Conference Calls for Defense of Family through Film and Culture

Anthony Horvath, a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries which in turn is an apologetics organization with a unique bent:  it aims not just to defend the Christian faith through evidence and argumentation, but by influencing the culture through the arts.

Their second annual online apologetics conference has a more narrow emphasis:  a defense of Biblical marriage and the family through film, video, and movies.  After all, the family is constantly being undermined in our movies and sitcoms.  Homosexuality is being normalized right beneath our noses, and with it gay ‘marriage.’  The defense will have to be mounted not just at the political level, though.  We’ll have to fight fire with fire.  And, as it happens, Christians were never supposed to abandon the arts to secularists, anyway.

Please take the time to check out the conference home page:  http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/

Since the conference is held online, you can participate from anywhere around the world.  We look forward to seeing you there.

More info:

Keynote:

(Topics, if listed, are tentative)

  • Gene Edward Veith, Jr. Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, and columnist for World Magazine.  Website.  Topic:  “Cultural Apologetics.”

Others:


“A picture is worth a thousand words.”  Whether this is good or not, it is the reality.  Today, attitudes and beliefs are often shaped by the things we see and the movies we watch.  For some Christians, this would prompt them to consider withdrawing altogether from our media rich society.  However, movies, music, art, and literature are all expressions of human creativity- and humans, though fallen, still are made in the image of the Creator God.  Our artistic endeavors bear witness to our created nature and therefore have the potential to open eyes, hearts, and mind to the nature of the Creator.

Read the Rest

Book Review – We Chose Life: Why You Should Too, by Anthony Horvath

Book Review by Mary Ann Kreitzer

It’s a parent’s worst nightmare — hearing the words, “You have a very sick child.” For a dad, it’s particularly difficult because his job, besides providing materially for his family, is to protect his loved ones from harm. But when illness strikes a child, a dad often stands helpless to “fix it.” Decisions about dealing with a critical illness in an already born child are difficult enough, but when that illness occurs in utero, parents are faced with another issue. The question is inevitable – “Will you keep it?” Since Roe v. Wade made abortion-on-demand legal in all 50 states at any time during pregnancy, vulnerable families faced with a sick little one are often given the bad news and immediately invited to consider abortion. How will they respond to the challenge? Anthony Horvath, in his book “We Chose Life: Why You Should Too,” shares his story, his faith, and the reasons he believes others should “choose life” as he and his wife did. Those who find themselves in similar circumstances with a seriously ill unborn child would do well to put their panic on hold and read his story.

In December 2006, after two normal pregnancies that filled their home with three boys including a set of twins, the Horvath’s were thrilled to learn during a routine ultrasound that they were expecting a little girl. Then the shoe dropped. The ultrasound showed something else. “The doctor came in. She wasn’t smiling. Her expression was grim … she went right to the point. Our new baby girl had a lot of fluid in her skull, a condition called hydrocephalus. The doctor told us that it could be just hydrocephalus, or, worst case scenario, it could mean that she had spina bifida (SB)” [spina bifida is a general term for a group of a neural tube defects where a segment of the spinal column fails to close resulting in a buildup of fluid in the brain.]

A second ultrasound showed that the baby had the most severe form of the disease, myelomenigocele spina bifida. While there was no way to know the severity of the outcome, the baby could end up mentally and physically handicapped, catheterized, and permanently unable to walk – or not. “Here was the brutal reality,” Horvath says, “There was no way of knowing the future.”

Continue reading »

Glenn Beck and how Americans got the way we are

Glenn Beck and how Americans got this way

By Don Hank

Recently, a lot has been written about Glenn Beck and his refusal to look at the eligibility issue and his disdain for those of us who care about it.

First, let me be clear: I am a birther. By that I don’t mean that I am claiming Obama was definitely born in Kenya (where they have erected a monument at the place where he was born). I mean that I don’t know if Obama is a natural born citizen because he has never proven it. Therefore Beck is remiss to dismiss birthers’ concerns. We have a constitutional right to know, and judges who say otherwise are derelict in their duties and don’t deserve to be called judges any more than those judges who in 1973 decided that humans in the womb aren’t humans.

Ironically, though, despite Beck’s vexing unwillingness to admit what an increasing number of Americans know or sense about Obama’s eligibility to be president, no one has taught to the broad masses the sources of Marxist brainwashing – how we got to where we are – better than Glenn Beck. Others have written books that changed the way scholarly conservatives think, but Beck popularized this knowledge in ways that made scholars of ordinary people. He went into detail on the origins of “progressivism” and that is important. Without a comprehensive knowledge of how millions of ordinary decent Americans have been turned into glassy-eyed liberals, we are easy prey both to the propaganda itself and to those who accuse us watchdogs of McCarthyism.

Even if you are put off by Glenn’s histrionics, his shows have been a classroom for a long time – especially his TV show, where he has reviewed important eye-opening books night after night. He did his homework. If Patriots view Beck with a jaundiced eye today it is partly because he fails to see the importance of the eligibility issue but also in part because they have underestimated the role of propagandists in turning America leftward and they fail to see how much Beck has pulled back the curtain for millions of us, providing us a glimpse into the sordid world of Marxist disinformation in which we find ourselves.

Further, without Beck, there would not have been the Washington tea party. Like him or hate him, Beck has changed the nation.

This is as good an opportunity as any for a quick review of how we got where we are today, and we can start with a video of an interview with ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who shows how Americans were brainwashed through KGB methods such as demoralization and manipulation of and by the media. One thing that sticks in my mind from Yuri’s talks is that people brainwashed by these methods refuse to believe the truth and are essentially dead to the truth. “These people cannot be changed by logic. The change is complete and irreversible,” as Yuri puts it.

Remember the last time you tried to debate with a “liberal” zombie? The change that zombie underwent at some time in his life was complete and irreversible, wasn’t it? Facts are irrelevant.

Only a nucleus of people who read history, keep up with talk radio and web sites like Laigle’s Forum have even a pinch of understanding of what is going on around us and why. The average American will look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that our “liberalization” is a result of a natural evolution process. We just keep getting smarter and more sensitive to the needs of others. Praise be to Darwin!

The Soviet propaganda source laid bare in the above-linked video is only one of many. Our education system, as Yuri mentions, has undermined us almost to the point of no return. But the influence came not only from Soviet operatives. Another powerful agency was the Frankfurt School, a group of German Marxists who came to America to escape Hitler and showed their gratitude by teaching their host country to hate its founders, its traditions and its culture. Herbert Marcuse, a famous 60s radical and member of our pseudo-intelligentsia, was a scion of that group. Still another group was the more-or-less home-grown communist agents like Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven, who taught other leftists how to manipulate us. Then there were our early educational theorists like John Dewey and his myriad clones. Reaching way back, there were psychologists like Freud and Pavlov, and later the “sexologists” Masters and Johnson who taught that sexual promiscuity is our reason for living. Then there was Dr. Spock who taught us how to spoil kids, and Timothy Leary, who taught spoiled kids how to do drugs. Radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin, pushed for welfare and abortion and aided in breaking up families by redefining “abuse” of women, making it include things as prosaic as “giving your wife the silent treatment,” and hypocritically warned of child abuse while endorsing pedophilia. Thanks to their efforts, the institution of “no-fault divorce” was born, which converted the marriage contract into a worthless piece of paper for millions of husbands, who were often rendered penniless in “family” court in the headlong national effort to “protect women and children.” Similar agents of change were pedophiles like NAMBLA founder Allen Ginsberg, and homosexual activists who introduced and pushed for “gay” marriage to further undermine what was left of the American family. The Liberation Theologists made minorities feel oppressed and helpless and urged them to “strike back” at whites, their “oppressors,” rather than raise themselves out of poverty and ignorance through hard work and study, the only way to raise oneself out of poverty and ignorance. The net effect of these hate mongering racists, working in tandem with the educational left, was to create walls of ignorance, prejudice and hatred that will take decades to tear down. Likewise, the developers of the Delphi method, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made a significant contribution to mind control, manipulating participants to accept ideas – even dangerous ones – by “mainstreaming” them. Finally, as David Kupelian reminds us, Madison Avenue advertisers have contributed mightily to plunging us into a bottomless moral abyss where good is evil and vice-versa. (I’m sure you can think of many more such contributors to the brainwashing of America).

If you look at the sleaze surrounding Obama in his college days you get an idea of who many of the other movers and shakers were in the movement to destroy traditional America and replace it with Marxist utopian ideals.

We find that almost all of the ideas promulgated by these “agents of change” are now chillingly mainstream or close to it. Likewise you will find very few liberals who care that the White House resident has communists among his czars or his past mentors. In the ghetto, you’ll find almost no one who objects.

The Dems have them firmly in place down on their plantation.

So where does this leave Glenn Beck?

If I had Glenn Beck in front of me I would say:

You have focused bravely on monumental issues and I admire you for it. In the final analysis, every single one of these issues – from socialist health care to welfare for rich bankers – stems from the unwillingness of American politicians and judges to honor the Constitution. But the Constitution also has rules governing who can be president and who can’t.

I am therefore asking you to focus fairly on the eligibility issue. Give it its just due and please respect truth seekers whose quest has taken them down other trails than yours. They are your potential allies and you can win them back with a little extra effort.

The Internet Monk is Wrong to Wish Obama an Unqualified Successful Presidency

by Anthony Horvath

To begin with, I need to say that as an occasional reader of the InternetMonk blog, I almost always approve of almost everything that I read there. Michael Spencer gets a lot of things right and a lot of things he says needs to be heard by the Church. So this is not knee jerk reaction. Indeed, I find him a kindred spirit and frankly wish that I didn’t have to challenge him on his recent blog entry, Christians: What are you saying about the President?

Before I begin, I should also mention that there is a sense in which I’m singling him out unfairly. I have been hearing similar sentiments from a variety of places. So, this should be read as a challenge to Spencer but also a whole host of other commentators too. Rightly or wrongly, his post is being taken as representative of several worrisome trends.

The IM begins with a litany of comments that he has heard that he finds disgraceful. Without hearing the context in which they were spoken we are left to take them on their face. There isn’t much we can do about that. We certainly can’t ask him to substantiate each one. Some of them we can join in denouncing, but others I think I’d like to hear the arguments for. Did Mr. Spencer solicit their arguments even? Therein lies the first problem. Mr. Spencer leaves little room for the possibility that the speakers have good reasons for what they are saying. Rather, we are told with utter certitude that these are all “threatening, hateful, hostile or untrue words.”

That approach only works if you expect that your audience already accepts the terms of the discussion, which of course most of the people commenting on the entry did. But since the whole point is to persuade those who don’t accept those terms to think like you then in my view you have to do more than just throw out statements that you expect any reasonable person to reject. Granted, we don’t want to endorse something that will get you on ‘some FBI list’ but I personally don’t see an inherent contradiction (for example) between praying for someone and hating them, or at least hating what they stand for.

Perhaps more worrisome then the possibility that a caricature is being painted is that the concern is over seeing “a black Democrat take the office of the President.”

That is utterly ridiculous. I know a lot of people who are horrified at an Obama presidency and none of them care one lick that he is black. What about the wide spread support of Alan Keyes? What about the folks who pined for Condi Rice to run? Then, when we heard examples of contemptible statements none of them supported the racial aspect. So where did this come from? I’ll tell you what it sounded like to me- it sounded like a very clever way to call people racists without using the word. Saying it bluntly would have seen immediately as insulting and patently false. Instead, it was still insulting and patently false, but cleverly worded. Still an insult and still patently false. Mr. Spencer calls people to repentance for saying the things they said. He should repent for this insult to fellow Christians.

But I don’t want to dwell on this aspect. My problems with his post run far deeper.

Spencer’s arguments after this basically have two halves. The first half is ‘No, I don’t agree with Obama but I still wish him well.’ The second half is his exposition on what the Christian’s attitude on government should be. I will take them each in turn and then wrap it up with a discussion of worrisome subtext to Mr. Spencer’s arguments, and others I’ve heard and read as well.

Like the many pundits and bloggers wishing Obama a ‘successful’ presidency, Mr. Spencer says: Continue reading

EU Flag in England, Tom Cox fires GOP, Apologetics and Homeschoolers

 EU flag over Buckingham Palace creating a furor

By Donald Hank

No Union Jack is in sight atop the home of the royal family. But if the following web site is a reflection of the reality over there, things are really heating up.

Click here to see the blue flag (no, it’s not the Union Jack!) and read the comments

For those who haven’t been following this issue here, citizens of the UK have been denied the opportunity to vote on whether or not to allow their constitution, which dates back to the Magna Carta, to be replaced (superceded) by the EU Constitution.

That is because powerful politicians have signed on to various treaties over the years that, bit by bit, took away the sovereignty of the Brits, who would almost certainly nix the EU Constitution if they could.

How could this happen, you ask?

Look around you: Americans too have a long history of having policies shoved down their throats by politicians, some elected but many not. The Council on Foreign Relations acts in some ways like an arm of the government, setting policy, much of it highly unpopular, behind our backs. This trend heated up when we were forced to accept Most Favored Nations status for China. The people didn’t want this, would not have voted for it, but our leaders suddenly took the ball and ran with it, and next thing you knew, we had betrayed Taiwan and jumped in bed with the Red Chinese, their-and our-worst enemies in that region, and are becoming poorer every day as a result.

Next came NAFTA. You didn’t vote for it. But unelected zealots in the CFR pushed for it and eventually, they found a stooge to sign it and now you have a treaty that was touted originally as bound to favor the US, but wound up increasing our trade deficit, making us all poorer. Then there was an open-border policy, amnesty for illegal aliens, CAFTA, and now the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) and soon a truck route to deliver Chinese goods all over North America in Mexican trucks, and now the latest trick: a military partnership that grants Canadian military personnel authority over you and me.

What are we losing, you say?

Sovereignty, and economic power.

Why?

Because powerful people many of whose names are unknown to us, are deeply entrenched in high places, and they are protecting their own personal interests at the expense of citizens, enriching other nations, most of which are hostile to us, for their own gain but also out of a Marxist zeal to see our wealth redistributed to poorer countries.

The Great American Experiment has been hijacked.

Suddenly, Americans in the know feel a great deal of solidarity with the British, because we are all in the same boat.

The people who gave the world the Magna Carta now joins the people who founded the most powerful nation on earth in ceding their power back to a few powerful men.

But by the looks of the above-linked web site, the rich and powerful have not figured out how to make them like it.

Nor have our rich and powerful figured out how to make us like the three candidates they have foisted upon us.

Tom Cox ” fires” the GOP

Fellow conservatives and constitutionalists: Have you noticed as I have, that when you vote for the lesser of two evils for President, you still get evil?

 I have threatened to vote third-party in the past, but the fear tactics of the Republicans have pulled me back at the last minute. This year is different. I am watching the Constitution Party (CP) very carefully. If they nominate Dr. Alan Keyes as their candidate for President, I will vote for him, even if I have to write him in

 Keyes is the only guy in the whole field with the backbone and principles to restore the federal government to its Constitutional functions and limits. The Democrats and Republicans lost interest in the Constitution long ago, and are content to squabble over power until the nation goes down the drain.

 The Libertarians are OK on some issues, but they are clueless on national defense and sovereignty. Defending personal freedom is meaningless if our nation is attacked and destroyed.

 This was a great country, once, and it can be again, but only if we act soon. Stop choosing between evils. Check out the Constitution Party, http://www.constitutionparty.com/

 Tom Cox
Charlotte, TN

Apologetics Critical to Homeschoolers, All Christians, Says Academy

MEDIA ADVISORY, April 14 /Christian Newswire/ — Athanatos Online Academy offers course modules about the facts of the faith to supplement curriculums for churches, homeschool organizations, while remaining available to individuals.

The academy offers an Apologetics Certificate program as well. The academy home page is www.athanatosministries.org/academy.

The apologetics academy offers affordable, short term courses that are easy to plug in to existing programs.

Executive Director Anthony Horvath explains, “If you’re studying the conditions that led to the fall of Rome you’re also talking about the same context in which the New Testament came into its final form. Our courses on the creeds or the New Testament canon would help students see the relationship between Christianity and history. That is something we are convinced homeschooling families are interested in.”

Horvath explains that apologetics is consistent with the incarnation and a rejection of Gnostic ways of thought, “God didn’t have to come in the flesh. He is the one that stepped into history and challenged people to believe the miracles which they saw with their own eyes. God answered the problem of pain and suffering by entering into the human experience. He could have dealt with us apart from our senses, but he didn’t.”

Horvath argues that people are confused about apologetics, “Many people think apologetics and they think arm twisting. But apologetics can just be setting the facts straight. But apologetics also represents a way of thinking, too. Jesus said to love God with your heart, yes, but also with your mind. Homeschoolers understand this.”

The online academy is not about convincing nonChristians to become Christians but to equip Christians with the facts and evidences for Christianity so that they can more effectively minister to family, friends, and others that they meet. Horvath argues, “We need informed Christians because uninformed Christians tend to fall away completely- or at least their children tend to. It helps when you understand where Christianity fits into other areas of study.”

The academy’s courses are two to five weeks long and do not have a burdensome workload. Much of the reading material is available on the Internet but the academy aims to expose people to the writings of top Christian scholars, too.

The Academy is in session four times a year and the next session begins April 21st. The academy is enrolling now. Group rates are available.

The academy page is www.athanatosministries.org/academy

You may contact Anthony at 202-280-7971 or press@athanatosministries.org

Pedophiles one, parents zero!

IS YOUR child’s school on the GLSEN hit list?

Here is a long state-by-state list of participating schools in GLSEN’s Day of Silence:

http://www.missionamerica.com/homosexual.php?articlenum=70

If your school is listed here, there is something you can do about it. If you are too timid to do your duty, maybe you are too timid to have a child in today’s world.

Don’t make your child pay for your hesitation to follow your conscience. If you won’t fight now, imagine the world you will be bequeathing to your grandchildren!

EMPLOYEE fired for reporting crime!

We had mentioned in a recent comment at the post “Sally Kern vs gay agenda” (see comments below the column) that those who are endorsing “gay” marriage now will some day understand that gay marriage is only a step in the incremental path to enforced acceptance of much worse things, including pederasty.

I was wrong only about the time frame.

Consider this a retraction. It’s here now:

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/542559/lindsay_librarian_fired_for_reporting_man_viewing_child_porn?wpid=1770 

Citizens who want to be like Citizen Kane had better think twice. Ordinary people like you and I may (and should) call them heroes for snitching on a potential threat to the children.

But not so the authorities, particularly in public libraries, who have a distorted view of the First Amendment and privacy rights – a view that is becoming increasingly widespread among the Left (so-called “progressives” and “liberals”). Their view is that dealing with real and present threats to children takes a back seat to the issue of privacy and freedom of “expression” for perverts. This is, of course, culturicidal. No nation can survive this limp-wristed laissez-faire approach to grotesquely twisted and potentially dangerous behavior.

Our advice to people who still have old-fashioned ideas about decency: don’t let the cultural revolutionary perverts in power positions stop you. Go ahead and do what you know is right. Then if they try to punish you for it, go for their jugular – together with a good constitutional lawyer.

This incident happened in Lindsay, CA. Imagine that! In California of all places! (dripping with sarcasm).

Public sex allowed in Dutch park

It will happen here if we don’t start to “get it” soon. We already fire public officials who inconvenience sex offenders.

Why not this next?

Holland is our crystal ball. We are only a few years behind…and catching up fast! The attitude of our religious leaders is paving the way for this. They want to make nice with the enemy of God. Woe unto them!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/wgay113.xml

Rage, rage, rage against the psychic cage

 Gramsci, the Italian communist, wrote a prescription for how the Left would take over the world: Just condemn anyone who opposes Marxism by making them look evil. Create an atmosphere in which everyone who opposes the Left is shouted down and called names, such as “counter-revolutionary” or “reactionary.” Soon all dissent would be quelled and no one would dare speak out. He called this diaboloical device the “psychic cage.” It became popular in Europe and, with the arrival of the Frankfurt School, a group of communist intellectuals from Germany, was funneled through major US universities and hence into our public school system, where it thrives today.

This tactic has been enormously successful in America and is currently used by, among others, gay activists, modern day Gramscians, who use the device to their advantage, branding as a “homophobe” anyone who refuses to go along with the redefinition of marriage or the celebration of gay sex in school — under the thin guise of “protecting” gays, transvestites and trans-sexuals from a fictional harrassment that is so rare in America they are hard put to dig up examples of it. In fact, as I have easily shown before, by far the biggest threat to gays in America are other, sexually active, gays.

Thus, under the guise of “protecting” a supposedly downtrodden group, they punish the rest of us, elaborating a hoax for the purpose of fitting us into their psychic cage of homosexual acceptance, a pillar of leftist policy and thought. It takes a fairly astute, sophisticated and diligent mind to avoid being trapped in this hoax. 

And long-term Laigle’s subscribers have developed just that kind of mind.

Give DOS a big miss

By Laurie Higgins for Illinois Family Institute

A broad coalition of individuals and organizations is urging parents to oppose the Day of Silence (DOS), a political action sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), because it politicizes the classroom for ideological purposes. The explicit purpose of DOS is to encourage sympathy and support for students involved in homosexual behavior and cross-dressing whose voices have been allegedly silenced by the disapproval of society.  The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. Parents should no longer passively countenance the political usurpation of public school classrooms through student silence.

Parents should call their children’s middle schools and high schools to ask whether the administration and/or teachers will be permitting students to remain silent during class on the Day of Silence. If students will be permitted to remain silent, parents can express their opposition most effectively by calling their children out of school on the Day of Silence and sending letters of explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school board members. One reason this is effective is that most school districts lose money for each student absence.

School administrators err when they allow the classroom to be disrupted and politicized by granting students permission to remain silent throughout an entire day. The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around the silence of some or many, or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking.  Furthermore, DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.

Some administrators assert that DOS merely seeks to promote “acceptance.” They fail to clarify, however, what precisely they want students to accept. While it is legitimate to teach students that there exist diverse opinions on this issue, it is not legitimate to imply that one of those opinions is preferable to another. While it is appropriate to teach acceptance of people, meaning that we should treat all with civility, it is not appropriate to suggest that students need to accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral. These important distinctions are rarely, if ever, made in public school discussions of “acceptance.”

One oft-repeated mantra is that the goal of DOS is to keep LGBTQ students safe. The problematic rhetoric of “safety,” however, substitutes speciously for the more accurate term of “comfort.” To suggest that in order for those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” to be “safe,” no one may disapprove of homosexual conduct is both absurd and dangerous. If this definition of “safety” were to be applied consistently, virtually all statements of disapproval would be prohibited.

Day of Silence participants claim they seek to end discrimination. There is, however, a problem with the way “discrimination” is defined in public discourse today. Groups like GLSEN believe that statements of moral conviction with which they disagree constitute prejudice or discrimination. While relentlessly promoting this view, administrators are never asked to provide evidence for the dubious presuppositions on which claims of discrimination are based. They are never asked to provide evidence for the arguable claim that homosexuality is equivalent to race; or that disapproval of homosexual conduct is equivalent to racism; or that homosexual impulses are biologically determined; or that the presence of biological influences in shaping desire renders a behavior automatically moral. The time is long past that parents demand justification for those claims.

If we allow schools to define discrimination so expansively as to prohibit all statements of moral conviction, character development is compromised and speech rights are trampled. And if administrators continue to define discrimination in such a way as to preclude only some statements of moral conviction, they violate their pedagogical commitment to intellectual diversity and render the classroom a place of indoctrination.  

Finally, DOS supporters contend that one of their purposes is to end harassment. What they fail to acknowledge is that the worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time. There are myriad other ways to work toward that end. DOS participants have a First Amendment right to wear t-shirts, or put up posters, or host after-school speakers, or set up tables from which to distribute informative materials. They ought not to be allowed to manipulate instructional time in the service of their socio-political goals.

Here are responses to some common concerns about calling children out of school on DOS:

  • Some parents believe that there is value in having students who hold traditional views on sexual orientation in class on the DOS. This belief is flawed for two reasons. First, the adolescent culture is liberal, and adolescents desire to fit in. The vast majority of conservative kids do not feel comfortable vocally opposing their culture and will not do so. As those who are more public in opposing the normalization of homosexuality can attest, very few adults have the courage to oppose the dominant culture; we cannot expect teens to do what adults don’t do.

Moreover, the goal of calling students out of school on DOS is not to communicate an alternative message to that of DOS. The goal is to remove GLSEN-sponsored political action from taxpayer-funded classes.

  • Some parents express concern over the possibility of teachers exacting revenge through grading. First, it would be highly unethical for a teacher to treat a student punitively because of the teacher’s subjective assessment of the parents’ reason for calling a student out. If a teacher were to attempt to punish a student in such a way, parents should address the problem with the administration. Second, some students are willing to accept this possibility, viewing the cause as worthy of the sacrifice. Finally, those parents and teens who are not willing to risk even the remote possibility of teacher retribution can call their childout of school and not send a letter expressing their objections to DOS.
  • Some have argued that calling students out of classrepresents an attempt to deny free speech. Calling students out of class does not represent an attempt to deny free speech to students; rather, calling students out of class represents opposition to the exploitationof instructional time for socio-political action. Students are free to express their views in multiple ways mentioned above.
  • Some claim that those who oppose DOS must not care about the suffering of LGBTQ teens.It is utterly specious to suggest that parents, teachers, and administrators who oppose political action in the classroom support harassment. Put another way, this claim impliesthat the only way parents, administrators, and teachers can prove they oppose harassment of homosexual or transgendered teens is to allow the politicization of the classroom. It also representsa classic ends justifies the means argument: If the ends, in this case, combating harassment of homosexual teens, are good, then any and all means are justified.

There are countless worthwhile goals that should not be promoted during class. Some might consider ending the tragedy of teen drunk-driving deaths, or the war in Iraq, or abortion to be worthwhile goals, and yet it would be equally inappropriate to use the classroom to promote them. The truth is that parents, teachers, and administrators can oppose harassment while concomitantly opposing the politicization of instructional time.

Schools have the right to prohibit student silence in the classroom if they deem it “disruptive.” It is our hope and belief that if schools have one group of students silent and another group called out, they will eventually decide that classroom silence is “disruptive.”

2008 “Day of Silence Walkout” Endorsements

Abiding Truth Ministries

AFA Michigan

AFA  Pennsylvania

AFA National

Americans for Truth (Peter LaBarbera)

Dr. Bill Bray, Christian Information Service, Inc.

Campaign for Children and Families (Randy Thomasson, President, http://www.savecalifornia.com/)

Catholic Citizens of Illinois (http://www.catholiccitizens.org/)

ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministries (Tom Carder, President)

Christian Civic League of Maine (Michael Heath)

Citizens for Community Values of  Indiana (Patrick Mangan, Executive Director; Joseph P. Sergio, Chairman)

Concerned Women for America (Matt Barber)

Concerned Women for America, Washington State (Maureen Richardson, Director)

Culture Campaign (Sandy Rios, President)

Defend the Family International (Scott Lively, President)

Eagle Forum of California  (http://www.eagleforumofcalifornia.com/)

Exodus Mandate (E. Ray Moore, Jr., Director)

Faith, Family, Freedom Alliance (Nathan Tabor, President, http://www.fffa.us/ )

Dr. William Greene http://www.rightmarch.com/

Guy Adams, Dir. of http://www.valuesusa.net/

Illinois Family Institute (David Smith)

Indiana Voice (Monica Boyer)

Liberty Counsel (Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman)

Massachusetts Resistance (Brian Camenker)

Mission: America (Linda Harvey)

New Generation Christian Center

North Carolina Family Policy Council (Bill Brooks, President)

Parents’ Rights Coalition (John Haskins)

Debra J.M. Smith  http://www.informingchristians.com/

Stephen Bennett Ministries

Watchman on the Walls

Reagan in an emasculated America

By Donald Hank

Ronald Reagan is always held up as the gold standard in Republican elections, and everyone pays lip service to the Gipper, but the fact is, while all candidates claim to be his reincarnation and talk about Reagan, no one talks like him any more.

They can’t. America has been emasculated. While reluctantly acknowledging Reagan’s legacy as the best president we have had for a century by all criteria, the homo lobby has at the same time made Reagan anathema. They will never forgive him for saying that AIDS was sent by God to punish people for the sin of homosexuality.

As long as that mentality is present–my estimate is about 30 more years–there can be no remedy to the attrition of conservatism.

Why 30 more years?

Because the homo lobby, under the guidance of men and women who despise America, has already been amazingly successful for at least 5 years already, and 35 years is about how long it took for most Americans to finally see through radical feminism. Bad people with fool-proof Gramscian psychic cages to lock up people’s minds can always hold sway for about that long at least in our country, where people are easily led astray by their irrational fears and their misplaced pity for any wolf claiming to be an underdog.

But even after that, the homo lobby will not be completely beaten down. Hate crime laws will be in place and pastors who speak out against homosexuality will still have to go underground or face fines and/or jail time or loss of tax exempt status.

I base that prediction, again, on the success that radical feminism has had in entrenching itself in the American psyche. Even now, with the feminist movement in more-or-less permanent disrepute, Wade-Roe still holds sway, and anti-father legislation and jurisprudence is standard in “family” courts, where fathers almost never get custody or even shared custody and are routinely evicted from their homes on flimsy to zero evidence of wife abuse, while being treated as walking wallets in terms of “child” support.

The label was “wife abuser,” the pretext was “protection of mothers” or “protection of women,” and the establishment of abuse could be predicated on tenuous evidence.

On the absurd pretext of “protecting” their group and with the nuclear option of the “homophobe” tag, the small but vociferous group of homo-leftists will completely dominate America on behalf of the anti-traditional left for many years to come. And that will make it impossible for another Reagan to surface.

Americans, and in fact, westerners in general, are increasingly deficient in the use of logic and comparison techniques, unable to see that one group of leftists well-trained in mind-control techniques is equivalent to any other group of leftists well-trained in these techniques.

Yet it is really quite simple in the present case. The fact is, not only are the techniques the same, but the absurdity of the accusations is similar. The radical changing of definitions is a trade mark of the Left. The feminists changed the definition of child rearing and marriage, and in fact, they even changed the name, calling marriage “patriarchy,” in order to create the impression that marriage had been devised as a way for men to subjugate and enslave women, when in fact, the whole idea has always been to anchor the wayward male to the family precisely for the purpose of protecting women and children. And of course, they changed the definition of abuse in the minds of the public but more importantly, of judges and legislators, who started defining abuse as anything done by a male to a female that the female herself called abuse. Thus the definition was malleable, varying from case to case. A woman could get a restraining order simply by claiming that she felt threatened. In my ten years of work with Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, I had numerous cases of men whose restraining orders showed no documentation of abuse (I personally read one, on file at the local courthouse, in which the man was accused of restraining his wife after she had “hit him on the arm” (her words) while he was driving). I learned of one man who was evicted from his home by a judge when his wife told the judge that she had a habit of meeting men on the internet and traveling to meet them for sex. She said her husband had found out about these liaisons, and although he had not in any way threatened her or abused her, she felt that now that he knew, he might conceivably do her some sort of harm. That was enough for the judge, who ordered him out of his home and ordered child support payments for the wife, even though the wife had sent their child to live with her mother.

The anti-family Left, having saturated the law field with anti-male legislation, is now persecuting the religious orthodox (who also threaten their antifamily notions) in an equally absurd way wherever “hate” laws exist. Remember that Pastor Aka Green was tried in Sweden for the “hate” crime of preaching from the forbidden parts of the Bible that denounce homosexual behavior (and threatened with what would have amounted to a life sentence), while his fellow Christians have been fined heavily for speaking against homosexual behavior and gay marriage in Canada.

Part of the problem with the attrition of traditional voters is that few see the whole picture. For example, my fellow defenders of males have often myopically treated radical feminism and the anti-father courts and legislators as though they were isolated problems. Some of these same people have been blind to the intimate link between anti-male policies and other anti-traditional policies. They can see that males are abused in “family” court but they can’t quite see what that has to do with gay marriage. Many leaders of the men’s movement are thus for gay marriage.

That will never work. The enemy is the same, namely, virulent anti-traditional, anti-family Leftism, and it doesn’t matter whether it is currently attacking the family by removing the father or by replacing the father with another woman posing as the second “mother.” The results and the motivation are the same with radical feminism as they are with the radical gay agenda. In both cases, the child is hurt by losing contact with one or both biological parents and by losing the opportunity to experience committed heterosexual female and male role models vital to child development. In the case of the radical feminist paradigm of the single mom/disenfranchised biological father, I had shown previously that, statistically, children are abused disproportionately by the men who are not their fathers and have been introduced into their lives by their divorced or single mother.

This anti-traditional component of the Left is, ultimately, why gay “couples” are so eager to adopt children (evidence, not to mention common sense, suggests this idea is dangerous to child welfare).

By and large, it is not these naïve souls themselves, but rather their script writers on the left, who are behind the evil scheme of replacing traditional family with whatever happens to be handy. In most cases, their desire is not to harm children but simply to assert their lifestyle and to convince themselves of the moral authority to follow their hedonistic impulses wherever these might lead them. And this idea was not born spontaneously. It was scripted by the agenda makers.

I wish I could end this column on a positive note, but that is hard to do at this juncture in our history. Of course, there is no direct harm in sight with some of the Republican candidates, but neither of the 2 front runners leaves me with a sense of comfort either.

Romney once supported gay marriage, but says he has had a conversion. He is at least a stronger conservative in other areas than McCain.

Depending on what part of his mouth McCain is speaking out of, he has no qualms about gay marriage. That means that our front runner, who believes Reagan has endorsed him posthumously, is blissfully ignorant about the one issue of our time that, because of its link to “hate” laws, can literally determine whether the First Amendment will survive.

Of course, the McCain of McCain-Feingold was never too fond of that amendment anyway.

Holocaust Impulse Still Alive in Germany

(See our recent posting of the email from Germany regarding the Dudek Family, which may be jailed for homeschooling their daughter. Ed.)

Hessisches Kultusministerium
Mrs. Karin Wolff
Luisenplatz 10
65185 Wiesbaden
06151/17120
 
Dear Mrs. Wolff,
 
My father was an officer in the United States Navy who married my mother while on leave in New York City. I was born shortly after the war in 1948. I shouldn’t have to write you.
 
Two times in the twentieth century young men from our nation had to go to Europe to free innocent people from the oppression of the agents of German tyranny. My father’s generation and his father’s generation. Our men shed their blood and my father risked his life to rid the world of the dark heart of German evil that you now, once again exhume and parade for the entire world to see.
 
You are persecuting the innocent Dudek family for the “crime” of bringing up their children properly. Your violent interference in this sacred process is an affront to God and one that Americans readily recognize. Your impulse to imprison Christians is from the same spiritual source as your fathers’ impulse to exterminate Jews.
 
Cease and desist.
 
Hearing of the cruelty you impose on a family that is, in every way, your superior, raises in me, as it will in all Americans (who love freedom more than you love oppression) a fury, when they hear of your deeds, that will not abate until you have made it right, or are properly imprisoned, or if your government should justify you in this, until they, themselves are overthrown and reside in the grave that has been prepared for the criminals of German National Socialism.
 
You don’t seem to have learned your lesson as a nation. Can you ever?
 
Doug Parris 
President,
The Reagan Wing of the Republican Party. 

We recommend you copy the following German translation of this and send it to Frau wolff:

Sehr Geehrte Frau Wolff:
Mein Vater war Offizier bei der US-Kreigsmarine und hat meine Mutter in der Stadt New York während eines Urlaubs geheiratet. Ich bin kurz nach dem Krieg, u.z. im Jahre 1948 geboren. Es ist kaum zu fassen, dass ich Ihnen diesen Brief schreiben muss.

Zweimal im 20. Jahrhundert mussten junge Männer aus meiner Heimat nach Europa ziehen, um dort unschuldige Leute von der Unterdrückung seitens der Agenten deutscher Tyrannie zu befreien. Es handelte sich um meines Vaters sowie um dessen Vaters Generation. Unsren Männern ist Blut ergossen, und mein Vater hat sein Leben riskiert, um das dunkle Herz deutschen Übels aus der Welt zu schaffen, ein Übel, das Ihr jetzt noch einmal ans Tagelicht bringt und aller Welt zur Schau stellt.

Ihr verfolgt die unschuldige Familie Dudek wegen des „Verbrechens“  der guten Kindererziehung. Ihre gewaltsame Einmischung in diesen geweihten Prozeß der Kindererziehung ist eine Beleidigung gegen den Allerheiligen, die wir Amerikaner ohne Weiteres als solche erkennen. Eure Regung zur Einsperrung von Christen entspringt derselben innerlichen Quelle der Regung eurer Vorfahren zur Vernichtung der Juden.

Unterlassungsanordnung

Die Nachricht der Grausamkeit, mit der Ihr gegen eine Familie vorgehen wollt ruft bei mir dieselbe Empörung hervor, die alle Amerikaner (die Freiheit mehr als Unterdrückung lieben) empfinden werden, wenn sie von euren Missetaten hören. Diese Empörung wird solange unvermindert fortwähren, bis Ihr entweder hinter Gitter steht, wie es sich gehört, oder aber, im Falle dass Ihre Regierung euch euer diesbezügliches Benehmen rechtfertigt, bis diese Regierung selbst nidergeworfen ist und im Grabe liegt, das zur beerdigung aller Verbrecher des deutschen Nationalsozialismus bereit steht.

Ihr scheint nicht, aus eurer braunen Vergangenheit die Lehre gezogen zu haben. Könnt Ihr das überhaupt?

Doug Parris
Vorstehender, 
The Reagan Wing of the Republican Party