Friday, February 1, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
What the Boy Scouts can learn from the Catholic Church and Penn State about putting gays in leadership positions
Raynard Jackson a president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm, wrote in his Black Press USA column Boy Scouts Shouldn't Become ‘Gay Scouts’:
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that Boy Scouts, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards. In 2004, the BSA adopted a new policy statement, including the following as a “Youth Leadership” policy:
“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.”
The Boy Scouts of America are reported to be reconsidering their position on gays becoming scout leaders.
What can the Boy Scouts of America learn from others who have put gays into leadership positions? Perhaps the experiences of the Catholic Church and Penn State University are two case studies that will predict what could happen.
BishopAccountability.org, an "online archive established by lay Catholics," reports that over 3,000 civil lawsuits have been filed against the Catholic church, some of these cases have resulted in multi-million dollar settlements with multiple claimants.
In 1998 the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas paid $30.9 million to twelve victims of one priest ($44.1 million in present-day terms). From 2003 to 2009 nine other major settlements involving over 375 cases with 1551 claimants/victims, resulted in payments of over $1.1 billion. The Associated Press estimated the settlements of sex abuse cases from 1950 to 2007 totaled more than $2 billion.
BishopAccountability.org puts the figure at more than $3 billion in 2012. Addressing "a flood of abuse claims" five dioceses (Tucson, Arizona; Spokane, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego) got bankruptcy protection. Eight Catholic dioceses have declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse cases from 2004-2011.
Penn State University (PSU) had a similar experience with Jerry Sandusky. The Sandusky scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky's part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them.
In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims" for 14 years and "empowered" Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse.
On July 23, 2012 the NCAA imposed sweeping penalties on Penn State—among the most severe ever imposed on an NCAA member school—including a fine of $60 million, a four-year postseason ban and vacating of all victories from 1998–2011. In doing so, NCAA President Mark Emmert stated that the sanctions were levied "not to be just punitive, but to make sure the university establishes an athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of education, nurturing and protecting young people." The Big Ten Conference subsequently imposed an additional $13 million fine. Spanier, Curley and Schultz have since been brought up on criminal charges for their role in the cover-up.
In addition 40 scholarships were stripped from Penn State University in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.
Sandusky was a pederast, as were all of the Catholic priests involved in the abuse of young boys. All pederasts are gay according to Liberty University Visiting Professor of Law Judith Reisman, who said that “post the ‘landmark’ Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003, paraphrasing Justice Antonin Scalia, everything goes.” Professor Reisman said, “Following Alfred Kinsey ‘sexologists’ began to occupy our schools, so that educated professionals have largely been trained to be a form of sexual anarchists.”
“Although the stupidity of advocating harmless amoral sexuality overwhelms us daily, our arrogant ‘educated’ populations say morality has no place in our sexual lives,” Reisman said. “Just as AIDS is a natural outgrowth of amoral sexual education and media, so too is child sexual abuse. We are breeding a new human character and child sexual abuse is increasingly part of that character.”
Saturday, May 5, 2012
A Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) will hold a pro-shariah Conference in Tampa, Florida on May 11 - 13, 2012. The Conference will be at the Hilton Hotel Airport 2225 North Lois Avenue, Tampa FL.
ISNA is a cultural jihad organization that has been designated as an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the federal terrorism financing case called - Holy land Foundation Trial. The Muslim Brotherhood is actively working to get President Obama re-elected. Join with many patriotic Americans as we stand against the Muslim Brotherhood in Florida.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Penn State was rocked by the revelation thatGerald A. “Jerry” Sandusky, a pedophile, was never exposed over a period of 20 years while engaged in blatant gay acts with boys on campus and while head of The Second Mile, a foster home where according to the Grand Jury report, “he found his victims”. Americans were shocked at the firing of Joe Paterno when it was revealed that he and the Pennsylvania State University took no action against Sandusky.
This most recent case of an American university’s involvement in sheltering a pedophile demands answers to three key questions:
- Has pedophilia been promoted on other college campuses, and if so by whom?
- Is research done at American universities used to promote deviant sexual behaviors including pedophilia?
- Is the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) community promoting pedophilia?
Has pedophilia been promoted on other college campuses, and if so by whom?
Pedophilia and other deviant sexual behaviors have been studied and then promoted by Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Texas and Harvard University.
The prominent members of the faculty at each of these premier American universities who have promoted deviant sexual behaviors including pedophilia are: Indiana University Zoology Professor Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma and founder, Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, Renee Sorentino of Harvard Medical School, John Sadler of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. I add to this list John Breslow of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
It all began when Indiana University Zoologist Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey shocked the nation in 1948 with the publication ofSexual Behavior in the Human Male, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The GLBT community and its supporters even today draw heavily from Kinsey.
Is research done at American universities used to promote deviant sexual behaviors including pedophilia?
In her March 30, 1998 Insight magazine article titled, “Q: Should state funding of the Kinsey Institute’s sexual research end?” Beverly R. Newman states, “Kinsey’s pernicious and fallacious dogma, pervasive in our [American] schools, courts and professions, is poison to children.” How prophetic these words are given the Sandusky Scandal. Newman addresses the “controversial claims” of Kinsey. According to Newman, “What are those controversial claims? The most far-reaching is that children naturally are given to initiating sexual acts and virtually all forms of sexual behavior should be acknowledged as normal and tolerated.”
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., in her book, “Sexual Sabotage: How one Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion of America” analyzed the impact of Kinsey’s “research”. Reisman notes, “Kinsey states it very clearly’, said [American psychiatrist] Charles Socarides, MD, ‘That all types of sexual activity - sex with the opposite sex, sex with the same sex, sex with both sexes, sex with children, sex with whips and chains, fisting sex, sex with animals – any kind of sex was normal and common.”
This view of sexuality is totally embraced by the GLBT community and their supporters.
“Kinsey’s ‘work’ regarding the sexuality of teenagers, pre-adolescent children, and infants is horrifying. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female provide abundant evidence of child sexual torture by Kinsey’s ‘researchers’, who engaged in brutal, sexual experiments on children. This ‘work’ is critically important to the effects of the Kinsey reports on our society, our laws, and the Kinsey lobby today,” states Reisman.
Is the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) community promoting pedophilia?
According to Fred Berlin, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, “Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults. A recent Journal article documented that the vast majority of individuals with pedophilia showed no evidence of either antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder. It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so.” [My emphasis]
The organization B4U-ACT sponsored its summer 2011 Symposium in Baltimore on August 17, 2011, which was attended by pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals including Dr. Berlin. The conference examined the ways in which “minor-attracted persons” could be involved in a revision of the American Psychological Association (APA) classification of pedophilia.
B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia. B4U-ACT science director Howard Kline has criticized the definition of pedophilia by the American Psychological Association, describing its treatment of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading.”
B4U-ACT according to its website was established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization with the following purposes:
To publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance,
To educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals,
To develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT's Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and
To educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals.
According to LifeSiteNews.com, "Speakers addressed the around 50 individuals in attendance on themes ranging from the notion that pedophiles are ‘unfairly stigmatized and demonized’ by society to the idea that ‘children are not inherently unable to consent’ to sex with an adult. Also discussed were arguments that an adult’s desire to have sex with children is ‘normative’ and that the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) ignores the fact that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another."
B4U-ACT is a pro-GLBT organization.
It is clear that Penn State is not an anomaly. Rather it represents the logical outcome of the false research, which began with Kinsey, and continues today under Berlin, Sorentino, Sadler and others. The mainstreaming of the GLBT lifestyles has naturally been extended to pedophiles and pederasts. While all gays are not pedophiles, it can be logically concluded that all pederasts fit neatly into a gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender category.
Voltaire warned, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
I just received an e-mail from Dr. Judith Reisman, who is quoted in this column. She gave me permission to post it. Here are Dr. Reisman's remarks:
Pederasty is male to boy abuse versus pedophilia which is commonly heterosexual abuse of a child. So, in that sense, the problem isn’t pedophilia but indeed pederasty. In either case the term is medicalized and incorrect since there is no love of the boy or the child, just selfish exploitation. Moreover, it’s not “intercourse” but sodomy. One must destigmatize language before we can destigmatize the actions.
So, yes, it’s a “gay” problem of pederasty, boy abuse, commonly including exploitive and disease oriented oral and anal sodomy of the boy victim.
Indeed, the issue here is Kinsey’s norming promiscuity, adultery, etc., and sex with children, period.
That abusers are bi, homo, tri, quad, bestial, as well as “straight,” etc., is expected when a society has come to believe, and to teach in almost every schoolroom for decades, that children are unharmed by, even benefit from, sex with oneself, each other, as well as older persons of same or opposite sex.
Origin: 1720–30; < Greek paiderastḗs lover of boys, equivalent to paid- (stem of paîs ) boy, child + erastḗs lover, equivalent to eras-, stem of erân to love + -tēs agent noun suffix.
Origin: 1720–30; < Greek paiderastḗs lover of boys, equivalent to paid- (stem of paîs ) boy, child + erastḗs lover, equivalent to eras-, stem of erân to love + -tēs agent noun suffix.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
America's public schools, colleges and universities have fully embraced the anti-bullying campaign as the key to protect gay students on their campuses. The Family Research Council has discovered that this anti-bullying campaign may be the proximate cause of suicides in our youth. The unexpected outcome of this program, instituted by Kevin Jennings the founder of GLSEN, has caused our youth to commit suicide.
Ever since the highly-publicized suicide of a New Jersey college student in September of 2010, pro-homosexual activists have been using the issues of bullying and teen suicide as tools in pursuit of their political agenda, and as rhetorical weapons against those who oppose it. Every time another report surfaced about a suicide by a teenager who identified as or was perceived to be “gay,” and who had reportedly been bullied, the finger would be pointed directly at conservatives. Bullying causes suicides, we were told, and public expression of conservative political, social, or religious viewpoints concerning homosexuality causes bullying. Affirm homosexual conduct as morally neutral, or more kids will die.
As early as October of 2010, however, experts on suicide prevention were warning that this simplistic approach linking suicides (which are always tragic) to bullying (which is always wrong) could do more harm than good. An article based on an interview with Ann Haas, research director for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, asked, “[W]hat if the way we’re talking about these suicides could actually be encouraging vulnerable young people to copycat the tragic behavior?”
A year later, a commentary last month on the website of The Advocate, the nation’s leading “gay” magazine, finally admitted that this is a serious problem. David McFarland is “interim executive director and CEO” of The Trevor Project, which runs a suicide prevention hotline for “LGBT” youth. McFarland cited the political and cultural “benefit from showcasing the health crisis of disproportionate rates of suicide and incidences of bullying that affect LBGT young people.” However—in an astonishing admission—he also acknowledged that “this tactic has also increased suicide risk.”
Got that? Here is a pro-homosexual activist admitting that “this tactic” (“showcasing . . . suicide and . . . bullying”) “has also increased suicide risk” (emphasis added).
There are three key problems with the “bullying causes suicide” theme. The first is that it ignores most of what we know about the causes of suicide. McFarland acknowledges gently that “the reasons a person attempts suicide are . . . complicated,” and notes that “suicide is closely tied to psychological well-being.” Haas was more blunt, indicating to the reporter that “underlying mental-health issues . . . are present in 90 percent of people who die by suicide.” In other words, most people who are bullied do not commit suicide. It is mental illness—not bullying—that causes most suicides.
However, the second problem with emphasizing the link between bullying and suicide is that, as McFarland states, “it can influence someone who is at-risk to assume that taking your own life is what you’re supposed to do next if you are LGBT or bullied.” Haas made the same point a year ago, warning that publicly identifying bullying as a motive for suicide can “mak[e] suicide seem like an understandable, if not unavoidable, culmination of a person’s experience.” She added, “Suicide is not a rational act.” McFarland makes the same point, declaring that “we can help avoid making suicide appear like a logical choice.”
The third problem, which flows out of the second, is what McFarland refers to as “suicide contagion.” He warns that “the more a story of a particular victim is out there, the more likely one or more people who are at-risk will also attempt suicide.” Haas warned, “Stories depicting the person who’s died by suicide as very sympathetic can inadvertently encourage vulnerable young people to identify with him or her.” In other words, being revered as a martyr in death can appear more attractive than experiencing continuing pain in life.
We should do all we can to help young people with mental illness—whether homosexual or heterosexual—and to prevent teen suicides. And we should do all we can to prevent bullying of any child—for their sexual orientation, appearance, religion, or any other reason. But it is time for homosexual activists to stop exploiting personal tragedies to advance their political agenda—especially in a way that may cause more such tragedies.
Monday, November 21, 2011
I have always been a live-and-let-live kind of person. I consider a person’s sexual preferences to be their own business. No longer. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender crowd is determined to impose their sexual “orientations” on everyone, starting in, but not limited to schools.
On November 16, the Massachusetts legislature pushed through a controversial “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill. The whole process was so unethical as to be breathtaking. In two hours, the bill went from committee release to re-write, to a late-night House vote and early-morning Senate final passage. The Senate, unlike the House, passed it by voice vote to avoid a roll call to identify who supported it.
Wham, bam, thank you Maam.
Apparently, in Massachusetts the proper review, discussion, and passage of legislation only applies to those laws not favored by its homosexual lobby.
As MassResistance, a pro-family group, noted, “Its passage appears to be timed to coincide with ‘Transgender Awareness Week’ in Massachusetts.” Since when did that State or any other get to the point of having such absurd events? Since when have we reached a point where any spoken objection to Gay Pride parades or similar events can be deemed a crime? It’s not a crime. It’s free speech.
MassResistance noted that Governor Deval Patrick “a strong supporter of homosexual and transgender movements will sign the bill within days. The only Republican in the state legislature to vote for the bill was Rep. Dan Winslow who just happens to have been former Gov. Romney’s chief legal counsel and is credited with facilitating gay marriages in Massachusetts.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man with a woman. To redefine this institution, central to all societies, is to shred the bonds and standards on which society is based. What we have learned, however, is that homosexuals are not content with being granted civil unions with rights comparable to marriage.
The arrogance this represents is appalling, but the implications of the homosexual and transgender lobby’s efforts have far greater implications for everyone, but especially for families who do not want their children exposed to “choices” they are too young to understand and which their parent’s faith or beliefs disapprove. These matters do not belong in a school curriculum.
Making homosexuality “mainstream” and doing so by force of law runs counter to common community values that Americans have held since the nation’s founding. Exercising tolerance is one thing, but facing jail for any act of disapproval is quite another.
Who defines a “hate crime” and when did America begin to criminalize thought, as opposed to action? The answer is that hate crime legislation is the invention of the gay lobby.
Now, for your edification, here is the actual text of Section 7 of chapter 4 as amended by the following clause:
“Fifty-ninth, "Gender identity" shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, as part of a person's core identity; provided however, gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.”
So, are we to assume that anyone can claim “gender identify” any time someone objects to the way they dress or behave in school, at work, or in any public place? This opens the door to a lot of cross-dressing and other folks who want to pursue their lifestyle no matter what affect it has on others.
These are not women. They are cross-dressing men
who got together at Capone's Restaurant, Peabody, MA
A case in point. In 2010, Capone’s Restaurant in Peabody, Massachusetts tossed out a group of men dressed as women who were upsetting its customers and even using the woman’s restrooms. When the new law goes into effect, the restaurant will be subject to fines, as would be its customers if found guilty of trying to “intimidate” them with their reaction to their presence.
This isn’t about gender. It isn’t about intolerance. It isn’t about civil rights. It is about the all-out assault on the rights of the majority heterosexual society to assert commonly held values regarding sexually-related behavior as it affects society as a whole..
© Alan Caruba, 2011