One of the most striking things Defense Sec. Gates said during his remarks today regarding the military’s survey on homosexuality  related to what he called “feelings:”

Views towards gay and lesbian Americans have changed considerably during this period, and have grown more accepting since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was first enacted. But feelings on this matter can still run deep and divide, often starkly, along demographic, cultural and generational lines – not only in society as a whole, but in the uniformed ranks as well.

The objections many men and women in uniform, and their families, have toward allowing homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces are not grounded in “feelings.” A feeling is an emotion, something that can change depending on one’s blood-sugar level.

What Sec. Gates seems to have tried to articulate, but not summoned the moral courage to state outright, is that people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong are poor (that would be demography), uneducated (there’s your lack of “cultural” maturity), and habituated to bigotry (“generational”).

He is as wrong as he is condescending: Homosexuality is described as a sin against God in both biblical Testaments. Those of us who believe the Bible’s commands transcend time and any society’s “growing acceptance” (Sec. Gates’ phrase) will remain opposed to the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality, period.

That’s a moral statement, Mr. Secretary. It’s not a feeling. It will not change until the Bible changes, which is, for the record, never.

Comments: 1 |

Comments: - |

Today is not a holiday in Britain. Or in the U.S.  Perhaps it ought to be. It’s Winston Churchill’s birthday. Churchill was born into another world. A month or more premature, young Winston breathed his first in the splendid Blenheim Palace, the ducal home of his famous Marlborough ancestors.

As much at home among titled English aristocrats as he was, Churchill also became the great commoner. All his life he defended democracy—the right of the people to govern themselves. And he boasted of his descent, on his American mother’s side, from the Indian princess Pocahontas.

One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to toss the bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office. And as for any idea of a Special Relationship between the U.S. and Britain, there was none. The British were no different, as far as this White House was concerned, than any of the other 189 members of the UN.

Before the Waste Management truck comes to cart off what remains of the Special Relationship, it might be a good idea to recall what it was and why it was important.

Prior to 1939, there was still a great deal of hostility toward England and all things English in this country. Students in American high schools then learned a lot about our revolutionary struggles against the British monarchy. They probably also learned about some of the cruelties of our estranged “mother” country.

At the famous Battle of Bunker Hill, redcoats finally took the heights after a furious fight. Boston Patriot leader Dr. Joseph Warren took part in that struggle. “Act worthy of yourselves,” Dr. Warren told his men, in words that Ronald Reagan would quote in his First Inaugural Address. Reagan would not remind Americans that the victorious redcoats presented Dr. Warren’s head to their general as a trophy, in an act that marked them as savages.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

An interesting editorial in the Washington Times today points to the extent to which federal law enforcement is doing the bidding of Hollywood, a major political ally of the Obama Administration.

On a day when our government’s dangerous inability to control the Wikileaks enterprise is manifest for all the world to see, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and DHS’s Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton held a press conference trumpeting the fact the U.S. “executed seizure orders against 82 domain names of commercial websites engaged in what the agency called the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works as part of Operation In Our Sites v. 2.0.”  See article.

The Washington Times is correct to look on this operation less charitably:

“Mr. Morton revealed the Homeland Security Department’s true motivation in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in July. He bragged about working closely with the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, which now provide “focused training” for customs officials. On June 30, a total of 75 of these highly trained ICE agents were tasked with seizing nine websites accused of sharing movies. This bold expansion of government authority was announced at Walt Disney Studios, emphasizing just how in the pocket of Hollywood this administration has become.

Ms. Napolitano’s priority should be to protect the homeland – especially our borders – not to squander resources protecting the business model of an industry that’s been most generous in its support of President Obama and his party. Government agencies shouldn’t be allowed to silence free speech as political payback.”

Also of note – some of the seizures were not so clear cut: “The department grabbed several file-sharing websites that did not themselves host unlawful content under the dubious theory that the sites assisted users looking for free movies and music over the Internet.”

The only good news here is that federal legislative effort to make the copyright regime and its enforcement even more draconian, is likely to die in the lame duck session.

Comments: - |

Perhaps, the best article on the recent election and the political trends that it represents was written by Chapman University professor, Joel Klotkin, in a Nov. 19 article for the Politico.  While the media trumpets trends that they believe signal the long-run demise of conservatism (e.g., demographics of immigration), Klotkin criticizes analysts for overlooking “the albatross of contemporary liberalism” and its devastating impact on the Democrats one month ago.  He notes that liberalism is no longer interested in producing upward economic mobility for the middle class:

Modern-day liberalism, however, is often ambivalent about expanding the economy — preferring a mix of redistribution with redirection along green lines. Its base of political shock troops, public-employee unions, appears only tangentially interested in the health of the overall economy.

In fact, it is probably worse than Klotkin describes it because the environmentalists are completely opposed to any realistic use of carbon-based energy to power our economy.  Thus, the Obama Administration’s EPA is instituting amazingly destructive regulations in tandem with its Dep’t of the Interior that does everything it can to prevent fossil fuel extraction in the United States.

Klotkin, who lives in California, also appears to believe that Texas is the new California – as he wrote in a recent Forbes column:

This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

California is now liberalism’s Ground Zero with such winners in charge as Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Henry Waxman, George Miller, etc.  Oh, I forgot to list Jerry Brown who gave California public employees the right to unionize.

It is almost unimaginalble what has happened to California in twenty years.  Yet, there was one enormous difference between California and the Southern states that supported Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 – the South has always been a right-to-work region.  California was not and has harbored pockets of extreme Leftism never present in the South.  The rise of the public employee unions along with environmentalists makes it virtually impossible for modern liberalism to present a pro-growth agenda – that is an albatross about which Coleridge could have written mournful verse.

Comments: - |

This coming Saturday, November 27th, Christians around the world are invited to pray and fast for the most vulnerable and unprotected members of our culture, the unborn. The sad truth is that for many developing babies, a mother’s womb has become a dangerous place where life is destroyed through the violence of abortion rather than a haven where fragile life is protected, nurtured and loved. After giving thanks for our many blessings this Thanksgiving Thursday, please consider making your Saturday a day of prayer for this intention.   Below are a few suggestions for the Vigil for Nascent Life:

Pray for the Defense of the Defenseless – From the “womb to the tomb” (Prov.  24:11-12).  Some suggestions include doing a short Bible study with your family about the value of God-given human life; taking some quiet time with God in a chapel or outdoors in His creation; joining together with your congregation for a specific prayer service for the protection of the unborn.

Fast for the Protection of the Unborn – If you are able, please fast from one meal or the whole day, or fast from media (TV, internet, phone, radio). Fasting frees our minds of distractions and is a powerful prayer tool to keep us focused.

Stay Informed about Threats to the God-Given Right to Life – Sign up for the Washington Update at www.frc.org.

Take Action – Make an impact…for Life!

1. Support a Pregnancy Care Center in your area.  To find out more about these life-affirming ministries to women who are expecting a child, check out FRC’s site: www.apassiontoserve.org.

2. Promote Foster Care and Adoption in your church.  Check out www.icareaboutorphans.org, a ministry of Focus on the Family.  Other ministries can be found at www.realcompassion.org.

3. Advocate for ethical stem cell research.  Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) not only destroys human life, but it also wastes taxpayer dollars because the result is tumors, but no treatments.  Adult Stem Cells offer an ethical and effective alternative.  Life-affirming therapies using adult stem  cells have already resulted in 73 different treatments in human patients.  Visit FRC’s dedicated site: www.stemcellresearchfacts.org, for some exciting video stories from real people who have benefited from ethical stem cell research.

Comments: - |

Advanced Cell Technology has apparently been given approval to begin experiments with human embryonic stem cells on patients with Stargardt disease, a rare eye disease than can lead to blindness. Few details are available at this point, although Robert Lanza, ACT’s chief scientist, has said that this series of experiments could begin after the first of the year and will include up to 12 patients and will test the safety of injecting cells into one of the patient’s eyes, with increasing doses of cells on successive patients. He also hopes to see some results within six weeks of injecting a patient’s eye.

Of course, one big concern regarding safety is the distinct possibility of tumor formation by embryonic stem cells, since that is their real forte. No details are available on whether ACT did large animal studies, purity of their experimental cell preparation, or how well the cells retain differentiation versus growing.

Comments: - |

It’s difficult how to respond to this news that a couple considering an abortion, has put the decision to an online poll. The article says that the vote as of yesterday was 23,840 to 5,978 to have the baby. Maybe the couple thinks they can get helpful feedback either from the vote, or from comments posted regarding their decision.

The article states they’ve been struggling with the decision because of the loss of three babies during miscarriages:

“She and her husband, Peter Arnold, began the online vote because she was still healing emotionally from the most recent of three miscarriages, she said. They weren’t sure whether she was ready for a baby.”

But it seems to me that this is rather gladiatorial, granting the crowd a vote over this life or death decision. Pray they choose life, and that they are comforted by their obvious hurt over their previous lost children.

Comments: - |

The City Fathers and, presumably, Mothers of Gettysburg are already planning their Sesquicentennial observance of the 150^th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Although it won’t arrive for another three years, the main address of the festive occasion will be delivered, God willing, by President Barack Obama.

That’s interesting. The city elders must be assuming that Mr. Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Or, if he decides not to run or is not re-elected, perhaps they’ve concluded they want Barack Obama anyway. It’s a college town, so perhaps we should not be too surprised.

President Lincoln was not the featured speaker at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, held on this day, November 19^th, in 1863. That honor went to Edward Everett, the most famous orator in America. In the midst of an already long and bloody civil war, the committee that chose Everett was sending a message. This former president of Harvard, former Secretary of State, was indeed a distinguished man who could be relied upon to do nothing unseemly on this solemn occasion.

Town residents, after all, had only recently been able to return to their homes. The summer air had been putrid with the smell of decaying flesh and the burning bodies of horses killed by the hundreds in the three days of battle.

Edward Everett had been the vice presidential candidate of the Constitutional Union party in 1860; in effect, he had been an opponent of Mr. Lincoln. To invite him to be the primary speaker was a little like inviting Sarah Palin to share the stage with Mr. Obama.

Lincoln gave no hint of being insulted. There is no record of his having said anything the least critical of the organizing committee or of Mr. Everett’s invitation—before or after the event.

Lincoln was happy to add what he might have called his poor mite. And what a mite it was. The 272 words of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address used to be memorized by school children in America. At one time, newspaper columnists would be happy to point out that a candidate for high office had learned Lincoln’s short speech by heart.

Instead, we have today the thrill that goes up and down commentator Chris Matthews’ leg when Barack Obama speaks. Or, we have Nicholas Kristof of the once-powerful New York Times gushing about how Mr. Obama can recite, in a perfect Arabic accent, the words of the Muslim call to prayer.

Let me make bold to say that the world will little note nor long remember what Mr. Obama says on that important occasion. That’s because the world is not noting what he says now.

Here’s a challenge: Ask a friend, preferably a supporter of the President, to quote a single line from the Inaugural Address of January 20, 2009. Or from his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech. Or from his 2010 State of the Union Address.

He was elected largely on the basis of his incomparable speaking ability, we are told. But what does he say? No one can tell you.

Here’s what Mr. Obama said in Springfield, Illinois, on the 200^th Anniversary of Lincoln’s birth:

It is wonderful to be back in Springfield, the city where I got my start in elected office, where I served for nearly a decade, and where I launched my candidacy for President two years ago, this week – on the steps of the Old State Capitol where Abraham Lincoln served and prepared for the presidency.

It was here, nearly one hundred and fifty years ago, that the man whose life we are celebrating today bid farewell to this city he had come to call his own. On a platform at a train station not far from where we’re gathered, Lincoln turned to the crowd that had come to see him off, and said, “To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything.” Being here tonight, surrounded by all of you, I share his sentiments.

But looking out at this room, full of so many who did so much for me, I’m also reminded of what Lincoln once said to a favor-seeker who claimed it was his efforts that made the difference in the election. Lincoln asked him, “So you think you made me President?” “Yes,” the man replied, “under Providence, I think I did.” “Well,” said Lincoln, “it’s a pretty mess you’ve got me into. But I forgive you.”

It is a humbling task, marking the bicentennial of our 16th President’s birth – humbling for me in particular, I think, for the presidency of this singular figure in so many ways made my own story possible.

Isn’t it wonderful to know that those 630,000 Union and Confederate dead did not die in vain? That Lincoln’s own martyr’s death combined with those fallen soldiers to make possible the election of Barack Obama?

In the passage quoted above, just first 250 words of a lengthy speech, Mr. Obama manages to make eight references to himself—this in an address ostensibly honoring the Great Emancipator’s birth.

Count the references to himself in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. There are none.

Maybe that’s why Edward Everett had the grace to write the President: “I should like to flatter myself that I came as close to the central meaning of the day in two hours as you did in two minutes.”

Comments: - |

The fact that the people of Iowa, when allowed to vote, threw out three of the judges that had overreached their authority by mandating homosexual-marriage on all Iowans, is of great encouragement. Every time the people get to vote on the issue they choose to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Ordinary men and women, mothers and father, know that children have a right to know and be known by their mother and father, and when given the choice they protect marriage.

Rhode Islanders want to have the opportunity to vote on marriage as well. In a public opinion poll conducted in August of this year over 80 percent of eligible voters polled stated they want the marriage issue on the ballot, irrespective of their personal beliefs on the issue. Rhode Islander’s do not believe a small group of legislators, or worse judges, should decide such a crucial issue. We have had the opportunity to vote on ports, casinos, and even changing the name of the State; Rhode Islander’s want to vote on marriage. And this is not new, public opinion polls conducted in June of 2009 and again in December of that year returned very similar results, with well over ¾ of the respondents saying, “Put it on the ballot.”

The National Organization for Marriage – Rhode Island will make every effort to insure that Governor-elect Chafee and the new Assembly hear and follow the voice of the people.

This is particularly crucial given the economic morass that Rhode Island still faces; this is no time to bog down our State government with an issue that impacts less than 5 percent of the population. According to the Providence Journal, October 17, 2010, “For example, projected state budget gaps run above 10 percent through fiscal 2015. For the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2011, the forecast deficit is $320 million, largely because federal stimulus money that has supported the last three budgets is running out. That fiscal 2012 budget is the first one that will be crafted by the governor and General Assembly that take office in January. The projected shortfalls get worse as time goes by. The gaps are $416 million in fiscal year 2013, $457 million in fiscal 2014 and $536 million for fiscal 2015.”

Even Governor-elect Chafee understands the challenge he faces. According to the Journal on November 7, 2010, “A day after Rhode Island voters elected him their next governor, Lincoln D. Chafee stood in front of a bank of reporters in his Warwick campaign headquarters taking questions. “Was this redemption?” one television reporter asked, for losing his 2006 reelection bid to the U.S. Senate? Chafee paused. Then grinned. “To inherit 12-percent unemployment? A $360-million budget deficit?” The crowd, including a dozen campaign workers, chuckled. “I don’t look at it as redemption,” Chafee said. “I like a challenge.”

Governor-elect Chafee and the new Assembly must not bog down the State government with the divisive and grid-locking issue of homosexual-marriage. Instead they should heed the voice of the people who elected them and put the homosexual-marriage question on the ballot.

Comments: 1 |

Who says Libertarians and Social Conservatives cannot find common ground? I had the pleasure of speaking this morning with Greg from Louisville. Greg was a caller to Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program. I was being interviewed by my dear friend, guest host Seth Leibsohn (listen to the full audio from the program below). I pointed out that the main federal family planning program—Title X—costs us billions. The money does not go directly to fund Planned Parenthood’s killing machine. But it does indirectly fund an outfit that kills 350,000 unborn children every year. That’s nearly the population of Minneapolis. Title X doesn’t fund the killing, only the killers.

Greg claimed to be a “militant” Libertarian (“I’m pro-choice on everything”). He amended that slightly to say, non-violent Libertarian. Then he went on to say that while he supported much of what Planned Parenthood does, he agrees that it should be de-funded. First, he said, because millions of Americans should not be taxed to support something they morally oppose. Second, he added, it should be de-funded because it’s unconstitutional.

Well, I was happy to get such strong support from Greg of Louisville. I greeted him as a “principled and honest man.” Why should American taxpayers have to pay more than $400 million every year to Planned Parenthood? Why should we provide a salary of $400,000 to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood? That’s as much as the President of the United States is paid. That’s ten times the average yearly income of American families.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Yesterday, FRC had a family policy lecture called, “The Puritan Gift:  Reclaiming the American Dream Amidst Global Financial Crisis.”  We had the opportunity to sit down with William Hopper to discuss “The Puritan Gift.”

To learn more about our upcoming Family Policy Lectures, click here.

Comments: - |

CNSNews.com reported last Thursday that Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in taxpayer’s dollars for fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 and that its organization paid Cecile Richards, its president, $385,163, plus an additional $11,876 in deferred compensation and benefits – a whopping total of $397,039. This payment was for overseeing the machinations of 324,008 abortions – the population of the city of Chicago at the time of the Great Fire in 1871. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood continues to work hard to convince us that we actually want to fund their version of “an honest day’s work.” It’s finally time that we de-fund Planned Parenthood. Our nation’s children would appreciate it.

Comments: - |

Opponents of abstinence-until-marriage education argue, among other things, that it is “unrealistic.” As evidence, they point to survey data indicating that a majority of Americans now do, in fact, have sexual relations before marrying.

However, the message of the abstinence movement (and related movements favoring the words “purity” or “chastity”) is not so simplistic as to say that if a person “loses his or her virginity” before marrying, that person is then beyond redemption. On the contrary—while any premarital sex can have lasting consequences, it is never too late to begin the practice of abstinence/purity/chastity, regardless of one’s past mistakes.

A beautiful testimony to that truth appeared November 14 in, of all places, the Washington Post. The story begins like this:

Gareth Warren didn’t know what to think in the summer of 2008 when the grandmother of his godson handed him a book titled “The Best Sex of My Life.”

Then he read the subtitle: “A Guide to Purity.”

“She just said, ‘I want to give this to you,’ ” says Warren, who wasn’t exactly focused on sexual purification at that point.

In his dating life, the 26-year-old assistant vice president at GE Capital had always gravitated toward models and cheerleaders. His relationships were usually fun, but ultimately unfulfilling.

Warren gradually became persuaded by the message of the book and changed his lifestyle. Then he was introduced to the young, female author of the book, a medical doctor named Lindsay Marsh.

(Spoiler alert!)

As you might have guessed, Warren and Marsh ended up together, and were married on October 30.

Read the whole story.  You can read about Marsh’s organization, Worth the Wait Revolution, here.

Comments: - |

If you want to read the latest installment of anti-Palin, anti-Tea Party derangement by the Left, read the online Time article that attempts to pre-emptively blame both conservative villains for – yes, you guessed it: hyperinflation.

Apparently, hyperinflation won’t come from the people who control the money printing (Bernanke and Obama) and are set to create massive amounts of money.  No, the real threat is from lower taxes supported by Palin and the Tea Party movement.  This is too comical for words.  (FYI, Mr. Gandel – Sarah Palin et al. seem to have noticed that the price of gold and many commodities have budged – upward – a great deal in the past year.)

Comments: - |

Today is the birthday of Christian reformer Martin Luther. Luther was born November 10, 1483. His father wanted him to become a lawyer, but young Luther instead entered Catholic holy orders and became an Augustinian monk in Saxony.

In 1517, Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church door, in the university town where he was serving as a teacher. Young Luther had earned his doctorate in theology, at a time when doctorates were rarer than Nobel Prizes are today.

Luther’s 95 Theses disputed the church practice of selling indulgences. Luther read in the book of Romans that “the just shall live by faith.” It was faith, then, and not the purchase of indulgences that led to salvation, Luther maintained.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Retired Gen. Colin Powell came to the Naval Academy a few years ago. He bounded onto the stage, looking fit and trim, and very energetic. He launched into a prepared address—his Forrestal Lecture—without notes, without the slightest hesitation, and without a teleprompter. The 4,000 Midshipmen who are required to attend and some of whom, frankly, doze off during these “Bore-us-all” lectures, were sitting on the edge of their seats. Gen. Powell is a polished orator and a most engaging speaker. His use of self-deprecating wit is most effective.

He related his great career—from Army Second Lieutenant all the way to four-star General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He didn’t have to mention that when he was born, nearly seventy years before, no black man could have aspired to lead the greatest military in the world.

He said that his career was defined by one word: containment. Containment of the Soviet Union was what he was doing when, as a junior officer in the Army he was stationed in West Germany. Ten years later, as a major, Powell was told again. “Go to the Berlin Wall, turn left. Stop at the Fulda Gap. And don’t let any Soviet tanks come through.”

Finally, he said, as a four-star general, he was still engaged in containment. Except now, under President George H.W. Bush, his job was to oversee the entire scene of the East-West face-off. Gen. Powell was responsible for making sure that the United States and NATO would not be surprised by any Soviet thrust into Western Europe.

All of this was most impressive. Gen. Powell is the kind of smart, courageous, skilled professional you would want guarding the Fulda Gap, standing watch for our freedom at the Wall.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

(Caution: Some of the information below, and the website it describes, are not appropriate for children.)

Some homosexual activists are their own worst enemies.

The latest evidence of that fact is a website recently brought to my attention by someone who wrote to the Family Research Council. I refuse to post an actual link to this website, but you can easily type it in yourself.  It follows the form of f**h8.com, with letters in the second and third positions.

The beginning of that web address is the three consonants of a well-known four-letter obscenity known as “the f-word.” The “h8” at the end of that address stands for “hate.”

Homosexual activists have been spelling it “h8” ever since the successful 2008 campaign in California to pass Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine of the fifty states now have such amendments.

Leave aside, for the moment, the mystery of how treating uniquely the human relationship that is uniquely capable of reproducing the human race, and believing that children deserve a mother and a father, could possibly constitute “hate.”

If you go to the website, you will find a short (two minutes or so) video. It consists of several people ranting and raving against the opponents of same-sex “marriage”–while repeatedly “dropping the f-bomb.”

Is this supposed to be funny? Do homosexual activists really think that the way to persuade opponents of same-sex “marriage” to support it is–to swear at people? Repeatedly?

During the Proposition 8 campaign, one of the most effective issues for advocates of Prop. 8 was the concern that children would be taught to affirm and celebrate homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” in the public schools. Opponents vehemently insisted that same-sex “marriage” would have no impact on schools or on children whatsoever. So then what happened? A class of first-graders was brought to San Francisco City Hall to witness the wedding of their lesbian teacher. So much for the “no impact” claim.

Another example occurred in the recent debate over legislation that would repeal the current law against open homosexuality in the military. To break a filibuster, liberals had targeted two Republican senators–Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. To sway the votes of Collins and Snowe, homosexual activists staged a major rally in Maine the day before the vote. The headline speaker was Stefani Germanotta, the 24-year-old, strangely-dressed, boundary-pushing pop singer better known as “Lady Gaga.” The effort failed, as Collins and Snowe voted with the rest of the Republican caucus. But did homosexual activists really believe that the gentleladies from Maine would be persuaded by Lady Gaga?

Actually, the point of the anti-“H8” web video is not to change minds–it’s to raise money. You can buy t-shirts, buttons, or stickers bearing the “F**H8” message, or milder and less cryptic ones like, “Some dudes marry dudes. Get over it.” Proceeds will “help fund the fight for equal marriage rights.”

Five dollars from the sale of each thirteen-dollar t-shirt is donated to one of four pro-homosexual activist groups (none of which sponsor or endorse the website). One is the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was founded by Hollywood actor and director Rob Reiner (yes, the “meathead” from All in the Family) to hire Republican and Democratic super-lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies for a federal lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. So the August decision by Judge Vaughn Walker (now on appeal), that same-sex “marriage” is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, was funded (at least in some small part) by “f-bombs” on the web.

But what is really shocking about the video is this: three of its participants are children. Not teenagers–young, pre-adolescent children. One is a boy who appears to be about six years old. Another is a girl who looks to be perhaps nine. The third is a girl who is perhaps eleven. And yes–the children drop the “f-bomb” too.

Is this supposed to be funny? It’s not. It’s child abuse.

Two of the children make specific reference to their “gay” parents. I don’t know if this is true, or if they are just young actors reading a script.

But either way–can they really believe that swearing children are a good tool to expand support for their cause? Are we to understand that this would be the brave new world under “gay” parenting and same-sex “marriage”–a world in which parents teach obscenities to their children, then put videos of them using those obscenities on the web to raise money?

If so–God help us. And God save the children.

Comments: 6 |

Judicial Watch recently uncovered critical information about serious adverse events related to the controversial HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

Judicial Watch received this information through a freedom of information act (FOIA) request for the time period of May 2009 to September 2010. From the FOIA results, Judicial Watch learned that the FDA has received over 3500 adverse event reports related to Gardasil in this short time period. The adverse event reports gravely include 16 deaths and 213 cases of permanent disability.

According to the CDC, Gardasil is safe and has only minor side effects. On their website today, one will read that “The most common side effects [of gardasil] are pain and redness where the shot is given (in the arm). About 1 person in 10 will get a mild fever. About 1 person in 30 will get itching where they got the shot. About 1 person in 60 will experience a moderate fever. These symptoms do not last long and go away on their own.”

Comments: 3 |

Canadian scientists have shown that they can turn human skin cells into blood cells, without going through an intermediate stem cell stage. The technique, called “direct reprogramming”, used only one (Oct 4) of the four “Yamanaka factors” used previously to reprogram skin cells into iPS cells (pluripotent stem cells that behave like embryonic stem cells). Further treatment with specific cytokines induced various types of blood cells to form. Direct reprogramming from one cell type to another avoids the problems inherent in pluripotent stem cells, including the problems of tumor formation, as well as the ethical problems of embryonic stem cells.

The study was published online in Nature. Previous studies have shown success of direct reprogramming in mice, producing neurons, cardiomyocytes, and insulin-secreting cells, but the McMaster University team is the first to show that direct reprogramming can work with human cells.

Comments: - |