from Mark Steyn’s popular book America Alone. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the content of these excerpts about the expansion of radical Islam “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint, but the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal got in on the act. It investigated the charges in what bloggers on the scene called a “kangaroo court,” and has yet to issue a ruling. But there is a greater cause for concern here: As the Calgary Herald pointed out, Maclean’s has the money to fight the charges—but not everyone does. The Herald gloomily predicted, “Let a citizen of modest means utter a politically incorrect thought: He will be crushed.”

That is what happened to the Reverend Stephen Boissoin. In a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, he protested the homosexual agenda, and was hauled off before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The complaint—sound familiar?—was that Boissoin’s words were “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their sexual orientation.”

The panel ordered “that Mr. Boissoin . . . shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or in the internet, in the future, any disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” He was also ordered to apologize in writing for the article, and was fined.

As the Catholic Exchange reports, “In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering . . . the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible.” The article went on to observe that a prominent Canadian priest, Father Alphonse de Valk, is now being investigated “for having publicly defended the Church’s traditional definition of marriage. Some of [his] allegedly hateful statements are quotations from the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

This is what Pope Benedict calls the “dictatorship of relativism.” In the name of tolerance—or of someone’s twisted idea of that concept—we have to protect everyone’s sensitivities. Nobody can say anything that might make someone feel like a victim of hatred and contempt. And thus we back into a soft despotism, which suppresses free speech and eradicates religious freedom.

Where is this going to end? Will it become a crime even to be a Christian in Canada? Will opposition to radical Islam be routinely punished? Here in America, we already know you can get in hot water for opposing gay marriage—like the Christian photographers who refused to take pictures at a lesbian civil ceremony, and ended up being fined by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

Make no mistake. If Canadians do not stand up for their religious and free speech rights, they will soon be gone. And so will ours. For what happens in the beautiful country to the north of us often affects our so-called “enlightened elites” in the United States.

Original Link.

Planned Parenthood Fails to Open Doors

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

Another victory!!

A state law that requires abortionists to inform women – before an abortion – that the procedure “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” apparently has done what no other pro-life protest has been able to accomplish – the closure of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facility.

Today was the day for a federal court ruling affirming the South Dakota law to take effect, and as usual pro-life protesters gathered from several different organizations at the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood business, as did several women who apparently had appointments.

However, a spokesman for the protest groups said no abortionists arrived and the women left after being counseled by the pro-lifer sidewalk counselors.

“I think Planned Parenthood cannot figure out a way not to comply with the law,” Dr. Allan Unruh, who with his wife has been integral in South Dakota’s Vote Yes for Life campaign.

“We don’t know if they will open again,” he said. “Personally, I don’t think they are going to find any abortionists who want to take the risk of losing their license.”

That circumstance could arise of an abortionist fails to provide a woman with the state-specified information, all of which pro-life advocates describe as, and the court agreed was, scientifically accurate.

Such a failure now is illegal in South Dakota, and a violation could bring heavy penalities. Unruh said lawyers representing pro-life organizations said a violation could bring an abortionist up to two years in jail as well as loss of a medical license.

“This is huge. Time will tell what Planned Parenthood does,” Dr. Unruh said. “Their attorneys are calling our attorneys saying, ‘We don’t want to comply.’

“This is historic. For the first time in 35 years, Planned Parenthood has had to close its doors.”

A WND call to the Planned Parenthood office late today got only an answering machine that said the office was closed.

The new law requires abortionists to explain to women that:

  • The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
  • The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
  • That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
  • A description of all known medical risks of the procedure including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide
  • The law took effect because the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned an injunction that had stopped its implementation.

    It was a 7-4 ruling that lifted the injunction against the South Dakota informed consent abortion law. Attorneys representing the Alliance Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council in defense of the law.

    “A woman’s life is worth more than Planned Parenthood’s bottom line,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence in a statement. “Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women supports making sure they have access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has argued adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies.”

    Original Link.

    “The most ‘tolerant’ city in America?” Hal Lindsey

    Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

    I used to think I had at least a reasonable command of the English language. It is, after all, my native (and, in the practical, conversational sense, only tongue), which puts me firmly among the unilingual ignoramuses Barack Obama wants to stamp out (once he’s dealt with the God-loving, gun-toting xenophobes out in backwoods Middle America.)

    One of the advantages of being unilingual in what is essentially a unilingual culture is that when you only have one language, you have fewer definitions to learn.

    Take, for example, the word “tolerant.” It’s a good word, and in its variations, it can mean a lot of things: “How’s the weather?” “Tolerable.” (That means the weather is within bearable levels.)

    “I can’t tolerate politicians who lie.” (That means you find ALL politicians unbearable.)

    As a noun, “tolerance” means “showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others.”

    WorldNetDaily reported yesterday on San Francisco’s official condemnation of the Catholic Church specifically for its position on sexual morality. What caught my attention was this paragraph:

    “According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the ‘act of provocation’ by what it termed an ‘anti-gay,’ ‘anti-choice’ organization that aimed to ‘negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.'”

    Evidently, “tolerant” doesn’t mean what I thought it meant. If it did, then San Francisco would, ummm, what’s the word … ah! tolerate those who hold sincere, but opposing views. Like, say, a religious organization?

    Evidently, “progressive” doesn’t mean what I thought it did, either. Or even what the liberals who’ve adopted it define it to mean. They define “progressive” to mean “a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.”

    Why should anyone feel marginalized by their government while their most cherished beliefs are condemned? That is the main argument advanced by pro-Islamic groups like CAIR, and they use it because it is a fair one. Freedom of religion is the most basic of American rights.

    If you were a heterosexual pro-family, pro-life Catholic citizen of San Francisco and heard your most bedrock beliefs condemned as: “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “defamatory,” “insensitive” and “ignorant,” how protected would you feel your civil rights were in the most “tolerant and progressive” city in America?

    Here’s a tantalizing idea. Islam is both restrictive of women’s rights AND prohibits homosexual conduct. And it proscribes the death penalty for those who violate its provisions. But no such resolution condemning Islam for its anti-gay and anti-choice rights is likely. That would rightly be neither “tolerant” nor “progressive.”

    Read the rest of this article here.