In this Edition:
Supremes debating ‘very existence’ of America
UK Government Source: Teachers May Face Firing for Refusing to Teach Homosexual and Lesbian Marriage
Administrator’s Note on following articles:
Why Scouts are rethinking homosexual policy
Boy Scouts shouldn’t abandon morality: Column
How will homosexuality change the Boy Scouts?
KNIGHT: The allure of the lie
Think Anti-Semitism is Limited to the Arab World? Think Again
Where’s the Outrage on Morsi’s Hate?
The National Intelligence Council Predicts a Very Transhuman Future by 2030
At stake in two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is the “very existence” of America, according to attorneys who have filed briefs in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the California state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“The natural family is fundamental to our very existence,” Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said as his organization filed friend-of-the-court briefs.
“Thriving societies need healthy children who grow up into responsible citizens,” he said. “Healthy children require committed parents who will sacrifice their own desires for the well-being of their children. This is all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one woman.”
His organization filed two briefs in U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law says that for federal purposes, only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized.
The other case is Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s decision by voters to define in their state Constitution marriage as a relationship only between one man and one woman.
The decision to overrule the voters’ marriage definition in California came from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who retired shortly after the case and became open about his own homosexuality.
“We are at a pivotal point in history,” Staver said. “Nothing will define the future of America more than the court’s decision on marriage.”
Liberty Counsel, which was one of many pro-family organizations filing arguments on behalf of marriage, said the high court previously indicated in Baker v. Nelson the U.S. Constitution does not grant a right for same-sex couples to marry.
“Common sense and a quick read of the Constitution say there is no such right to same-sex marriage,” the organization said.
The cases are expected to be argued in the spring.
Others that filed arguments include:
- Mike Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He contends the First Amendment allows state votes such as California’s, which includes the choice to uphold traditional Western concepts of marriage and family. He argues the nation repeatedly has enacted laws supported by religious and moral arguments, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.
- Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said the power of the homosexual lobby in America, a movement aided by Obama, is strong. “CWA’s briefs focus on the undeniable political power of the homosexual movement and why they should never be considered a ‘suspect class,’” she said. “Both briefs paint a very clear picture showing we are dealing with one of the most powerful movements in history, even though it represents a very minute section of the population. “The half-a-million members of Concerned Women for America are fully aware that our religious liberties and the very fabric of our nation are at stake on this issue,” she said.
- CWFA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute also submitted a brief “highlighting one of the most comprehensive studies on the effects of homosexual parenting on children.” The study “showed that compared to adults from married-mom-and-dad homes, those raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories and those raised by homosexual fathers had negative outcomes in 19 of the 40 categories.” Janice Crouse, senior fellow of BLI said, “The study simply makes clear that the legislature has more than a compelling interest in protecting marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It is simply the best, most stable, most profitable environment for children and, therefore, for our nation’s future.”
- Hundreds of thousands of people also were represented in a brief filed on behalf of supporters of the Manhattan Declaration. Chicago attorney John Mauck said, “Natural law, the nature of the human person, and common sense provide ample reason to preserve marriage as it has always been understood. “He said his brief “sets out the natural law of the family unit, constitutional authority to establish what is best for the nation, and identifies social reasons to preserve male-female marriage. It thus shows that the historic institution of male-female families allows American children, families, and society to benefit from a firm foundation in the home, thus preserving strong future growth. The brief identifies societal circumstances around the world that have accepted homosexual marriage, resulting in a decline in societal function and a harsh increase in religious oppression.”
Between 1998 and 2012, there were 31 votes in 30 states on same-sex marriage, and in all but one, the voters supported traditional marriage. The exception was Arizona, where voters later approved a ban. In the 2012 election, however, flooded with money from pro-homosexual interests, four states voted in favor of same-sex marriage.
Justice Marvin Baxter of the California Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage, warned of the consequences of judicially ordering a change in the standard for marriage.
“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” he wrote for his court. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
UK Government Source: Teachers May Face Firing for Refusing to Teach
Homosexual and Lesbian Marriage
As Great Britain’s government prepares to vote on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, an official from the Secretary of State for Education’s office reportedly has expressed trepidation toward the bill, arguing that primary school teachers in the country could possibly lose their jobs if they do not teach about gay marriage in the classroom.
One unnamed senior source from the office of Michael Gove, who serves as the country’s current Secretary of State for Education, has recently said that ultimately the U.K. government is not in control, should a teacher lose their job for refusing to teach same-sex marriage, and the case would ultimately go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, where the European Parliament is located.
“We have had legal advice, the problem is that there is this inherent uncertainty about such matters,” the source told The Telegraph in a Jan. 25 report.
“These are all under the control of nine guys in Strasbourg, it is just fundamentally uncertain because Britain isn’t in control of this,” the source added.
Additionally, those critical of the upcoming same-sex marriage bill argue that hospital chaplains and other people in authority may be faced with difficult decisions when their conscience conflicts with their work protocol.
These statements come after human rights specialist Aidan O’Neill of the Queen’s Counsel argued on behalf of the Coalition For Marriage, a group that opposes same-sex marriage legalization, that he believes teachers, hospital or prison chaplains would be negatively affected by the legalization of the bill.
However, in response to these worries, Maria Miller, Secretary of Culture and Great Britain’s equalities minister, recently stated that teachers and the Church of England will not be put in a compromising position due to the same-sex marriage bill.
Miller told BBC Radio Four’s “Today” program that teachers will be able to tell their students that different religions have different beliefs when it comes to same-sex marriage, but they still must teach same-sex marriage in a “balanced way,” regardless of their beliefs.
“Teachers are able to, and entitled to, express their views about same-sex marriage and there is no requirement at all for them to promote it,” Miller said.
“But obviously we wouldn’t expect teachers to be offensive or discriminate in any way about anything,” she added.
Also recently, Education Secretary Gove has issued a formal reassurance that teachers will not be persecuted for their traditional marriage beliefs.
Great Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed his full support of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the country, to the chagrin of religious and conservative party members.
In an attempt to assuage the Church of England and the Church in Wales, which worry they will face discrimination lawsuits for refusing to preside over same-sex marriage ceremonies, the government has enlisted a set of legal protections, known as the “quadruple lock,” which will reportedly protect the churches from any legal retribution.
On Friday, Jan. 25, the British government published the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill, and told lawmakers that they will vote on it next month.
Ken Pullen, administrator of “A Crooked Path” website – Friday, February 1, 2013
Want to know how perverted, evil, and corrupted we have become as a people? Want to finally face that evil and perversion and stop using excuses, euphemisms, and pretending uplifting evil is doing the right thing?
The Boy Scouts of America have an oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
And they have a mission statement on their website:
The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.
And they have a law:
A Scout is:Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
Brave, Clean, Reverent
Elevating homosexuality is NOT a civil rights or discrimination issue as all the very visible and vocal mouthpieces of evil proclaim it is. It is a moral issue. And ALL adult, intelligent, refined, educated people had better be DISCRIMINATING in their lives or their lives will be nothing but a ball of confusion. A mish mosh of nothingness and not having any foundation on which to build a life, to make sound decisions. We need to be discriminating people. Not in the context of making slaves of people, having people ride in the back of the bus, or to be treated as third-rate human beings – but we also must not then make the mistake of elevating evil and perversion.
Less than a week ago I saw on my local news channel an area boy scout proclaim how the scouts need to be “inclusive” and not “discriminate” and how they need to allow homosexuals into their organization. And then immediately after proclaiming that he raised his hand, placed his fingers in the scouts oath formation, and recited the above boy scouts oath.
We’ve become so lost, so consumed with evil, so mistaken’ we’re walking in such darkness and accepting, believing, and then reciting so many lies the young man never got the connection between the immoral act of homosexuality, going against God, being disobedient to God and country by embracing and elevating the destructive immorality of homosexuality. He has been brainwashed in the evil New Age / politically incorrect language to the point he can no longer comprehend his own words he utters!
What a lost, diseased, and evil people we have become. How perverted we have become. And there are and will be dire consequences. When we fail at obeying God and prefer to do the bidding of vile and evil men who are nothing but the emissaries and minions of Satan? There will be dire consequences for all in this lost and perverted nation allowing homosexuality to permeate EVERYTHING and be such a constant, unrelenting pushed agenda by the forces of evil. And those now professing to be on the side of right, and relenting to evil? If anyone knowing better gives in and serves their agenda leading to death through immorality and disobedience to God and God’s Word there will be deadly consequences for each individual siding with, and serving that evil no matter how much they lie and call it progress, or rights, or good!
And this elevating of homosexuality and the point we now find ourselves in? This is upon the so-called “good people” the so-called “Christian people” in this nation for their lack of awareness, their apathy, their selfishness, and their being blind to the cancerous growing homosexual agenda in America over these past 40 years. They all shrugged and said “It’ll never amount to anything.” They thought to themselves “America will never allow homosexuals and lesbians to marry! How could that ever happen!? Not here!”
And due to avarice, hubris, perversion, corruption, APATHY, lack of awareness, serving the lies instead of the truth, being worldly rather than spiritual, allowing New Age doctrine to infiltrate and infect every institution in America from government, to corporations, to schools, to churches…we now have what we wrought.
Homosexuality is been permitted to permeate EVERYTHING in our naiton. And we’ve allowed the evil homosexual, lesbian, and trans-gender miltant machine to cross this nation and devour and have cower every moral fiber it encounters.
We ought to be more than ashamed of ourselves and what we’ve premitted and brought about. We should all be much more than ashamed.
The Boy Scouts of America’s apparent decision to reverse a century-old policy to bar homosexuals from its ranks coincides with a sudden drop in major corporate funding that began last summer after a gay-rights blogger for the Huffington Post published a collaborative report that named the donors and chastised them for violating their own policy of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
At the same time, two prominent board members – including an adviser to the Obama White House – were carrying out a vow to change the policy from within.
Published in collaboration with The American Independent, the report called out Intel, United Parcel Service, United Way, Merck and others for contributing to an organization with a stated policy of banning homosexuals from membership.
The report came less than two months after the BSA affirmed its policy at the conclusion of a two-year examination of the issue by a committee of volunteers convened by national BSA leaders.
The Boy Scouts’ national headquarters in Texas said it is not granting interviews at the moment but invited questions submitted by email. Questions posed by WND were not answered, however.
At the time of the September report, shipping giant UPS insisted the Scouts’ policy would not impact its donations, which totaled close to $167,000 in 2010, the most recent year for which data was available for most companies.
However, bolstered by a petition drive by the homosexual-rights group Scouts for Equality, Intel – which led the way in 2010 corporate giving with $700,000 – announced that month it would stop funding Scout troops that adhere to the ban.
UPS followed Intel’s lead and also cut off its funding.
In December, Merck issued a statement saying it could not “continue to provide support to an organization with a policy that is contrary to one of our core beliefs.”
“We remain ready and willing to re-consider our funding position in the event that the BSA were to revise its policy,” the statement said.
At the moment, the Verizon Foundation, which donated more than $300,000 in 2010 is facing heat as more than 70,000 people have signed a petition asking the corporation to stop funding the Scouts.
The American Interest report said 23 of the top 50 corporate foundations, ranked by the Foundation Center in terms of total charitable giving, gave at least $10,000 each to the Boy Scouts in 2010.
Combined, they donated about $3.6 million.
The Boy Scouts, with more than 2.7 million youth members and more than 1 million adult members, reaffirmed its policy on homosexuals July 17 upon the recommendation of an 11-member committee that had been meeting since 2010.
The policy states: “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”
But last week, the national office signaled a reversal ahead of its national board meeting next week.
Speaking for the BSA National Council, Director of Public Relations Deron Smith explained the organization is discussing allowing, the local, chartered organizations that oversee Scouting to establish their own requirements.
BSA members and parents “would be able to choose a local unit which best meets the needs of their families,” Smith said.
He said BSA leadership “has always been in an ongoing dialogue with the Scouting family to determine what is in the best interest of the organization and the young people we serve.”
Under the proposed policy, the BSA, he explained, “would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs.”
The BSA has more than 290 local councils nationwide that oversee more than 116,000 local organizations. Individual Scout troops are sponsored by religious and civic organizations.
While there have been major cuts in funding in recent months since the Scouts reaffirmed their policy, the organization has faced boycott and censure for more than a decade, particularly since the U.S. Supreme Court sided with them on the issue in 2000.
In 2002, for example, the United Way chapter of Ventura County, Calif., stopped its allocations to the Scouts after funding the group for 57 years.
The resistance also has come from within as many homosexual scouts and family members, and some local councils, have engaged in activism.
As WND reported in 2003, the Scouts’ Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia drew national attention when it added “sexual orientation” to its policy of nondiscrimination.
In contrast to its current stance, the national office at that time was resolute.
In an interview with WND, BSA national spokesman Gregg Shields declared: “No council is allowed to depart from Boy Scouts policy.”
“We have a national policy that has been in existence since we were formed,” he said in 2003. “The Boy Scouts have taught traditional, American family values. A known or openly avowed homosexual would not be accepted for membership nor would an atheist.”
‘Change from within’
Amid the spotlight on major donors, the prominent homosexual-rights group Human Rights Campaign has warned it plans to downgrade its non-discrimination ratings for corporations that continue to give the BSA financial support.
Meanwhile, two corporate CEOs on BSA’s national board, Randall Stephenson of AT&T, who is next in line to become BSA national chairman, and James Turley of Ernst & Young have said they would work to end the ban.
Last June, Turley vowed he “will work from within to seek a change” to the BSA policy.
“As I have done in leading Ernst & Young to being a most inclusive organization, I intend to continue to work from within the BSA board to actively encourage dialogue and sustainable progress,” Turley said.
Stephenson was praised for publicly opposing the Boy Scouts’ policy and explained he would remain on the board, which he’s in line to lead in 2014, because he could have more influence.
Turley was nominated to President Obama’s Export Council in 2010, and has been a promoter of Obama’s economic policy.
Turley and his wife, Lynne, were guests at a state dinner hosted by President Obama for British Prime Minister David Cameron at the White House last March.
As with previous U.S. presidents going back to President William Howard Taft in 1910, Obama became the honorary president of the BSA shortly after taking office in 2009.
His induction, however, was conducted behind closed doors in the Oval Office with no notice in any official communication.
Obama also did not attend the BSA’s 100th Anniversary Gala in Washington, D.C. in 2010.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has pointed to attacks on Scout funding sources by activist homosexuals as a major influence on the organizations decision to reconsider its policy.
“The Boy Scouts of America board would be making a serious mistake to bow to the strong-arm tactics of LGBT activists and open the organization to homosexuality,” he said.
“What has changed in terms of the Boy Scouts’ concern for the well-being of the boys under their care? Or is this not about the well-being of the Scouts, but the funding for the organization?”
Perkins emphasized the Boy Scouts has been “a force for moral integrity and leadership in the United States.”
“Sadly, their principled stances have marked them as a target for harassment by homosexual activists and corporations such as UPS, which are working to pressure the Boy Scouts into abandoning their historic values.”
Boy Scouts shouldn’t abandon morality: Column
Allowing homosexual leaders would destroy the Boy Scouts, a bastion of traditional values.
When I was a Boy Scout, we learned many useful skills — everything from tying knots to filleting a fish. I also learned about the chaos that can be unleashed in a Boy Scout troop when one member is gay.
Troop leaders had a problem when nobody wanted to share a tent with one of my fellow Scouts after he ignored requests that he stop touching other boys. After much disruption, he was asked to leave. Soon, such an act of responsibility could become far more complicated if leaders have to deal with the sensitive subject of homosexuality without protective and simple guidance from the national Boy Scouts of America.
Next week, the BSA board will vote on whether to overturn the Scouts’ ban on openly gay members and leaders. They are describing it as a matter of local choice, but it would be a prelude to surrender. Embattled local councils and troops would lose the national policy shield, and judges could determine that sexual morality is no longer a core value of the organization, an issue key to protecting Boy Scouts’ First Amendment freedom of association.
The new policy, as BSA spokesman Deron Smith puts it in a news release, allows local groups “that oversee and deliver Scouting (to) accept membership and select leaders consistent with their organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs.”
In other words, liberal churches and other sponsors that have jumped the shark on sexual morality could now allow openly gay men and boys into Scout troops. The idea that homosexual behavior is not acceptable would no longer be a part of the organization’s message and thus, according to the Supreme Court’s reasoning, no longer allow local troops to follow the old policy. This could destroy the Boy Scouts, a bastion of traditional values.
To many parents, the issue is not just about the right to express disapproval of homosexual conduct. Boy Scouts, like Penn State in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, learned hard lessons about failing to protect boys. In Scout’s Honor, a 1994 book, investigative reporter Patrick Boyle revealed decades of cases in which hundreds of Scout leaders abused boys.
Some point to pedophilia, attraction to prepubescent children, as the sole cause of the abuse. But, for the Boy Scouts, males being attracted to other males is a key part of the issue, both from a moral and a practical point of view. As with the Catholic Church’s scandal, many of the victims were young men, not children.
Just months after the BSA completed a two-year review of the policy on gays and agreed to keep it in place, courts continue to uphold the Boy Scouts’ right to express its moral viewpoint. Based in part on the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision upholding the BSA policy, the Scouts just won another legal victory when the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a decision to evict them from San Diego’s Balboa Park after an ACLU lawsuit.
The Scout oath requires boys and leaders to be “morally straight.” This needed no explanation in saner times. The Scout leadership needs to stay true to its values and ignore corporate pressure from within and cultural pressure from without. The only way that will happen is if BSA board members get an earful from local Scout leaders and parents who won’t let Boy Scouts walk away from its long-held principles.
Robert Knight is an Eagle Scout and Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union, which has filed friend of the court briefs in all major First Amendment cases involving the Boy Scouts.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.
This column was updated to reflect the version that ran in USA TODAY’s print edition on Jan. 30, 2012.
So your 11-year old Boy Scout may go on that camp out next summer with a new Scout leader, one allowed to declare himself “gay” to his troop under a permissive rule change being unveiled by the Boy Scouts. What happened to their oath to be morally straight? It’s apparently being discarded in the new progressive Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
This whole new ballgame will come with many surprises. It’s about more than the adults in charge and potential abuse. The kids themselves bring a whole new threat level, mostly to other kids. Does the BSA have a grasp on how serious this could become? Parents and churches are likely to flee in droves.
Well, at least the lawyers in the country will get more business.
What might this mean for your son? First, there’s the long-standing concern about pedophilia. The Boy Scouts have a policy against adult abuse, and, of course, the U.S. has laws in all states against child molestation. So the BSA may foolishly think this removes the threat. Apparently they are being persuaded inaccurately that homosexuality is a neutral, inborn orientation. And as we’ve heard the argument many times, there are supposedly more child molesters of both males and females who identify as heterosexual than homosexual.
The Scouts’ undisclosed files may show many cases where boys were molested by adult males who did not identify openly as homosexuals.
But this begs the questions of defining “homosexual,” defining “pedophilia,” defining “heterosexual” and defining “consent.” Labels aren’t always adopted to fit one’s behavior, and definitions are squishy in an America of unstable sexual mores. Because of that, the BSA has really stepped in it.
It’s one thing to violate a known standard. It’s quite another to take advantage of a redefined standard with blurred lines, giving potential abusers much more ready access to boys, no matter what they have to call themselves to do so.
This new policy introduces homosexual attraction into the troop environment where previously sex separation kept that complication out of the character development of these young men. If homosexual identity is allowed, you also open the door to same-sex flirting, innuendo, “dating.” What about the 25- year-old homosexual Scout leader and a 14-year-old Scout? What about the 14-year-old Scout and a 12-year-old? What about two openly homosexual adult leaders who display their attraction for each other in front of all the boys? And so on. And with males, attraction quickly goes to the sexual level. But now, that’s OK.
The developing young man is often vulnerable, some more than others. A now openly homosexual Scout leader may show special interest in your son and become a hero in his eyes. The confusion your son may feel could be enormous. In spite of the first aid knowledge, camping experience, coaching ability or leadership qualities this “gay” leader shows, all the boys will still know him by this identity: “I’m a guy attracted to other guys.” It’s something the Bible (along with our common sense) tells us is immoral and unnatural. But your son is going to be manipulated emotionally by the huge lie of its seeming respectability.
Christian parents better decide: Do you really want your son to believe the word of God on this, or is God’s law dispensable? It’s one level of values-assault for your child to sit in the class of the openly homosexual sixth-grade teacher. But the guy who takes your son on a camp out is a whole other level of intimacy.
And then there are the other kids. No doubt the BSA assault files show evidence of boy-on-boy episodes, but now there will be a flood of new incidents. Some high school and middle school boys will declare themselves openly “gay” to their troop, and if the troop isn’t cool with that, here comes the brutal “gay” activist mob to arm-twist them into compliance.
After all, for over a decade, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, GLSEN, has been pushing kids at school to “out” themselves at younger and younger ages and form clubs to encourage this atrocity. GLSEN is likely to adopt this issue as its next attempt at legitimacy: Tell your Scout troop “who you are!” (i.e., you think sodomy among boys is a good thing.) And don’t let them get away with silence on this element of social justice, this “civil right” in your troop! Report those troops that don’t comply! After all, it’s a “discrimination” issue.
And so the vulgar and unhinged hordes from the Internet will be unleashed on the unprepared local United Methodist church-based troop leader, who will in most cases cave, grossly violating the protection he should be giving to the boys in his charge.
Like the ejection of the military ban on homosexual conduct, all this brings up new challenges, explosive ones. But unlike the military, these are children. God help us.
So will two 13-year-old boys in a troop who “like” each other be allowed to hold hands at meetings? To sleep in adjacent sleeping bags at a camp out? And then, what happens when inevitably some newly empowered homosexually declared youth puts the moves on a boy who finds it disgusting? Fights? Division, as friends take sides? Of course! These are boys.
Unlike school, that boy and his parents have the option to leave. But he may still have to encounter these same abusive kids at school. It’s not a fun thing to be labeled a “hate-filled bigot” or whatever new iteration of tradition-bashing is rolled out. Institutionalized intimidation and bullying, all in the name of sodomy, will be even more damaging than it currently is in the military.
Once again, children are sacrificed on the altar of progressive values.
My prayer is that the BSA will re-think all of this, that there are more of us with sense and real concern, than there are callous liberals, even those in powerful BSA board positions.
If not, it may be time for a new national replacement group of authentic grown-ups guiding boys into lives of genuine character. May God turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children and stop this nonsense.
KNIGHT: The allure of the lie
Cooked ‘studies’ and weasel words feed a compliant media
The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Illustration Benghazi by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as much in Wednesday’s congressional hearing on the Sept. 11 Benghazi killings. Pressed by Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson about the administration’s two weeks’ worth of lies about the attack that cost the lives of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya, Mrs. Clinton complained, “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
If you think about it, her answer calls into question any inquiry after the fact, including murder trials. Someone should have asked her: “So, lying to the American people is not a big deal, then?”
In a culture of lying, it probably doesn’t make much difference. Make no mistake. We are hip-deep in a culture of lying. It’s the coin of the realm for liberal politicians, the media and Hollywood, all of whom cover for each other. Since an accusation of lying amounts to fighting words, journalists reporting the lies tend to use softer terms, such as prevarication, dissembling, not forthcoming, not fully disclose, misleading, redirecting, etc.
Lying often is accomplished with euphemisms. Government spending is “investment.” Raising taxes is “revenue reform.” Torture is sanitized as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Global warming is morphing into “climate change” to accommodate obvious temperature departures from the warming scenario. Gambling is “gaming.” Defense of religious freedom is a “war on women.” There’s a slew of terms invented to validate sexual immorality. The sin of sodomy became homosexuality and then merely gay. Adultery became “finding oneself,” “open marriage” or “swinging.” Prostitutes are “commercial sex workers.” Two men — with no bride — are considered “married.” Pornography became “erotica.” Abortion — the killing of unborn children — is “choice.”
Then there’s the old standby that Mrs. Clinton employed: avoidance. She changed the subject and used pathos to cow her inquisitors, waxing emotionally about “those flag-draped caskets.” How dare they question her actions. I’m not saying she wasn’t genuinely moved, but it made the committee members look small just for doing their job.
After implausibly denying that she knew about emergency security requests from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other embassy personnel, she blamed “security professionals in the department” and then, indirectly — Congress. Budget-cutting had created a “culture of reaction.” Her people were “husbanding resources and trying to figure out how to do as much with as little as possible.”
Democrats, naturally, defended the administration and Mrs. Clinton. “Clearly, mistakes were made,” said New York Rep. Eliot L. Engel. Bad stuff happens, right? For those too young to remember, “mistakes were made” was one of Bill Clinton’s go-to phrases during the Monica Lewinsky affair. It was right up there with his pondering the meaning of the word “is.”
The culture of lying has become so entrenched in American political culture that any deviation is swiftly punished. People who question any part of the theory of man-caused global warming, for instance, are branded “deniers.” End of discussion. Question the junk science behind the “born gay” myth and you’re a “hater.” If you believe God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman, you’re not only a hater but a bigot. If you favor photo ID laws to thwart fraud, you want to “suppress the minority vote.” If you question the morality or wisdom of putting women into combat, you’re against “equality.”
Often, liberal policies are sustained by repeated citations of a single study or studies, however flawed.
In 1993, an article by Arthur Kellermann in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed that a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide 2.7 times. In an earlier study, he had claimed that gun ownership increased the risk of homicide 43 times, but later backed away from that. Both studies have major flaws, but they are the foundation of the liberal claim that if you own a gun, you’re more at risk than if you’re unarmed. What you don’t hear about in the media are the 1.5 million incidents annually in which guns are used to thwart criminals. The birth of the misleading term “assault weapon” is a story itself, as is conflating semi-automatic guns, which include nearly all legal firearms, with illegal automatic weapons, such as submachine guns.
In 2006, the George Soros-funded Brennan Center published a study, “Citizens Without Proof,” a survey of just under 1,000 people that claims that 25 percent of voting age minority Americans lack a photo ID. This is absurd. How do these people drive or buy a six-pack? Yet progressives (the current euphemism for liberals) cite it again and again to justify delaying or halting voter photo ID laws, ignoring studies by election officials showing microscopic numbers of minority voters lacking proper IDs.
One of the biggest lies in recent years is that there are no real biological differences between men and women — that masculinity and femininity are artificial social constructs. The latest fallout from this departure from reality is the Pentagon’s opening of the military to homosexuality and putting women into combat. We’re told that everyone in the armed forces thinks this is wonderful. Sure they do. It would be a career-ender in this culture of lying to say otherwise.
The culture of lying depends heavily on cooked studies, weasel words and a compliant media that parrot them without examination. It’s a house of cards that’s waiting for a gentle breeze of truth to blow it over. As G.K. Chesterton observed, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
A few hard questions had Mrs. Clinton on the defensive. A few more would have had her on the run.
Think Anti-Semitism is Limited to the Arab World? Think Again
Photo: Flickr/ Turbo Mi
First, Member of Parliament (MP) David Ward, a member of the Liberal Democrat party that is part of Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s governing coalition, said the following during Parliament’s preparations for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which took place on Sunday, January 27:
“Having visited Auschwitz twice – once with my family and once with local schools – I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”
As the above-linked article lays out, this is hardly Ward’s first public anti-Semitic statement. He has referred to Israel’s democratically elected government as an “apartheid regime,” and, during London’s hosting of the 2012 Olympics, encouraged anti-Israel protests at venues where Israeli athletes would be playing or participating in events.
Then, yesterday, the Sunday Times of London took the anti-Jewish invective to another level by publishing a disgusting cartoon showing a hook-nosed Prime Minister Netanyahu building a wall out of Arab body parts using blood as mortar. The depiction is, quite literally, ripped from Nazi-era propaganda. And yesterday was actually International Holocaust Remembrance Day. So the Sunday Times commemorated the Holocaust by giving voice to some of the hateful imagery that made the Holocaust possible.
With anti-Semitic acts on the rise in Europe (see this report from the Israeli government cited in today’s Daily Dispatch), it is beyond disgraceful that an elected official and a major media outlet would stoke the fire of Jew-hatred in such a way – and on a day set aside to remember the wages of that hatred.
Where’s the Outrage on Morsi’s Hate?
As we noted last week, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s attempt to explain his anti-Semitic and anti-American televised rant to a group of visiting American senators was that his claim that Israelis were “the descendants of apes and pigs” was taken out of context. That was bad enough but as it turns out the first reports about the meeting fell far short of conveying just how offensive Morsi’s rationalization of hate was. As Josh Rogin reported yesterday at Foreign Policy’s blog The Cable, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware who was at the meeting said the Morsi implied that Jewish control of the media was the reason why he was being called to account for his hate speech.
This calls into question not just the continuing U.S. aid to the Muslim Brotherhood government headed by Morsi but the determination of the senatorial delegation, including its leader John McCain, to continue their support for the flow of more than a billion dollars in American taxpayer money to a hatemonger. The details of the meeting make it hard to understand how McCain could continue to justify such American support when the explanation for the Morsi rant is actually worse than the original anti-Semitic smears.
According to Coons:
“He was attempting to explain himself … then he said, ‘Well, I think we all know that the media in the United States has made a big deal of this and we know the media of the United States is controlled by certain forces and they don’t view me favorably,’” Coons said.
The Cable asked Coons if Morsi specifically named the Jews as the forces that control the American media. Coons said all the senators believed the implication was obvious.
“He did not say [the Jews], but I watched as the other senators physically recoiled, as did I,” he said. “I thought it was impossible to draw any other conclusion.”
“The meeting then took a very sharply negative turn for some time. It really threatened to cause the entire meeting to come apart so that we could not continue,” Coons said.
Multiple senators impressed upon Morsi that if he was saying the criticisms of his comments were due to the Jews in the media, that statement was potentially even more offensive than his original comments from 2010.
“[Morsi] did not say the Jewish community was making a big deal of this, but he said something [to the effect] that the only conclusion you could read was that he was implying it,” Coons said. “The conversation got so heated that eventually Senator McCain said to the group, ‘OK, we’ve pressed him as hard as we can while being in the boundaries of diplomacy,’” Coons said. “We then went on to discuss a whole range of other topics.”
This raises some serious questions about both U.S. policy and the priorities of those who took part in the meeting.
One has to wonder why it is that a week went by without any of those present at the meeting calling out Morsi for this latest outrage. Did those who kept quiet about this, including McCain, think that Morsi raising the issue of unnamed groups — an obvious reference to Jews — manipulating the media was immaterial to the question of whether U.S. aid to Egypt should continue? Or did they decide that it was unhelpful to their goal of maintaining the U.S. embrace of the Brotherhood for this story to get out sooner?
This revelation makes it imperative that all those present clarify their positions about a policy that requires American taxpayers to go on funding a government that is beginning to rival Iran as a source of anti-Semitic invective. Under Morsi, Egypt is neither a U.S. ally nor a friend. It is a tyrannical regime that has not only subverted the promise of the Arab Spring but also has the potential to be a major source of instability in the region.
If Morsi wants to keep his American money, he’s going to have to do better than to blame his problems on the Jews. And if the senators who attended this meeting and the administration that is determined to keep coddling the Brotherhood wish to justify their position, they are going to have to explain to the American people how giving billions to Morsi is compatible with our values or interests.
The National Intelligence Council Predicts a Very Transhuman Future by
By the Vigilant Citizen
A soldier testing an exoskeleton prototype
The National Intelligence Council is a high-level agency best known for producing National Intelligence Estimates – forecasts predicting future trends and issues of the next fifteen years. These extensive reports are produced every election year and are directly delivered to the incoming President between Election Day and Inauguration Day. The latest NIC report released on December 2012 is called Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds (read it here) and discusses several issues such as the decline of the role of the United States as a global policeman and the rise of non-state actors in world politics. It also mentions another key issue: A fast-paced race towards transhumanism.
“Human Augmentation” is indeed considered a key issue in the next 15 years as new technologies will allow all kinds of modifications “ranging from implants and prosthetics to powered exoskeletons, human augmentation enhancing innate human abilities”. These augmentations would be used on soldiers, workers and anyone that can afford them, giving them “super-human” powers and capabilities, whether it be on a physical or a mental level.
Some might say: “That sounds cool VC, what is wrong with that? Why do you always say that it is wrong”. I personally never described transhumanism as being “right” or “wrong”, I don’t make these kinds of judgement calls. I however do have facts about the issue. First, transhumanism is undeniably being actively pushed by mass media and promoted as something that is necessary and inevitable in the future; Second, it is a logical continuation of the Luciferian philosophy held by the world elite where godhood and immortality is meant to be achieved by humans by their own means. In fact, Max More, a leading transhumanist philosopher considers himself as a “Luciferian”.
“The Devil—Lucifer—is a force for good (where I define ‘good’ simply as that which I value, not wanting to imply any universal validity or necessity to the orientation). ‘Lucifer’ means ‘light-bringer’ and this should begin to clue us in to his symbolic importance. The story is that God threw Lucifer out of Heaven because Lucifer had started to question God and was spreading dissension among the angels. We must remember that this story is told from the point of view of the Godists (if I may coin a term) and not from that of the Luciferians (I will use this term to distinguish us from the official Satanists with whom I have fundamental differences). The truth may just as easily be that Lucifer resigned from heaven.” – Max More, “In Praise of the Devil”.
Lastly, due to the prohibitive cost of “human augmentation”, transhumanism will only be available to the richest and most powerful people and the world (the world elite) and will created an even wider gap between the “masses” and the “elite”. The National Intelligence Council report states:
“The high cost of human augmentation means that it probably will be available in 15-20 years only to those who are able to pay. Such a situation may lead to a two-tiered society.”
This is why transhumanism is so heavily promoted in mass media. It will only be available to the richest people on Earth, creating a separate, “elite” class of “superhumans” and this concept needs to be accepted by the masses, even if it goes against its best interests. Through predictive programming using movies, TV and video games, the masses are “programmed” in perceiving transhumanism as an inevitability, as something that is bound to happen. That way, when it will actually happen, nobody will be outraged by it, it will be considered as something normal.
Here’s an article on the NIC Report.
U.S. spy agency predicts a very transhuman future by 2030
The National Intelligence Council has just released its much anticipated forecasting report, a 140-page document that outlines major trends and technological developments we should expect in the next 20 years. Among their many predictions, the NIC foresees the end of U.S. global dominance, the rising power of individuals against states, a growing middle class that will increasingly challenge governments, and ongoing shortages in water, food and energy. But they also envision a future in which humans have been significantly modified by their technologies — what will herald the dawn of the transhuman era.
This work brings to mind the National Science Foundation’s groundbreaking 2003 report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance — a relatively early attempt to understand and predict how advanced biotechnologies would impact on the human experience. The NIC’s new report, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, follows in the same tradition — namely one that doesn’t ignore the potential for enhancement technologies.
In the new report, the NIC describes how implants, prosthetics, and powered exoskeletons will become regular fixtures of human life — what could result in substantial improvements to innate human capacities. By 2030, the authors predict, prosthetics should reach the point where they’re just as good — or even better — than organic limbs. By this stage, the military will increasingly rely on exoskeletons to help soldiers carry heavy loads. Servicemen will also be adminstered psychostimulants to help them remain active for longer periods.
Many of these same technologies will also be used by the elderly, both as a way to maintain more youthful levels of strength and energy, and as a part of their life extension strategies.
Brain implants will also allow for advanced neural interface devices — what will bridge the gap between minds and machines. These technologies will allow for brain-controlled prosthetics, some of which may be able to provide “superhuman” abilities like enhanced strength, speed — and completely new functionality altogether.
Other mods will include retinal eye implants to enable night vision and other previously inaccessible light spectrums. Advanced neuropharmaceuticals will allow for vastly improved working memory, attention, and speed of thought.
“Augmented reality systems can provide enhanced experiences of real-world situations,” the report notes, “Combined with advances in robotics, avatars could provide feedback in the form of sensors providing touch and smell as well as aural and visual information to the operator.”
But as the report notes, many of these technologies will only be available to those who are able to afford them. The authors warn that it could result in a two-tiered society comprising enhanced and nonenhanced persons, a dynamic that would likely require government oversight and regulation.
Smartly, the report also cautions that these technologies will need to be secure. Developers will be increasingly challenged to prevent hackers from interfering with these devices.
Lastly, other technologies and scientific disciplines will have to keep pace to make much of this work. For example, longer-lasting batteries will improve the practicality of exoskeletons. Progress in the neurosciences will be critical for the development of future brain-machine interfaces. And advances in flexible biocompatible electronics will enable improved integration with cybernetic implants.
– Source: io9.com