You can read more about the Komen - Planned Parenthood ties and learn of alternate organizations to donate to in the fight against breast cancer from our friends at the Biothethics Defense Fund:

"Pro-life citizens who are interested in fighting this deadly disease should be aware that one breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, has a policy of offering financial support to abortion providing facilities."

We can only hope and pray that the old comedic line "don't believe your lying eyes" does not prevail.

Gossip Girl is a relatively new sleazy teen and young adult-centric show that glorifies sex, drugs, and drinking in a group of Manhattan college prep students.  After a spring hiatus, the show returned with new episodes on April 21^st preceded by a blasphemous and soft porn ad campaign.  As one website put it: "The desperate ad campaign clearly shows that the producers want Gossip Girl's viewer to know that there will be a whole lot of sex scenes in the coming episodes."

The attack on decency was multi-pronged.

First, a once-respected magazine, New York, sold its soul to carry the most vacuous review of anything ever written or broadcast.  The piece came complete with a cover featuring the program's stars lying in bed together pretty well undressed in orgiastic poses.  In the center of this cover photo, one finds "Best Show Ever*" imposed, and, as is befitting of such art, the cover story was duly titled, "The Genius of Gossip Girl."

Second, the new season is supported by raunchy still photo and video ads.  Both promotions are focused on the phrase "OMFG" - which is probably not a phrase you are familiar with.  "OMG" is an abbreviation for "Oh, My G-", the ubiquitous disrespectful exclamation of the popular culture.  Well, "OMFG" is a spin-off of this phrase whose etymology is not certain but seems to come from the teen internet subculture.  Yes, the "F" stands for what you think it does.

When I say that the still life ads are sleazy, I mean they are SLEAZY.  Now that you are familiar with the lingo, take a look at those posters that are appearing on standard street-size and sidewalk billboards:

The OMFG theme isn't exactly hidden, and neither is the sexually explicit content.  There is also at least one offensive OMFG video ad for Gossip Girl that is available on the CW website, YouTube, and on television.  Of course, a CW honcho denied in an interview with CNN's Brooke Anderson that OMFG means what it clearly means.  Anderson was incredulous, so she conducted "man on the street" interviews to prove her point.  Only two women over 60 were not able to define OMFG.  See the CNN interview featuring Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council.  Kudos to Anderson.

Let's be clear: this is an ad campaign and television program promoted by a major American broadcast network and targeted at teenagers and young adults.  Parents who are concerned about this might wish to contact one or two of the Gossip Girl sponsors and complain about the blasphemy, the decadence, and the cruel indifference to the moral lives of the young revealed by the network and its advertisers.

At times like this I think:  wouldn't it be nice to have the power to tell my cable provider that I don't ever want the CW network to be seen in my house again?  It sure would.  It's definitely time for cable choice and time to find out how the presidential candidates feel about consumer empowerment over the media content that comes into our homes.

At the instigation of the American Civil Liberties Union, Boyd County High School allowed a "Gay Straight Alliance" club, and the school district instituted a "diversity" program mandated for all students.

The video also prescribed punishment for such speech, as described in the petition filed by lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing student Timothy Morrison, who has filed a lawsuit against the school: "In both the Code of Conduct and the video, the students were told that violating the district policy could result in a suspension, with 'a possibility of court referral and local law enforcement agency notified ..."

"Students were specifically told by the defendant that if they insulted a person by saying that homosexual behavior was wrong, they could face dire consequences."

One Kentucky paper editorialized in favor of the appeals court decision, claiming that "Morrison was never disciplined for violating the policy or even accused of violating it. Thus, the appeals court said Morrison failed to show he was harmed by the policy."
However, according to the ADF, the ruling that "chilled speech is not an injury-in-fact" is erroneous: "Other circuits have held, both implicitly and explicitly, that a chill on an individual's ability to exercise his or her right to free speech is a constitutional injury-in-fact. In our case, the 'government regulation' was a direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment rights. Students should not be forced to subject themselves to criminal prosecution before they can seek judicial relief from unconstitutional speech policies."
Let's hope and pray that, in its ruling, the full appeals court will uphold the right of free expression of all citizens--including those who object to homosexual behavior on moral grounds.

However, in this Pew Forum interview,  Ms. Butler proudly points to her strong connections with Planned Parenthood and her speaking engagement at the "Planned Parenthood prayer breakfast":

BUTLER: Yeah, well, it is interesting you asked that. I am speaking at the Planned Parenthood prayer breakfast tomorrow. And we have worked very closely with some think-tanks in town with Third Way and with Center for American Progress. Many of these groups are also very interested in connecting more strongly with faith communities. And I'd say there has been a resurgence in their interest, an intensification since 2004. So I think it is extremely important to build those bridges there...

...There has been some recent progress in that arena because it has been a point of tension. I mentioned earlier our work with Third Way. And they worked with leading evangelicals and progressives to outline a strategy for approaching the abortion issue which, interestingly enough, did not involve compromise. And they were very clear that they didn't want a watered-down solution to the problem, nor did they want people having to compromise on their ideals...

Butler should explain how working "closely" with Planned Parenthood helps achieve "common ground" to solve the "problem" of abortion.

According to a front page article in today's Washington Post, it's high prices on organic meats and milk:

The last thing Marti Tracy wants to do on a Saturday is clip coupons. But last month the 34-year-old Bowie resident felt she no longer had a choice. She'd already given up organic meat and decided to buy organic milk only for her 2-year-old son, not for the whole family.

Tracy and her partner also stopped buying the cereals they like in favor of whatever was on sale; stopped picking up convenient single-size packs of juice, water or crackers; and, in order to save gas, stopped going to multiple stores. "I find the whole thing a huge hassle, but I've reached a tipping point," said Tracy, a government human resources specialist who is pregnant with her second child. "Clearly, I'm not unable to feed my family. But I just can't feed my family the way I'd like to feed them."

Indeed, the horror of having to do all your shopping at one store is hard to stomach, as is the thought of having to eat a box of bad cereal. But, if the level of "crisis" has reached this point in America, think of how hard it must be on those poor folks in third-world Africa --- I bet they're having a hard time even finding organic milk.

Seriously though, I have kids and a penchant for Oreo cookies. Therefore, I'm well aware of how much milk costs these days. I don't deny that high grocery bills are affecting families, but to render the high price of boutique foods part of the "global food crisis" is quite a stretch.

In an analysis of the national Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), data from 21 states from 1996 through 2000 indicated that of the 7,557 statutory rape incidents reported to law enforcement:

• 95% involved female victims with male offenders.
• About 60% of the female adolescents were aged 14 or 15.
• The median age difference between the female adolescent and the male was six years.
• Approximately 45% of the male participants were age 21 or over, 25% were age 24 or older.

The paper went on to state, "The studies generally show that the relationships with adults and older partners comprise a large percentage of all sexual relationships for girls of a younger age. A number of factors may contribute to this: The younger a girl is when she begins engaging in sexual activity, the more likely she is to be a risk taker, have poorer judgment, or come to early initiation through a history of sexual abuse that would orient her toward older partners."

While I would not agree with all of the conclusions drawn in this scientific review paper, it does report research which elucidates the fact that a large percentage of sexually active teen girls have, at one time or another, been sexually involved with an adult male. The experiences cause and place girls and adolescent females at high-risk for negative psycho-social and health outcomes.

Event if you can't make it in person, the event will be webcast live from www.frc.org beginning just before noon.

Here's the pertinent info:

Join Family Research Council as we welcome Dr. Michael Ward for a lecture on his new book, Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis (Oxford University Press, 2008). In Planet Narnia, Dr. Ward argues that Lewis secretly based The Chronicles of Narnia on the seven heavens of the medieval cosmos.

The publication of Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia befuddled the scholarly world. Those who best knew his academic works found the seven-volume work uncharacteristically disorganized. Even Lewis's close friend, J.R.R. Tolkien, dismissed the books as "carelessly assembled" and "jumbled". Convinced of Lewis's ordered intent behind The Chronicles, scholars have attempted to make sense of this apparent disparity, but until now, none of their proposed theories have proved tenable.

You can RSVP for the lecture by following this link.

His battlecry made me wonder whether “censorship” is even the correct word for taking adolescent trash – like the show he describes – off the air. Isn’t there some minimal qualitative level to which a piece of “art” must attain – or pretend to attain – before a grandiose term like “censorship” can be applied to said program’s eradication ?

Quin, excellent analysis with a terrific bonus rant thrown in. I salute you and hope the game was worth the wait.

In the media blitz that followed, it was soon revealed that the student had feigned both the pregnancies and miscarriages. “The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body,” said Helaine Klasky, a university spokeswoman.

Yale officials went on to issue the following statement, "Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns."

We would agree with Yale's statement that the reported project would have "violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns." Reflecting on the artistic interpretation of the project though, one could view this student's purported experiments with her body for her art as "choice" to the nth degree. The pro-abortion movement would like for women to have the complete "freedom" to do what they would like with their bodies for their own individual purposes, regardless of the harms it may cause to them or others. In an effort to avoid pregnancy, anything goes including repeated drug-induced abortions or miscarriages with poorly regulated drugs which can disrupt women's regular cycles, and disregard for resultant physical and psychological consequences.

In the end, it was not so much the “ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body” that was highlighted, but rather clarity that the project operated within a vacuum of a misplaced notion of both freedom and true choice; devoid of care for the woman, the bond between a mother and her child, and the miracle of the beginning of life.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

As a friend of Israel, I am glad to see strong support expressed for that nation. Hopefully, this will clarify the thinking of the radical clerics who control Iran. That being said, Senator Clinton’s remarks address only part of the problem.

It is true that Iran might someday lob several of its new missiles at Israel’s cities after they have been armed with nuclear warheads. That would devastate Israel and might kill tens or hundreds of thousands depending on the size of the devices exploded. But missiles can be traced back to their launch points within seconds, and devastating Israeli – not American – retaliatory attacks would be launched against Iran within hours. Thus, Iran might effectively destroy Israel, but Persian civilization would almost certainly come to an end that day.

Given the assured devastation that would follow is it likely that Iran would go down that path? The real problem lies in the possibility that the Iranians or North Koreans or Pakistanis might allow a non-state terrorist organization to have a nuclear device that would be smuggled into Israel – or downtown Manhattan – with no trace-back being possible.

When a smuggled bomb goes off – against whom do you retaliate? Should there be an announced policy of deterrence simultaneously directed at all “rogue” regimes? Something like: “Alright, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan – if an American city is attacked with nuclear weapons, there will be swift retaliation against all of you.”

It was in light of this problem that the eradication of Saddam’s Iraq regime was so important, for the United States eliminated one of the more significant states that had a long track record of working with and harboring international terrorist organizations. Things have been difficult in Iraq since 2003, but we clearly have one fewer terror accomplice state to worry about now.

Mrs. Clinton has started an important public discussion, but it is astounding that in the six years since 9/11 very little has been done by the United States government to advance our thinking about multi-level deterrence in an age of jihadist and state-sponsored terror. This is especially surprising if one can remember the prodigious body of work that grew out of the Cold War addressing the problem of deterring nuclear war. Entire institutions like the Rand Corporation were created to examine those dire threats. Deterring Soviet nuclear attack was taken seriously.

Unless I have missed something, there has been no similar effort since 9/11. Perhaps, the three presidential candidates can follow-up on Senator Clinton’s remark by telling us how they plan to deter the use of nuclear weapons against Israel, Europe, or the United States by an alliance, coalition, or temporary partnership of jihadists and nuclear capable states.

He was appointed a Cardinal at a very young age – 46. Thus, he was one of the longest serving of the Cardinals. When he came to the leadership of the Pontifical Council on the Family about 20 years ago, he convened successive meetings to examine the latest knowledge in demographics, sex education, morality, and bioethics. He also began the practice of holding World Meetings of Families every 3 years.

One of his achievements was producing the Lexicon. This book, by multiple authors, examined “ambiguous and debatable terms regarding family life and ethical questions” that anti-life and anti-family forces use internationally to advance their agenda.

Cardinal Lopez Trujillo was a leader not of Catholics only, but of all people of good will who support the natural family founded upon the marriage of one man and one woman. He enthusiastically supported the pro-family efforts of non-Catholic Christians, and collaborated with them, and with religious believers of other faiths, in the great work of promoting and protecting the family. His leadership will be sorely missed.

Last night, eHarmony released a statement retracting the article and apologizing to its readers. We fully accept the apology and are greatly encouraged that the statement calls the article "completely inconsistent" with the relationship service that they offer to their members.

After posting the Worldnetdaily.com op-ed, I did more research on Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony. I found that he has made past statements opposing sex outside of marriage. An article from the May 18, 2005 edition of USA Today noted Dr. Warren's opposition to premarital sex because it "clouds decisions" in dating relationships. I believe that eHarmony can continue to expand its market and maintain its brand name reputation by holding firm to the values that have made it so successful.

eHarmony's members would further benefit by a conversation about why this behavior is "inconsistent" with the company's mission statement. For example, Dr. Warren could explain his opposition to sex outside of marriage and engage in a dialogue with his readers about the dangers associated with pre-marital sex and cohabitation. Cohabitation has been a stealth killer of marriage on two levels. Cohabitation is a cancer at the front end by diverting tens of millions of people from getting married at all. There were 21 million never married Americans in 1970 but three times as many in 2006. Those who cohabit are 50% more likely to divorce than those who never live together. The "Navigating the One Night Stand" article encourages this pattern. However, thorough marriage preparation with an inventory test and mentorship by an older couple can provide an amazing 97% track record of success. Mike and Harriet McManus are a couple leading the way to reverse these troubling statistics. Mike and Harriet are founders of Marriage Savers and authors of the new book Living Together: Myths, Risks, and Answers. They would make excellent contributors to the eHarmony advice website.

Some of eHarmony's readers may not agree with Dr. Warren's stance on premarital sex - but I think they would appreciate and respect eHarmony for remaining grounded in its determination to fulfill its mission to "help couples achieve stronger, healthier and happier marriages." Premarital sex does exactly the opposite by undermining - and yes - "clouding decisions." Promoting the healthiest and most beneficial outcome which is abstinence until marriage would help eHarmony make great strides toward achieving the goals of their mission statement.

However, most importantly, I thank eHarmony for recognizing its mistake and making it clear that they wish to remain in the values-matching service business.