Positively Sexualizing our Teens?

by

Milla Kette*

 

The Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) is a division of the American Library Association that likes to offer sexual advice for teens (check: Healthy Relationships for Teens). One of the web sites they recommend (under Resources for Teens: Sexuality and Sexual Behavior) is the Coalition for Positive Sexuality. The organization can be also found at Wikipedia. Parents of teens, meet the CPS. It was designed for “teens who are sexually active now or just thinking about having sex.” So, next time you talk to your teen about sex, tell him to “Just Say Yes”:

 

Just Say Yes is about having a positive attitude towards sexuality — gay, straight, bisexual or whatever. It’s about saying “yes” to sex you do want, and “no” to sex you don’t. It says there’s nothing wrong with you if you decide to have sex, and nothing wrong with you if you decide not to. (Is it just me, or did you also notice they start with “gay”? And why is there no link to “whatever”?)

 

Let’s be a bit more explanatory, shall we?

 

Women have sex with women, men have sex with men, women have sex with men –and sometimes the best sex is with yourself! (They did it again!)

 

And you have a thing or two to learn, Pa and Ma. Heterosexuals “feel sexual and/or romantic attraction mostly to people of the other sex” (bold emphasis added).  The CPS is also concerned with your kids’ health: “oral sex is licking, sucking, biting (not too hard, please!) your partner’s thang.” See? Your kids will deal very gently with their partner’s… “thang”.  Now, does your teen know what BDSM is?  Do not worry: our good natured friends from CPS explain:

 

BDSM is a combination of three terms: BD (Bondage & Discipline), DS (Dominance & Submission), and SM (Sadism & Masochism). BDSM includes a wide range of activities involving safe, sane, consensual playing with erotic power. BDSM is NOT about abuse. Everyone involved understands and plays by the rule (bold emphasis added).

 

OK, but what about just good ordinary “intercourse”?

 

Intercourse is when something (a dick, finger, dildo, cucumber, whatever) penetrates your butt, which is ANAL SEX, or your vagina, which is VAGINAL SEX. Both women and men can enjoy anal intercourse (bold emphasis added). (Anal fixation, anyone?)

 

More useful advice for teens from these very thoughtful people:

 

– get into role play (for instance, tie someone up and pleasure them) …  

– look at sexy pictures and videos …  

– make up or act out fantasies, talk dirty, dress up, strip down, or cross-dress (dressing in the clothes of the other gender) …  

– use cock rings, nipple clamps (or clothespins), or vibrators on your own or someone else’s body … 

– cum on someone’s belly, back, feet, chest –instead of in them …

– play with your own or someone else’s ass or vagina, put your fingers, dildoes, vegetables, or buttplugs into them.

 

So, next time they decide to experiment sexually, don’t send your teens out to the world ignorant. Let them read the CPS Glossary!

 

And if that inconvenience happens –you know, like pregnancy— and your daughter, like “can’t handle having a baby right now,” never mind: she can, like count on abortion. Like totally! And don’t let her forget: “it’s harder to get an abortion after 3 months, so get help soon!” Like stat!

 

Oh, and if your teens are addicted they “can still protect themselves from HIV. The best thing to do is to USE A CLEAN NEEDLE AND WORKS (cotton, cooker, spoon, etc.) EVERY TIME!” No clean needles on sight? Don’t worry, man: check the CPS resources!

 

A friend of mine [That would be D.Laigle] was so shocked with the site, he decided to pass for a 14 year-old girl and wrote them an E-mail. He wrote that for her parents she was “too young to even think about having sex” and asked what age was the right one to start. The answer came from (children’s Yoga teacher) Andrea Abrams Creel: “There is no ‘right’ time to have sex. However, having sex takes a lot of responsibility. […] you have to be responsible for preventing pregnancy and STDs. That means using a condom EVERY time you have sex, going to the doctor regularly to get checkups and tested for STDs, discussing birth control options with your doctor -and making sure you use your birth control consistently and correctly, and discussing previous sex partners and STD testing with your boyfriend. If you don’t feel comfortable doing ALL of these things, then you probably aren’t ready to have sex” (bold emphasis added).

 

Andrea –who was aware she was advising a minor— did not hesitate: “Having sex is a very big step, and it should be something that YOU want to do”! The girl mentioned her plan to have sex with an 18 year-old boyfriend. The advice came: “Many states have laws that say it is illegal for someone over 18 to have sex with someone who is not an adult. The laws are different in each state -in some states you have to be 16, other states 14. […] If it is illegal in your state and your boyfriend gets caught, he could go to jail. This website can tell you the laws in your state: http://www.ageofconsent.com/.” Nowhere does Andrea mention the minor’s parents, but “a trusted adult.

 

The second letter my friend sent, Andrea realized she was dealing with an adult male. Her advice changed: “It might be a good idea to talk about these things with an adult who you trust such as a clergy member, a teacher, or guidance counselor.” And according to Andrea, “No one has the right to make you feel uncomfortable or do things that invade your privacy.” In short, parents, the “right to privacy” applies to your kids and supersedes your authority –like, don’t even think about, like, telling your kids what to do.

 

In a series of E-mail exchanges with me, Andrea (*) explained that butt, cum and dick “are not vulgar words [but] names of body parts and sexual identity.” These “are generally the words used in the medical sphere.” Teens should have access to “accurate and comprehensive information about how their body works and about sex.”  CPS is designed as an informational source for teens, not parents, so the information we give is geared towards that age group.” But “if parents are unfamiliar with the information because they were not given comprehensive sex education as teens, they can use the site to educate themselves as well.” And “a teen who feels they cannot discuss this information with their parents and/or does not receive comprehensive sex education in their school would be thankful to have this information available to them.” How thoughtful.  

 

Before leaving the CPS web site, do a Search on “abstinence.” You will learn that it is ineffective and “that there are a bunch of very conservative and fanatically religious people who are spreading lies about safe sex” (bold emphasis added).

 

 

You can buy products from CPS to help them “continue providing teens with candid sex education materials” –the poster above will certainly inspire your teenage daughter!

 

(*) In her own words: I have a B.A. in psychology, and have taken several graduate courses both at Boston University and George Washington University in Adolescent Development, Reproductive Health, and Sex, Culture, and Development.  I have attended several conferences hosted by amfAR and the APHA regarding reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and adolescent development.  In addition, I work with the Uniformed Services University to help train medical students on how to properly counsel and treat sexually active adolescents.

 

 

 

*Milla Kette is President of Grassroots American Values (www.plan2succeed.org/grassroots), a non-profit, Firelands area (North Central Ohio) Conservative action group.  GAV exists to promote and defend the right to life, marriage and traditional family values, small government within constitutional boundaries of the founders, personal responsibility, and American Sovereignty.  To contact us or send a donation, write to P.O. Box 286, Huron, Ohio, 44839 or E-mail: grassroots@bex.net.

Bait and Switch

6/13/2006
By Robert Knight

In debating a federal marriage amendment, liberals will talk about anything other than marriage.

This column ran on Townhall.com on June 12, 2006.

The next time a liberal U.S. senator rises to talk about anything other than three topics – Iraq, gas prices or health care – conservatives should read them their statements during last week’s debate over the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA).

It makes no difference what legislation the liberals bring up. They could be talking about the space program, antitrust law, peanut subsidies, or protecting Ted Kennedy’s Cape Cod home from ugly windmills. It doesn’t matter. When they begin to talk, they should be reminded that we should be discussing only Iraq, gas prices and health care. Nothing else is important.

The liberal song this week was numbingly repetitive, like the end of Hey Jude, (“Nah, nah, nah, nah nah nah nah”) but without a catchy melody. Here’s the gist: “Why, oh why, are we dealing with something as trivial as preserving marriage, when we could be bashing the Bush administration? Iraq! Gas prices! Health care! All together now!”

Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) was one of the few who actually talked about the MPA itself. He called any vote for the amendment “a vote for bigotry, pure and simple.” Well, that’s pretty straightforward. If Mr. Kennedy is correct, then about half the Senate, the president of the United States, the Pope, Billy Graham, the late Mother Teresa, Franklin Roosevelt, the Founding Fathers and a majority of the U.S. electorate are or were drooling, raving hate mongers.

This is because the amendment language itself was not an issue for Mr. Kennedy. It was the appalling idea itself of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Anyone who believes that a wedding needs a bride and a groom is in Mr. Kennedy’s Bigotry Hall of Shame. Even though Mr. Kennedy is undoubtedly an expert on creative expressions of marriage, it would have been better for the country and even for him if he had spent more of his time talking about Iraq. Or gas prices. Or health care.

Barbara Boxer (D-California) outdid herself in trying to tie Iraq to the marriage amendment. She went on about the high divorce rate among active military personnel and asked the plaintive question, which I’m slightly paraphrasing, “How is denying stable, perfect, angelic, faithful, loving same-sex couples a marriage certificate going to help these women whose lives are falling apart because their husbands are deployed in Iraq?” She even brought in the impact on the kids, as if conservatives were kicking them into the gutter and beating them about the ears with a rolled-up copy of the MPA.

Now, the plight of military families is a worthy topic, but was their welfare really the point of Sen. Boxer’s rant? Not hardly.

Incredible as it may seem, we are still supposed to believe that, as a group, liberal U.S. senators passionately believe that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman.

We know because they all told us that before moving on to the Bush bashing. They all “support our troops” in Iraq, too. That’s why they want to pull out immediately and then conduct war crime trials.

When all was said and done, seven “maverick” (read: liberal) Republicans joined all but two Democrats in voting to kill the amendment. It was McCain (Arizona), Specter (Pennsylvania) and the New England Gang (Snowe and Collins of Maine, Sununu and Gregg of New Hampshire, and the ever-trendy Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island) against the rest of the country, or at least Red State America.

Meanwhile, while senators were fiddling in Washington, the people in Alabama gave an 81 percent approval to their state constitutional amendment. Apparently, they didn’t get the memo that marriage isn’t supposed to be a big deal.

Alabama is the 20th state to amend its constitution to protect marriage, with at least six more states – Idaho, South Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Wisconsin – voting in November.

Another whopper heard on the U.S. Senate floor was the contention that “states are handling this just fine, so we don’t need a federal amendment.”

That would make sense if liberal judges weren’t trashing marriage laws from Massachusetts and Maryland, to Georgia and Nebraska, with Washington state and New Jersey judges poised to do the dirty deed, perhaps after the election in November.

In Nebraska, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon last year struck down a constitutional amendment passed by 70 percent of the electorate. His reasoning? Passage of the amendment precludes a “class” of people from “petitioning their government for redress of grievances.” And what’s the grievance? The state’s voters don’t want to recognize anything other than man-woman unions as marriages. This means that people who want other arrangements, such as two guys, two girls, three girls, two guys and a girl, a guy, a girl and a mariachi band, are being denied their First Amendment rights.

The logic of this ruling is that anyone on the losing end of a constitutional amendment – federal or state – could claim that he is being denied the right to representational government. In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans (1996), Anthony Kennedy used the same logic while accusing the people of Colorado of hatred and bigotry. Perhaps he picked this kind of stuff up while contemplating the meaning of the universe as he read the latest edition of a European law journal or a UFO magazine.

There was one bright spot in the proceedings, and this was that the senators did not pontificate about immigration. That’s because they had already rammed through a wildly unpopular amnesty bill and had their ears burned by their constituents.

I guess we should be grateful for small favors.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

 

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org

 

 

Franklin Roosevelt Lied to Us About WMD

By Thomas E. Brewton

If President Bush “lied” when he reported what all Western nations’ 
intelligence services had concluded about Saddam Hussein’s 
activities, then President Franklin Roosevelt perpetrated the biggest 
and most destructive lie in American history.

President Roosevelt repeatedly lied about the cause of the 
Depression.  The legacy of that lie is three generations of Americans 
believing the mythology of socialism.

————-
In his first inaugural address in 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt 
blamed the Depression on the principles of individualism and economic 
liberty for which the colonists went to war in 1776.  In retrospect 
we can see that his public statements about the source of the 
Depression were either deliberate lies, or harmful ignorance. We also 
can see that his policies were, to put the best face on it, ill-advised.

He called upon the American people to accept the socialistic state-
planning techniques of Mussolini’s Fascist Italy and Stalin’s Soviet 
Union; he called upon the American people to become members of the 
proletarian masses moving, as he said, like a great army under his 
leadership to redistribute land ownership and to bring private 
industry under government planning.

His first legislative actions placed American manufacturers under the 
control of government councils to fix prices, production volumes, and 
wages.  He next socialized the nation’s agriculture (by far our 
largest employer at that time), telling farmers what and how much 
they could plant, and fixing farm prices.

President Roosevelt got so many things wrong and misrepresented so 
many things that picking his most destructive one is difficult.  For 
that I nominate the myth that the monetary gold standard caused the 
Depression and that only a fiat currency, inflated and managed by the 
Federal Reserve, could restore prosperity.

That lie removed our only effective check on unlimited expansion of 
the collectivized, socialized National State.  Presidents and 
Congress can now rely upon the Fed to expand the money supply and 
finance any amount of debt to augment the welfare-state.

Expanding the money supply isn’t free.  It comes out of your pocket 
via higher prices for everything, steadily reducing the value of 
every hour you work.  At the Fed’s target of approximately 3 percent 
annual inflation, prices will more than double every generation (24 
years).  The dollar you have at age 18 will be worth less than 23 
cents by the time you reach age 68.  This is the reality behind the 
New York Times’s whining about the “end of the American middle-class 
dream,” which they propose to cure with more spending and more 
inflation.

Mr. Roosevelt’s economic advisors characterized the gold standard as 
an outworn relic that had caused the wave of bank failures and the 
Depression itself.  They mythologized that a gold standard is too 
rigid a mechanism for regulating the amount of money in circulation, 
that only socialist state-planners have the necessary knowledge and 
skill to regulate the economy.  (We experienced the fruits of that 
theory in the 1970s stagflation, when inflation went as high as 20 
percent per annum).

Facts were altogether different.  At no time was there an 
insufficiency of gold to back an appropriate expansion of the money 
supply via emergency lending that would have prevented the wave of 
bank failures in 1932 and 1933.  The amounts of gold held by the Fed 
were far in excess of the legal reserve requirements for money in 
circulation.  The Fed deliberately chose to ignore the gold standard 
and refused to act in one of the most fundamental roles assigned to 
it by the 1913 Federal Reserve Act: as lender-of-last-resort to 
prevent bank failures.

Because they wanted to devalue the dollar and induce inflation, 
believing that doing so would revitalize the economy, President 
Roosevelt and his advisors misrepresented the Fed’s failure to act as 
a failure of the gold standard.  This became a rationalization behind 
the 1935 Banking Act (drafted by Harvard socialist economist and 
secret Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie) that put the Reserve Banks under 
the thumb of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, making the Fed 
more susceptible to political influence.

In the years since the Depression, generations of students have been 
left ignorant of the true nature of the New Deal’s transformation of 
our original federal constitutional system into a collectivized, 
socialistic behemoth centered in Washington, DC.

The extent of President Roosevelt’s socialist revolution can be seen 
in contrast to the views of the people who wrote the Constitution.

In Federalist No. 9, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The proposed 
Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State 
governments, makes them constituent parts of the national 
sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, 
and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important 
portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every 
rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.”

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote: “The powers reserved to 
the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the 
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and 
properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and 
prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government 
will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; 
those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.”

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

To the RNC: Why You Need to Draft Tom Tancredo for President

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

You have been calling my home lately and asking me to send you money.

 

Years ago I recall telling you during one of those calls that the national politicians you have endorsed over the years need to close the borders before you ask Americans for more money.

 

You thanked me for my input. And then you ignored it.

 

During another call to my home, you played a recorded message about Hillary’s planned run for the presidency, read by a Republican politician, and warned that we needed to rally around your candidate. And send you money.

 

I recall thinking then that you were using the spectre of a Hillary presidency as a kind of club to subdue a restive populace and extort them into supporting you.

 

So I told you “don’t beat me over the head with Hillary.” That silenced the caller and he didn’t dun me any more for money. In fact, he sheepishly agreed when I told him we need better border control than we were getting from our current administration.

 

When leftwing Senator Specter was running for re-election in 2004, he had some stiff competition from PA House Representative Pat Toomey. You folks closed ranks around Specter, with  President Bush, and even Specter’s antithesis Senator Rick Santorum, dutifully endorsing Specter.

 

You won,and America lost.

 

Now Arlen Specter, who has some reason to think we voters are stupid, has led the Senate elite in passing a bill that gives special privileges to lawbreakers—even exempting them from criminal prosecution for identity theft, something Specter’s hard working taxpaying constituents would be jailed for were they to attempt it.

 

Could Hillary have done worse?

 

But let me explain why you should draft Tom Tancredo.

 

I recently got done reading an excerpt from Representative Tancredo’s book “In Mortal Danger, the battle for America’s borders and security,” which was featured in Whistleblower, a hardcopy periodical by WorldNetDaily.

 

I was amazed at the level of scholarship in this excellent treatise on immigration. I was amazed that a politician of your party could care so deeply about America, her values and her security.

 

More than anything I was struck by how much Tancredo’s words reminded me of Reagan’s (the man you only reluctantly endorsed).

 

Near the end of the excerpt, Tancredo writes:

 

I believe that immigration and citizenship reform is so important that how we resolve this challenge will not only determine what kind of country we will be but whether or not America will remain a country.

 

This reminded me for all the world of Reagan’s words:

 

You and I have a rendez-vous with destiny. We will either preserve for our children this last best hope of mankind or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.

 

This same issue of Whistleblower shows that our immigration policy is shaped in large part by the powerful globalist Council on Foreign Relations, which has been identified as a kind of elitist shadow government, and has had many leftward leaning and influential members and donors. The article entitled “The CFR Solution” discusses the CFR’s May 2005 document entitled “Building a North American Community,” in which  the CFR recommends essentially open borders with Canada and Mexico, in apparent imitation of the EU. They envision close cooperation with these two countries in controlling immigration into the larger region thereby created, through what would then be a common border.

 

One problem with this idea is that, while thus far, the relatively mild-mannered Vicente Fox has been in charge of immigration policies in Mexico, a red-eyed anti-American leftist has been preparing to run for Fox’s job, and, should we succeed in keeping our borders open, with the aid of an elitist Senate and president acting at variance with the public’s desires, we could see a repeat of the situation that is now being experienced in Europe, where Zapatero’s Spain has been identified by EU leadership as an unchecked immigration leak that invites unwanted invasion by hordes of unwanted “guest workers” and even terrorists, via a so-called “call effect,” producing an artificially high demand for immigration to Spain, particularly from Muslim North African countries, and hence to other EU countries, which could not be stopped thanks to the Schengen agreement that creates a border-free zone throughout Europe. The best explanation of how this situation affects Euope, and Spain in particular, is explained in a Spanish-language article published by Spanish watchdog organization HazteOir.org.

 

Such a situation, i.e., a larger multinational region threatened by the irresponsible actions of one member nation’s government, is exactly what will happen here if we abolish borders among Canada, Mexico and the US. Some day, a Mexican or Canadian president, eager for more votes, could open up our common border to unchecked immigration despite pleas from the American government, which by then would be nothing but a toothless hag.

 

It will be like the last days of the Siamese twin who had shared his life with his now dead and stinking brother, and awaited a certain death.

 

But unlike him, we need not make this terrible mistake and tie ourselves inseparably to our brothers to the north and south. We need not share the consequences of any death wish one of them might have in the future.

 

But even if you at the RNC persist in your belief that the CFR is wiser than the mere mortals whom you hold in thrall, there is a consideration that is closer to home for you, namely, your ability to win.

 

And this is where I get to wield the club:

 

You cannot win a presidential election with a candidate like John McCain, who endorsed the Senate amnesty package. In fact, you most likely can’t win with anyone but Tom Tancredo as a candidate. And that means a Hillary win is quite possible.

 

Here is why:

 

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemand Project, is considering running for president with the Constitution Party. Gilchrist has said the only candidate he will support as a Republican presidential nominee in 2008 is Representative Tom Tancredo.

 

This would leave two possibilities for the 2008 election if you should fail to draft Tancredo:

 

1)       By a miracle of God, Gilchrist, and the Constitution Party, wins, permanently creating a 3-party system that drains the life blood of the Republican Party.

 

2)       The Democrat candidate wins, also draining your power.

 

This is because millions of unaligned voters, disgusted with the open border policy of the Republicans, either will stay home or, fearing for their security, will go and vote for Gilchrist, whose promise of border security they know they can trust.

 

You can keep hitting people over the head with Hillary all you want. And some will fall for it. But many of us fail to see any meaningful differences between Hillary and a lot of the Republicans whom you have endorsed in the past.

 

America desperately needs a change, for her own survival. And I believe she will somehow achieve it. You can either be part of that change or watch others as they bring it about. So choose your role: spectator or participant. I hope you will do what is best for the American people—and yourselves—and draft Tom Tancredo for president in 2008.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Don Laigle
Comments: don@laiglesforum.com

Democrat Politicians out of Touch

Democrat politicians are so out of touch!  Recently the US Senate passed
an amendment to the Immigration Bill that declares “English is the national,
one and unifying language of this nation.”  The reaction from the Democrat
Senators,  “Oh, it is so racist, so bigoted!”  Yet, polls show that 85% of
Americans support such! What is bigoted about declaring that the official
language of this nation is English?

Now, even though polls show that the vast majority of Americans believe
that marriage should be defined as only between one man and one woman,
most of the Senate Democrats just voted against the federal Constitutional
Amendment that would have declared such for the USA.  We need this, as
too many states have passed such amendments, only to get struck down
by lone unelected liberal activist judge.  If the Amendment had
been approved, it would have gone to all the States’ voters for approval. 
And yes, even liberal “blue” states like New York and California would
have approved it.  But, the Senate Democrats don’t want “we the people” to
vote on it. Why?  Because they are so beholden to the homosexual-agenda-
crowd!  Shame on the Democrats, and I urge you to remember these facts
in the elections! 
 
Daniel Barton
Fayetteville, NC

Immigration and Social Disintegration

By Thomas E. Brewton

Wariness about the influence of immigration on society is neither 
racist nor paranoid.

——————-
The message of this posting is not that immigration is bad, but that 
immigration without assimilation – linguistically and culturally – is 
disastrous.

Multi-cultural and PC education, along with the welfare state, could 
hardly have been designed more effectively (borrowing Walter 
Lippmann’s phrase) to dissolve American society in the acids of 
modernity and immigration.  If these remain in power and if 
immigration continues at the pace of recent years, the United States 
will become a disunited crowd of people at each other’s throats and 
easy prey for Islamic jihad or any other foreign enemy.

Some arguments for uncontrolled immigration are based on abstractions 
about economic equality of “the workers” and “constitutional rights” 
to the benefits of our over-extended welfare, health care, and 
educational systems.

More fundamental, however,  than the abstract French “Rights of Man” 
is national cohesion and survival.

To say that we’re a nation of immigrants is not an argument to 
support uncontrolled illegal immigration.  And it assuredly is not an 
argument for allowing Hispanics to impose their language and culture 
upon the United States.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid denounced making English our 
official language, calling the legislation racist.  In addition to 
political intemperance, his characterization was a matter of 
historically demonstrable imprudence.

The longest-lasting and greatest of history’s civilizations was the 
Roman Empire, which endured for more than a thousand years.  Until 
the junking of history by liberal-progressive educators in the 20th 
century, our statesmen were well informed about Roman history and 
viewed it as a model to be studied and emulated.

Cicero, one of Rome’s great statesmen, in his dialog the 
“Commonwealth,” noted that major influxes of foreign populations can 
be disastrous to a republic:

“But maritime cities are likewise naturally exposed to corrupt
influences, and revolutions of manners. Their civilization is more or
less adulterated by new languages and customs, and they import not 
only foreign merchandise, but foreign fashions, to such a degree that
nothing can continue unalloyed in the national institutions….. And 
this is one evident reason of the calamities and revolutions of 
Greece, because she became infected with the vices which belong to 
maritime cities, which I just now briefly enumerated.”
In the “Republic” Cicero observed:

“…The commonwealth, then, is the people’s affair; and the people is 
not every group of men, associated in any manner, but is the coming 
together of a considerable number of men who are united by a common 
agreement about law and rights and by the desire to participate in 
mutual advantages.…”

The United States is daily becoming less a commonwealth united by 
common language, culture, and agreement about law and rights than a 
bus station where Mexican illegals remain for a while to collect pay 
checks and welfare benefits before heading back home.

Handled correctly, however, as our own history proves, legal 
immigration can as easily be a blessing as a curse.  Edward Gibbon in 
“The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (1776 – 1788), noted:

“The narrow policy of preserving, without foreign mixture, the pure 
blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune and hastened 
the ruin of Athens and Sparta.  The aspiring genius of Rome 
sacrificed vanity to ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as 
honourable, to adopt virtue and merit for her own wheresoever they 
were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians.”

This policy worked, however, only when the encompassed populations 
were assimilated into the Roman culture.

Gibbon continues, “Their partial distinctions were obliterated, and 
they insensibly coalesced into one great nation, united by language, 
manners, and civil institutions…. So sensible were the Romans of 
the influence of language over national manners, that it was their 
most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use 
of the Latin tongue…. Domestic peace and union were the natural 
consequences of the moderate and comprehensive policy embraced by the 
Romans.”

Fast-forward to the United States of the early 1830s described by 
Alexis de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America.”  Tocqueville wrote:

“Other inhabitants of America have the same physical conditions of 
prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without their laws and 
customs; and these people are miserable. The laws and customs of the 
Anglo-Americans are therefore that special and predominant cause of 
their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.”

“…. American laws are therefore good, and to them must be 
attributed a large portion of the success that attends the government 
of democracy in America; but I do not believe them to be the 
principal cause of that success…. there is still reason to believe 
that their effect is inferior to that produced by the customs of the 
people…. Mexico, which is not less fortunately situated than the 
Anglo-American Union, has adopted these same laws,but is unable to 
accustom itself to the government of democracy.”

“….But in what portion of the globe shall we find more fertile 
plains, mightier rivers, or more unexplored and inexhaustible riches 
than in South America?  Yet South Americans have been unable to 
maintain democratic institutions.”

“…. The customs of the Americans of the United States are, then, 
the peculiar cause which renders that people the only one of the 
American nations that is able to support democratic government…. 
Too much importance is attributed to legislation, too little to 
customs……The importance of customs is a common truth to which 
study and experience incessantly direct our attention.  It may be 
regarded as a central point in the range of observation, and the 
common termination of all my inquiries.”

On a preceding page, in a footnote, Tocqueville explained, “I remind 
the reader of the general significance which I give to the word 
‘customs’: namely, the moral and intellectual characteristics of the 
men of society.”

With regard to the moral aspect of ‘customs,’ he wrote:

“In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon 
the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the 
customs of the community, and, by regulating domestic life, it 
regulates the state.”

Note that Mexico is, and always has been, under dictatorial 
government of one variety or another.  Nominally a federal republic 
since 1917, Mexico has been under the thumb of PRI (Institutional 
Revolutionary Party) socialist bosses with the exception of the 
current president.  But no matter who is in control, Mexico remains a 
socialistic, collectivized, and therefore impoverished nation in 
which political rule and corruption have seldom been parted.

Thus Mexicans, legal and illegal, come into the United States with a 
different language and as alien a set of ideas about the rule of law 
and social customs as they might had they arrived from another 
planet.  Confronting this challenge, we thumb our noses at the 
historical lessons from past civilizations.  We willingly abandon the 
language and the laws and customs that produced the success of the 
United States and conform our language, laws, and customs to those of 
the invaders.

Without a reversion to the “melting pot” paradigm of public education 
as it existed into the 1920s (and as late as the 50s in some parts of 
the nation), there can be no hope of averting a calamitous 
amplification of the cultural civil war started by our liberal-
socialists in the mid-1920s.  If we continue on that path, the United 
States is doomed.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

President Beorge W. Bush and Bill Clinton: The Appeasers

 

 

by Jim Kouri, CPP

 

George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If only such a cliche’ were not true with regard to President George W. Bush. If he believes caving in to Iranian extortion is the way to better his poll numbers, he may be right. But what he’s doing is only postponing the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons program for a future presidential administration.

Iran is considering a package of incentives offered by six world powers — including the United States — in return for curbing its nuclear program, according to an Associate Press story.

In Tehran, chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani described the offer as containing both “positive steps” and “ambiguities.”

The big giveaway package okayed by the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany in effort to end the growing tension over Iran’s nuclear program.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said: “If the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, then we’ll be able to discuss more openly what the incentives are and we certainly hope that that’s the case.”

The package of extorted incentives — which haven’t been described to the public yet — is part of a number of expected rewards presented to the Iranian government by the European Union’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

According to the AP, the “package” is understood to include help in building light water reactors for a peaceful energy program. Also, the United States has agreed to provide Boeing aircraft parts for Iran’s aging civilian fleet. This deal is a decisive break with a 26-year stance towards Iran, by offering direct talks between Washington and Tehran if the Iranian government halts nuclear enrichment.

The buzz within the Washington Beltway is that the deal smacks of the Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter deal with the North Koreans in 1994. And that’s not a good sign. The North Koreans snookered millions of dollars from the Clinton Administration in return for a promise to abandon their nuclear weapons program — a promise they broke.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton/Carter incentive program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked verification.In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the US aid program.

And while Clinton’s flunkies in the mainstream news media blame Bush for North Korea’s nuclear bombs — because he hurt their feelings by including them in the so-called Axis of Evil — the Marxist-Stalinist regime never intended to honor their agreement.

That plan was a fiasco. And when a liberal’s plan becomes a fiasco, they keep using that plan over and over again. It’s insanity — the definition of which is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. This time the liberal is George W. Bush.

So within a few months, we’ve gone from the US preparing a nuclear attack on Iran — if you believe the story in the leftist New Yorker magazine — to the US preparing to give a grab-bag full of goodies to a nation that harbors terrorists, trains terrorists and arms terrorists. A nation that contributes to the deaths of America’s best and bravest. Apparently to President Bush the options are blowing up the Iranians to kingdom come or giving the Iranians oodles of largesse.

Could this be a result of the Bush family’s relationship with Bill Clinton? Could Clinton truly be as charismatic and convincing as the news media say he is? I don’t get it. I listen to him and I hear “Flimflam Man.” I look at him and I see one of the world’s greatest confidence men.  Yet, somehow the Bushes, including Dubya, seemed enthralled by the man.

This is merely conjecture on my part, but I believe President Bush wants the Iran crisis to disappear in order to advance his true agenda — rampant immigration and dissolving of America’s borders, more government intrusion into the affairs of individual states and individual Americans, and kissing up to foreign governments to make deals that ultimately hurt Americans, but move closer to globalism.

And why should we be surprised? Like Clinton, Bush is a Globalyst. Like Clinton, he’d rather spend money on domestic and international social programs than on protecting the US. For instance, Bush appropriated under $2 Billion for border security, while he appropriated $12 Billion for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa. The US spends more protecting the Iraq-Iran border than is spent protecting the US-Mexico border.

Like Clinton’s poll numbers in 1994, Bush’s numbers are in the toilet and this may just cause a shift in power in the House and Senate come November. Clinton’s remarks and policies caused an enormous shift in power that benefited the GOP. Bush’s remarks and policies may cause a similar shift in power, this time benefiting Democrats.

Bush sold-out conservatives in so many ways that it doesn’t take a degree in political science to know conservatives will watch reruns of “I Love Lucy” instead of voting for GOP candidates this November. His interest in a gay marriage amendment is too little, too late.

And now, Bush appears ready to enter a Clintonesque deal with the Iranians. Why bother? Truth be told, the US will never attack Iran. And Iran will work on obtaining nuclear weapons — incentives or no incentives. Why bother rewarding them with taxpayer money? Bottom-line is that promises from radical Muslims aren’t worth a plugged-nickel. To them, their word to the infidels is meaningless.

The answer is to disengage from foreign entanglements. Create a Strategic Defense System to protect the US. Protect our borders with all the resources necessary to protect them. Continue streamlining the military so that it is a leaner, meaner fighting machine that protects Americans, but is not used for foreign adventures such as Haiti, Kosovo and other regions in which we have no interests.

Maintain an intelligence and counterintelligence mechanism that works to protect Americans and doesn’t get involved in partisan politics. The primary goal is to protect the homeland, not cut security budgets in order to create pork barrel projects and earmarks to help politicians maintain their power.
 

Discuss This Article


Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

 

 

 

 

 

Border Patrol Agents: Senator McCain Sells Us Out (Again)

 

 

 

Border Patrol Agents: Senator McCain Sells Us Out (Again)

by Jim Kouri, CPP

 

United States Border Patrol agents are not happy with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) since he voted for the Amnesty Bill (S. 2611). And they’re not being quiet about their collective anger over the senator’s actions and remarks.

But, according to members of the agents’ union local 2544, Senator McCain has never been a friend to rank-and-file Border Patrol agents. Local 2544 represents US Border Patrol agents in Arizona, McCain’s home state.

“He routinely ignores correspondence from Border Patrol agents and often gives the impression that he is just too big and too important to deal with us,” they said.

“He attempts to undermine our mission at every turn and actively supports the criminals who violate our laws. He always trys to downplay the fact that illegal aliens knowingly and willingly violate our laws, and he is a close ally on immigration matters with Senator Ted Kennedy, who we believe is the biggest disgrace of all time in the United States Senate.”

These law enforcement agents point to Senator McCain’s “imperious attitude” towards rank-and-file Border Patrol agents and his complete disdain for their mission has been evident for many years.

“We will not bother listing his website [for citizens to write to him] because it’s obvious he couldn’t care less what the average American thinks and he isn’t up for re-election until 2010.”

And these agents aren’t just singling out McCain for their ire. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is also in their sights. They point to how
Senator Specter, at the last minute, put a clause in the Senate’s shameful immigration bill that forces the United States government to “consult” with Mexico prior to planning or building any fences or barriers on our border.

“Not on Mexico’s [side of the] border, but yes, on United States soil. We can’t wait to see this fencing project after the “consultations” take place. Maybe they can even appoint “Congressman” Raul Grijalva to lead the “consultations” for the United States of America.”

The agents said that this is the same Mexican government that sends millions of Mexican citizens here illegally to steal jobs and send billions of dollars back to Mexico. This is the same Mexican government whose soldiers smuggle drugs and shoot at Border Patrol agents. This is the same Mexican government that is corrupt to the core. This is the same Mexican government that uses its consular officers to sue the United States government.

“Great move Specter. Talk about the “FOX” guarding the henhouse.”

The Senate passed a shameful immigration bill at the urging of an equally shameful George W. Bush, fresh off his dune-buggy riding jaunt in Yuma surrounded by a bunch of adoring, star-struck Border Patrol managers, quipped the agents.

“This bill cheapens citizenship in this country (again), it throws the rule of law out the window (again), it places unconscionable burdens on DHS (verifying the identity of every illegal alien in this country within 90 days), it repeats, and at a minimum, quadruples the worst immigration mistake in the history of this country.

“it sells out our sovereignty by forcing the American government to “consult with the Mexican government” before planning or building any border fences, it encourages more widespread fraud than this country has ever seen (you’ll see what we’re talking about if this actually passes the House), and it is completely unenforceable and will overwhelm the system,” the agents said in a statement submitted to the US Senate.

“You [McCain, Kennedy, Specter, et al] have succeeded in placing the morale of frontline Border Patrol agents in the toilet just when we thought it couldn’t possibly get any worse.”
 

Discuss This Article


Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

Immigration and Irish Home Rule

By Thomas E. Brewton

Historical parallels are never exact, but political events in England 
at the beginning of the 20th century had some remarkable similarities 
to our political turmoil at the beginning of the 21st century.

——————-
Republicans are split over the Mexican immigration problem and in 
danger of losing their Congressional majorities.  If the fracture 
continues to widen, the Republican Party may find itself wandering in 
the political desert for a 40-years Exodus, because of its attempts 
at fence-straddling.

Shortly after the Parliamentary elections of 1910, the British 
Liberal Party (laissez-faire, small-government conservatism; the 
opposite of American-style liberal-socialism) was ripped to pieces in 
the heated controversy over granting Irish home rule.  In the 
fallout, the Liberal Party died, its place taken by the socialist 
Labour Party.

The Boer War, England’s bloody 1899 – 1902 slog in South Africa, 
drained public support from the Liberals, just as Vietnam did and 
Iraq is doing today in the United States.

Republican compassionate conservatism is turning out to be big-
government welfare and old-style pork-barreling that is 
indistinguishable from Democratic Party liberalism.

Much the same drift was eroding the moral principles of the English 
Liberal Party after 1910.  David Lloyd George was elevated to the 
Chancellorship of the Exchequer (treasury secretary), where he 
produced a budget that opened the door wide to socialism and eventual 
triumph of the Labour Party.  His rise to prominence had been levered 
by having bitterly opposed the Boer War and being regarded in the 
sanguinary aftermath as a seer, a game that American liberal 
Republicans and Democrats are playing to the hilt today.

Facing a monumental war debt and the need to find the tax revenues to 
fund it, Lloyd George went on a propaganda offensive with his 
“Peoples Budget” that attacked the Conservative party in the Commons 
and essentially the whole of the House of Lords.  He proposed, in 
addition to institution of a welfare system, increases in inheritance 
taxes, a tax on undeveloped land, taxes on coal and mineral 
royalties, and a fee for the termination of leases, along with a 
heavy tax on liquor sales and a super-tax on all incomes over £5,000 
per year.

These affronts galvanized and united the Conservatives, who set out 
to thwart the Liberals at every step of the way, just as Democrats 
here have done in the last few years with Senate filibusters and 
other parliamentary tactics.

Needing increased Parliamentary support to offset the Conservatives, 
the Liberals made an alliance with the Irish members of Parliament.  
Their price was Liberal support for the politically explosive issue 
of home rule for Ireland. This amounted to revocation of the Act of 
Union, which had codified English control of Irish political affairs.

Irish home rule was the same sort of culturally and racially tinged 
issue that immigration of Mexican illegals has become for us today.  
The battle raged into 1914, on the eve of World War I, which was to 
demote London as the world’s financial center and Great Britain as 
the dominant factor in international trade.  In the 1920s, the 
socialist Labour Party became the ruling political party and 
continued so until it had ground England into the economic dust, 
making it the sick man of Europe in the 1950s and 1960s.

After more than 50 years, Great Britain was finally rescued in the 
1970s by the moral fortitude of Margaret Thatcher and her rebuilding 
of the Conservative Party.

If present Republican Party leadership are not more prudent than they 
have been so far, Republicans will follow the path of the British 
laissez-faire Liberal Party and surrender the United States to 
liberal socialism.  That will destroy us, if Al Queda doesn’t do it 
first.  In this round of history there may not be enough time for an 
American Margaret Thatcher to come to the fore and take the reins.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. 
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of 
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

John Dewey: Dracula Still Undead in Full Sunlight

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Subjecting the doctrines of John Dewey to full disclosure reveals ideas that only liberal-socialists could accept.  Those ideas were to education what bleeding would be as a remedy for anemia.

While the man and his pernicious ideas are open to view, we have yet to put a stake through his heart and inter him forever.



——————-
John Dewey was the Dracula of modern education, living on the blood of young students, sucking the life out of American society.

I have written extensively about him.  Read Why Clinton Got a Pass: John Dewey and the Baby-Boomers, as well as The Corruption of Public Education: How It Happened, along with other posts under the Education category.

For the full sunlight treatment, read Bob Cheeks’s review on the Intellectual Conservative website of the book titled “John Dewey and the Decline of American Education.”

Visit MoveOff Network Members