It's pretty obvious the word "conservative" means something different to the editors at the London Telegraph than it does to me. As I read through the list, it was readily apparent that they recognize no distinction between real conservatives and neocons- and, as evidenced by their choice as the most influential "conservative" in the United States, they don't know the difference between a liberal and a conservative, either.
Their choice as the most influential conservative? Rudy Giuliani. That's right, a pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control liberal is the most influential American conservative.
The failure to distinguish notwithstanding, the ratings themselves are laughable. I don't like Bill O'Reilly, but having him at #82 and Glenn Beck at #18 is patently absurd. Ron Paul made the list at #96, with Chuck Norris checking in 25 spots ahead of the Congressman.
The liberal list is a little more feasible, but George Soros at 15 is insane. Through his MoveOn.org and other progressive/socialist organizations, Soros basically controls the Democratic Party. At least they put Ah-nold on this list- although I'm not sure why Lieberman is listed among the Conservatives.
For a good laugh, you can see both lists in full here.
Showing posts with label leftist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leftist. Show all posts
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Higher Education or Brainwashing?
According to the University of Delaware, I'm a racist. If you're white, so are you. Don't bother trying to argue otherwise, you're a racist. We're so racist that we invented racism, and no one but us can be racist.
All dorm students are required to attend the brainwashing sessions, and "treatment" is available for those wishing to be further brainwashed, so that they may hate the white race as much as the multiculturalists do.
Apparently Sistah Souljah rides again.
-------------------------------------
University to students: 'All whites are racist'
Mandatory program 'treats' politically incorrect attitudes
Posted: October 30, 2007
9:35 p.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
©2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.
"Somehow, the University of Delaware seems terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience – the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech," said a letter from Samantha Harris, director of legal and public advocacy for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to university President Patrick Harker.
The organization cited excerpts from the university's Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
The education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')."
The "education" regarding racism is just one of the subjects that students are required to adopt as part of their University of Delaware experience, too, FIRE noted.
The "shocking program of ideological reeducation," which the school itself defines as a "treatment" for students' incorrect attitudes and beliefs, is nothing less than "Orwellian," FIRE said.
The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students "to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism."
"FIRE is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students' rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech," the organization said.
On a foundation blog, a student noted that one residence assistant told students, "Not to scare anyone or anything, but these are MANDATORY!!" And the training program for those who indoctrinate students includes the order: "A researcher must document that the treatment/intervention was faithfully applied (ex: specific lesson plans were delivered to every student, etc.)."
Further, the school requires "a systemic change" as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: "Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL."
"The University of Delaware's residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students' private beliefs," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional."
According to university materials, RAs are instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity awarness? What was the lesson?"
"Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA's 'worst' one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having 'diversity shoved down her throat,'" FIRE said.
This particular student responded to the question, "When did you discover your sexual identity?" with the terse: "That is none of your damn business," FIRE said.
Requirements for students include: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality," FIRE said.
The foundation said students even are "pressured or even required" to make social statements that meet with the school's approval.
"The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students' basic rights, but for students themselves," Lukianoff said. "The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has."
A spokesman for the school, contacted by WND, said he was not ready to make a statement about the situation right away.
But the foundation's letter to Harker noted, "we have never encountered a more systematic assault upon the individual liberty, dignity, privacy, and autonomy of university students than this program," which "requires students to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues."
"Such utter contempt for the autonomy and free agency of others is the hallmark of totalitarianism and has no place in any free society, let alone at a public university in the state of Delaware," the letter said.
Especially alarming, Harris told WND, is that the school defines learning specifically as "attitudinal or behavioral changes," not acquiring any sort of knowledge and ability.
Such thinking "represents a distorted idea of 'education' that one would more easily associate with a Soviet prison camp than with an American institution of higher education," FIRE said. "As another example, after an investigation showed that males demonstrated 'a higher degree of resistance to educational efforts,' the Rodney complex chose to hire 'strong male RAs.' Each such RA 'combats male residents' concepts of traditional male identity,' in order to 'ensure the delivery of the curriculum at the same level as in the female floors.' This language is disturbingly reminiscent of a pivotal scene from George Orwell's '1984,' in which the protagonist's captors tell him that 'The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them.'"
No small danger, FIRE noted, is being presented to the university through such apparent constitutional violations. "Simply put, the residence life education program is a legal minefield," the group said.
One student reacted to the indoctrination with rebellion. On the FIRE blog, he wrote:
"Take the issue of homosexuality, and the rights that should or should not be associated with it. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and is a sin against God. As such, I cannot accept it as a legitimate lifestyle. While I accept homosexuals as people, I do not accept their choice as right, and subsequently I do not think that homosexual couples should be given marital rights. I accept that others do not hold the same views as me. But it is wrong that under the Residence Life curriculum and school mandated curriculum that I should made to feel guilty for my views. … It is not the school's right to try to convince me to embrace the values that Residence Life has chosen. Essentially, if I do not change my views, I will be labeled by my RA as not embracing diversity, and not accepting of certain groups, and thus my RA will try all the harder to change me. This is not the school's job, or right."
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
All dorm students are required to attend the brainwashing sessions, and "treatment" is available for those wishing to be further brainwashed, so that they may hate the white race as much as the multiculturalists do.
Apparently Sistah Souljah rides again.
-------------------------------------
University to students: 'All whites are racist'
Mandatory program 'treats' politically incorrect attitudes
Posted: October 30, 2007
9:35 p.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
©2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.
"Somehow, the University of Delaware seems terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience – the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech," said a letter from Samantha Harris, director of legal and public advocacy for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to university President Patrick Harker.
The organization cited excerpts from the university's Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
The education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')."
The "education" regarding racism is just one of the subjects that students are required to adopt as part of their University of Delaware experience, too, FIRE noted.
The "shocking program of ideological reeducation," which the school itself defines as a "treatment" for students' incorrect attitudes and beliefs, is nothing less than "Orwellian," FIRE said.
The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students "to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism."
"FIRE is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students' rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech," the organization said.
On a foundation blog, a student noted that one residence assistant told students, "Not to scare anyone or anything, but these are MANDATORY!!" And the training program for those who indoctrinate students includes the order: "A researcher must document that the treatment/intervention was faithfully applied (ex: specific lesson plans were delivered to every student, etc.)."
Further, the school requires "a systemic change" as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: "Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL."
"The University of Delaware's residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students' private beliefs," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional."
According to university materials, RAs are instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity awarness? What was the lesson?"
"Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA's 'worst' one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having 'diversity shoved down her throat,'" FIRE said.
This particular student responded to the question, "When did you discover your sexual identity?" with the terse: "That is none of your damn business," FIRE said.
Requirements for students include: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality," FIRE said.
The foundation said students even are "pressured or even required" to make social statements that meet with the school's approval.
"The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students' basic rights, but for students themselves," Lukianoff said. "The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has."
A spokesman for the school, contacted by WND, said he was not ready to make a statement about the situation right away.
But the foundation's letter to Harker noted, "we have never encountered a more systematic assault upon the individual liberty, dignity, privacy, and autonomy of university students than this program," which "requires students to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues."
"Such utter contempt for the autonomy and free agency of others is the hallmark of totalitarianism and has no place in any free society, let alone at a public university in the state of Delaware," the letter said.
Especially alarming, Harris told WND, is that the school defines learning specifically as "attitudinal or behavioral changes," not acquiring any sort of knowledge and ability.
Such thinking "represents a distorted idea of 'education' that one would more easily associate with a Soviet prison camp than with an American institution of higher education," FIRE said. "As another example, after an investigation showed that males demonstrated 'a higher degree of resistance to educational efforts,' the Rodney complex chose to hire 'strong male RAs.' Each such RA 'combats male residents' concepts of traditional male identity,' in order to 'ensure the delivery of the curriculum at the same level as in the female floors.' This language is disturbingly reminiscent of a pivotal scene from George Orwell's '1984,' in which the protagonist's captors tell him that 'The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them.'"
No small danger, FIRE noted, is being presented to the university through such apparent constitutional violations. "Simply put, the residence life education program is a legal minefield," the group said.
One student reacted to the indoctrination with rebellion. On the FIRE blog, he wrote:
"Take the issue of homosexuality, and the rights that should or should not be associated with it. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and is a sin against God. As such, I cannot accept it as a legitimate lifestyle. While I accept homosexuals as people, I do not accept their choice as right, and subsequently I do not think that homosexual couples should be given marital rights. I accept that others do not hold the same views as me. But it is wrong that under the Residence Life curriculum and school mandated curriculum that I should made to feel guilty for my views. … It is not the school's right to try to convince me to embrace the values that Residence Life has chosen. Essentially, if I do not change my views, I will be labeled by my RA as not embracing diversity, and not accepting of certain groups, and thus my RA will try all the harder to change me. This is not the school's job, or right."
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Spin Continues
Last night on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill continued to spin the San Francisco Transvestite Communion story. He and Ralph Reed both talked about how this was an attack on Christianity and Catholicism by radicals homosexuals, and that the Catholic Church wasn't complicit in the blasphemy. Neither O'Reilly nor Reed could understand why the Archdiocese has been basically silent since the event. The answer is simple, gentlemen. This is a pro-gay Archbishop in a pro-gay diocese in what is becoming a pro-gay American Catholic Church. They not going to condemn that which they have been helping to orchestrate.
You can watch the dialogue between O'Reilly and the former head of the Christian Coalition at Christian Crisis on the Fox News website.
You can watch the dialogue between O'Reilly and the former head of the Christian Coalition at Christian Crisis on the Fox News website.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Mind Control in California
For the last couple years, GOP-types have been talking about amending the Constitution to allow Schwarzenegger to run for President. After reading the following article, if you're a Republican and would even consider voting for this guy to be President, you're dumber than a fence post.
This is political correctness gone to seed. Like the article says, if you're a parent in California, the State doesn't care what your values are. If this was happening anywhere else in the world, it would be called brainwashing (or at least forced indoctrination). Progressives are trying to convince you that the State is God, and knows far better what's good for your kids than you do.
_____________________________________________________________
From WorldNetDaily.com:
'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law banning anything perceived as negative to 'gays'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.
"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."
"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.
"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.
Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.
The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.
Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.
Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.
"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."
Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."
"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.
Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.
CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.
It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.
Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.
Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.
Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.
"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."
The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.
As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.
The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.
"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."
She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.
"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."
Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.
WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.
WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.
That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.
"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.
This is political correctness gone to seed. Like the article says, if you're a parent in California, the State doesn't care what your values are. If this was happening anywhere else in the world, it would be called brainwashing (or at least forced indoctrination). Progressives are trying to convince you that the State is God, and knows far better what's good for your kids than you do.
_____________________________________________________________
From WorldNetDaily.com:
'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law banning anything perceived as negative to 'gays'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.
"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."
"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.
"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.
Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.
The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.
Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.
Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.
"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."
Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."
"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.
Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.
CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.
It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.
Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.
Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.
Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.
"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."
The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.
As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.
The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.
"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."
She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.
"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."
Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.
WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.
WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.
That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.
"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A Scintilla of Hope for Higher Education
The following, from The Daily at the University of Washington, gives me some hope that all is not completely lost in our system of higher education- there are still at least some students who havent't drank the koolaid of the Left.
_______________________________________________________________
Mexican claims to U.S. soil historically unfounded
October 8, 2007
By James Foxcurran
College campuses most often use the negative terms “imperialism” and “colonialism” to describe European and American history. Meanwhile, in 21st century North America, our southern neighbor is being granted moral legitimacy for the same behavior.
Mexican immigrants are now present in the Southwestern United States with a population percentage they have never enjoyed at any other time in history.
While defendants are saying it’s just the natural process of the Mexicans moving back onto land that really belongs to them and that the Hollywood demonstrations should be a source of conventional wisdom, history is being overlooked.
Mexico had barely colonized most of the Southwestern United States when it became U.S. territory in 1848. Spain, then Mexico, merely held imperial sway over Indian territories.
In 1835, Texas had about 3,500 Spanish-speaking residents, compared with almost 30,000 Anglo-American settlers, according to Ray Allen Billington, in his book The Far Western Frontier: 1830-1860.
In California, there were about 4,000 to 7,000 Spanish-speaking residents in the 1840s. The vast majority of the population was still Indian. Scattered missions, pueblos and presidios represented most of the Mexican presence in the area, which is why it was so easy for the United States to seize the area during the Mexican-American war, according to “History of French America” by Gilles Harvard and Cecile Vidal.
Meanwhile, in 1803, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, there were 40,000 to 50,000 French-speaking residents west of the Mississippi River between Missouri and Washington state.
This number tripled to quadrupled by 1850. However, there is no modern political constituency for this group, therefore the story is apparently not worth telling.
The only state that has always had a majority Spanish-speaking population is New Mexico, with 44,000 Spanish-speaking residents in 1830. Since the Spanish were the first to explore the Southwest, their geographic terms are on the map every place they stopped to relieve themselves.
These vestiges are often used to justify the massive Mexican colonization currently unfolding, in spite of the fact that it is actually the first wave of Mexican colonization, not the second.
History is often revised to reflect the current situation rather than the facts. This is exactly what is happening with the American Southwest and the inflation of Mexican claims to the land there.
This historical revisionism clearly has a political motivation to justify and legitimize the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants and to discredit efforts to respect our border and immigration laws.
As former Rep. J.D. (R-Ariz.) Hayworth said in the film Border Wars, “The Left sees cheap votes, and the Right sees cheap labor, so you have the perfect storm.”
While one certainly can’t stereotype all persons of Mexican immigrants, there is a distinction between Mexican-American families who have citizenship and roots in the United States, and an illegal alien of a foreign nation who is violating and evading federal laws.
While illegal immigration is unacceptable, it is important to have sympathy for the migrants.
The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, working with the border patrol is serving a heroic function that is saving Mexican and American lives in large quantities. I don’t see any Leftists sweating in the Arizona desert, saving illegal Mexican migrants from dying of dehydration and starvation.
The only people that have decisively responded to this human rights tragedy are the groups that Leftists despise and routinely slander.
Mexicans are gaining considerable political power and forcing politicians of both parties to shy away from defending the border and enforcing immigration laws.
A Zogby’s poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.”
This was on display last year with the massive marches of Mexican citizens waving Mexican flags in American cities. If this isn’t blatant colonization, with ulterior imperialist motives, I don’t know what is.
[Reach contributing writer James Foxcurran at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
_______________________________________________________________
Mexican claims to U.S. soil historically unfounded
October 8, 2007
By James Foxcurran
College campuses most often use the negative terms “imperialism” and “colonialism” to describe European and American history. Meanwhile, in 21st century North America, our southern neighbor is being granted moral legitimacy for the same behavior.
Mexican immigrants are now present in the Southwestern United States with a population percentage they have never enjoyed at any other time in history.
While defendants are saying it’s just the natural process of the Mexicans moving back onto land that really belongs to them and that the Hollywood demonstrations should be a source of conventional wisdom, history is being overlooked.
Mexico had barely colonized most of the Southwestern United States when it became U.S. territory in 1848. Spain, then Mexico, merely held imperial sway over Indian territories.
In 1835, Texas had about 3,500 Spanish-speaking residents, compared with almost 30,000 Anglo-American settlers, according to Ray Allen Billington, in his book The Far Western Frontier: 1830-1860.
In California, there were about 4,000 to 7,000 Spanish-speaking residents in the 1840s. The vast majority of the population was still Indian. Scattered missions, pueblos and presidios represented most of the Mexican presence in the area, which is why it was so easy for the United States to seize the area during the Mexican-American war, according to “History of French America” by Gilles Harvard and Cecile Vidal.
Meanwhile, in 1803, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, there were 40,000 to 50,000 French-speaking residents west of the Mississippi River between Missouri and Washington state.
This number tripled to quadrupled by 1850. However, there is no modern political constituency for this group, therefore the story is apparently not worth telling.
The only state that has always had a majority Spanish-speaking population is New Mexico, with 44,000 Spanish-speaking residents in 1830. Since the Spanish were the first to explore the Southwest, their geographic terms are on the map every place they stopped to relieve themselves.
These vestiges are often used to justify the massive Mexican colonization currently unfolding, in spite of the fact that it is actually the first wave of Mexican colonization, not the second.
History is often revised to reflect the current situation rather than the facts. This is exactly what is happening with the American Southwest and the inflation of Mexican claims to the land there.
This historical revisionism clearly has a political motivation to justify and legitimize the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants and to discredit efforts to respect our border and immigration laws.
As former Rep. J.D. (R-Ariz.) Hayworth said in the film Border Wars, “The Left sees cheap votes, and the Right sees cheap labor, so you have the perfect storm.”
While one certainly can’t stereotype all persons of Mexican immigrants, there is a distinction between Mexican-American families who have citizenship and roots in the United States, and an illegal alien of a foreign nation who is violating and evading federal laws.
While illegal immigration is unacceptable, it is important to have sympathy for the migrants.
The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, working with the border patrol is serving a heroic function that is saving Mexican and American lives in large quantities. I don’t see any Leftists sweating in the Arizona desert, saving illegal Mexican migrants from dying of dehydration and starvation.
The only people that have decisively responded to this human rights tragedy are the groups that Leftists despise and routinely slander.
Mexicans are gaining considerable political power and forcing politicians of both parties to shy away from defending the border and enforcing immigration laws.
A Zogby’s poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.”
This was on display last year with the massive marches of Mexican citizens waving Mexican flags in American cities. If this isn’t blatant colonization, with ulterior imperialist motives, I don’t know what is.
[Reach contributing writer James Foxcurran at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
