Tag Archives: homosexuality

California State knows best for your child

State bans gayhomosexual-repair therapy for minors

San Francisco Chronicle: California has become the first state in the country to ban controversial  therapy practices that attempt to change the sexual orientation of minors after  Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill  to outlaw them Saturday.

The bill, SB1172 by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance (Los Angeles County), bars mental health practitioners from  performing so-called reparative therapy, which professional psychological  organizations have said may cause harm. Gay Homosexual rights groups have labeled them  dangerous and abusive.

“This bill bans non-scientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to  depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and  they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery,” Brown said in a  statement to The Chronicle.

National gay homosexual rights organizations had been lobbying the governor intensely to  sign the therapy ban. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay homosexual, bisexual and transgender  rights organization, sent Brown a petition with nearly 50,000 signatures urging  him to approve the measure.

“LGHBT youth will now be protected from a practice that has not only been  debunked as junk science, but has been proven to have drastically negative  effects on their well-being. We commend Gov. Brown for putting children first,  and call on all states to take California’s lead on this issue,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

Penalty for therapists

Under the new law, which will take effect Jan. 1, no mental health provider  will be able to provide therapy that seeks “to change behaviors or gender  expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or  feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Mental health professionals who violate the law, which applies to therapy for  patients younger than 18, will be subject to discipline by whatever group  licenses them.

The therapy often starts from the premise that a person’s childhood and  parental upbringing has somehow left that person deficient and thus has led him  or her to same-sex attractions. Practitioners often are religious, and gay  homosexual rights groups have derisively characterized the therapy as an attempt to “pray  away the gay.”

As Eowyn noted last October, California law lets 12-Yr-olds get STD vaccines without parental knowledge. Eowyn also pointed out:

Nos. 40 and 41 of the “45 Communist Goals for America” that was entered into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963, are:

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce” and “Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.”

California, working very hard on owning your children.

DCG

Tolerance…just a one way street for some

The new “normal” family…

Remember the post I did about the new NBC show called “The New Normal”?

“Bryan and David are a Beverly Hills homosexual couple and they have it all. Well, almost. With successful careers and a committed and loving homosexual partnership, the one thing missing is a baby. And just when they think the stars will never align, enter Goldie, an extraordinary young woman with a checkered past. A Midwestern waitress and single mother looking to escape her dead-end life and small-minded grandmother, Goldie decides to change everything and move to L.A. with her precocious eight-year-old daughter. Desperate and broke – but also fertile – Goldie quickly becomes the guys’ surrogate and quite possibly the girl of their dreams. Surrogate mother, surrogate family.”

A Utah station is refusing to air the show and, oh my goodness, how intolerant of them!

Insidetv: The same Mormon-owned Utah station that refused to carry NBC’s The Playboy Club last season is now giving a thumbs down to the net’s new comedy The New Normal.

The CEO of KSL-TV’s parent company said that “from time to time we may struggle with content” and that the dialogue may be “excessively rude.” The comedy from Glee creator Ryan Murphy is about a gay couple who relies on a surrogate to have a baby. “For our brand, this program feels inappropriate on several dimensions, especially during family viewing time,” said Jeff Simpson of Bonneville International.

NBC issued this response: “The New Normal is a contemporary look at how families are defined today, portrayed through a comedic prism. We are confident that the show will find another home in the Salt Lake City market.” NBC insiders have long pointed out that the station is in a unique situation since its parent company Bonneville is owned by the Church of The Latter-day Saints. But like Playboy Club, New Normal is expected to find a new home. (In this case, it will be via the independent station KUCW). It will apparently air on weekends, the Tribune reports.

In the meantime, GLAAD joined in on the fray Saturday. “Same-sex families are a beloved part of American television thanks to shows like Modern Family, Glee and Grey’s Anatomy,” said President Herndon Graddick in a statement. “While audiences, critics and advertisers have all supported lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender stories, KSL is demonstrating how deeply out of touch it is with the rest of the country. We invite Jeff Simpson to sit down with GLAAD and local LGBT families. We know that if he would, he would see that not only are our families normal, but my citing ‘crude and rude’ content and refusing to affirm LGBT families, KSL and Mr. Simpson are sending a dangerous message in Utah. They should make it right.”

Earlier this year, the conservative group that dubs itself One Million Moms called for a boycott of the comedy that stars Justin Bartha and Ellen Barkin. Murphy has this to say at this summer’s Television Critics Tour: “Every person and group has a right to protest something. I find it to be interesting that they would take a position before they’ve seen it. I think if they watch the show, I actually think they would love it. For the first time they will be represented! Ellen Barkin’s character is a member of the Million Moms! She will protest people and events and I think it will be great fodder for Brian and David’s characters to talk about. In many ways this show is about tolerance and the discussion of the tolerance and its delivered with sensitivity with a certain amount of veracity.

The oh-so-tolerant “Million Mom”…

You want to talk about tolerance and the “Million Mom” Ellen Barkin?  How about we look at some of her recent tweets?

  • 19 Jul 12: Gotta go to bed.Work in morning.I love everybody…except u right wing fuckin morons.X
  • 26 Jul 12: @Fly_Pete @Cajun_Manor strong! Every1knows Breitbart died from Peruvian Flu *snert* ” Wow really did not know that. Explains the crazy.
  • 27 Jul 12: Didn’t want a one sided twitter feed,but 2 tell the truth these ppl r way 2 scary ugly 2 add 2 my convos.Fuck ‘em & block

And of course, those intolerant folks that refuse to air her show, well, they’re just bigots:

  • 24 Aug 12: Anyone in Utah interested in #NBCTheNewNormal please clog up @KSL5TV feed 4 their blatantly homophic decision 2 not air the show @KSLBigots
  • 24 Aug 12: @KSL5TV…Sorry if we got your sacred undergarments tangled up. This girl just can’t help it. #TheMormonTwist @NBCTheNewNormal

So much for an open discussion about tolerance.

DCG

Government’s kids, not yours anymore…

California law barring parents from ‘curing’ gay children moves through  legislature

Fox News: A first-of-its-kind state law that would restrict parents from trying to  “cure” their minor children’s same-sex attractions seems headed to the  governor’s desk.

If both state houses can agree on the final language, the legislation, which  would ban all sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) treatment for minors, will  be sent to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature sometime in September.  But, so far, there has been no indication from his office on whether he will  sign the bill into law.

Whatever the governor does, he’s sure to face criticism. Backers see it as a  civil rights issue, while critics say lawmakers are infringing on not only  parents’ rights but also on the mission of mental health professionals.

“[The law] unconstitutionally prohibits speech…violates privacy and personal  autonomy rights, intermeddles in theological disputes, clashes with other laws  and creates significant unintended consequences,” Matt McReynolds,, a staff  attorney with Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute, said. “As long as this bill threatens to shame patients and silence counselors,  therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists, we will vigorously oppose it,”  McReynolds told Fox News. “We cannot afford to let the state invade the  counseling room or doctor’s office to dictate what views on sexuality are  acceptable and unacceptable.”

Sponsored by a coalition of gay rights groups led by California Equality the  bill was introduced by State Sen. Ted W. Lieu (D-Redondo Beach).  Lieu told  Fox News his interest in the issue was sparked by a news report he saw on  television in 2011. “The story detailed the harmful impact on vulnerable minors of this kind of  supposed reparative therapy,” Lieu said. “So when California Equality approached  me about introducing a bill to ban that kind of therapy for minors, I jumped at  the chance.”

Lieu also cited studies like the American Psychological Association (APA)  2009 Task Force, which reported SOCE therapy could lead to depression, feelings  of shame, self-loathing, drug abuse, high-risk sexual behavior, anger,  withdrawal and in some cases, even attempted suicide in minor children, if those  same-sex attractions continue to persist.

Libertarian and conservative  political and legal groups including McReynolds’ group and the National  Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a nationwide  group of conservative mental health providers based in Salt Lake City have  blasted the bill.

David Pickup, a Glendale, Calif. therapist said he’s  been a member of NARTH for more than eight years. He told Fox News that he went  through his own SOCE treatment and uses it to treat his patients. Pickup said that although he’s had thousands of sexual interactions with men,  he never identified himself as being gay. “I describe myself as being a heterosexual man with a homosexual challenge,”  Pickup said, adding that after his own SOCE treatment he had feelings for women  and now only experienced attractions towards men “once in a blue moon.”  Pickup claims that SOCE treatments work to varying degrees on “95 percent” of  his patients and he vehemently opposes SB 1172 as a “violation of parental  rights,” and said the law would have a “chilling effect” on the ability of  therapists to treat their patients.

Brad Dacus, president of PJI told Fox News that whether or not the therapy  is viable isn’t for lawmakers to decide. Parents, patients and therapists should  not be dictated to, he said.  “This is really a serious violation of the constitutional rights of patients  and counselors, a violation of privacy and an outright attack on the rights of  parents to decide what is best for their children,” Dacus said.

Lieu  responded to the criticism by pointing out this was a health issue and his bill  was written to protect the health, welfare and rights of minors who were  experiencing same-sex attractions. “We (the government) intervene all the time to restrict the rights of  individuals and parents regarding health issues,” Lieu told Fox News.  “We pass laws saying minors can’t buy tobacco products; anyone under 21 can’t  legally drink alcohol and we force parents to put their very young children into  car seats while they’re driving,” Lieu said.

While public opposition to the bill has been loud and long, it was actually  opposition to portions of the legislation from mainstream mental health  associations that forced Lieu and the bill’s sponsors to amend it.

Today, the bill only bans SOCE treatments for minors, regardless of their  parents’ desires. Initially, the bill’s sponsors had wanted a total ban on SOCE  in the state. Also cut was a provision that subjected mental health providers to  damage claims and civil suits by their former patients and immediate family  members if they violated the law.

But one major sticking point remained. Randall Hagar, Government Affairs director of the California Psychiatric  Association told Fox News the coalition remained opposed because the bill’s  definition of SOCE was “overly broad and could have inhibited minors from  discussing even legitimate issues, fears and concerns about their sexual  identity with their therapists.”

A compromise was finally brokered that enabled the coalition to move to a  neutral position on the bill, Hagar said. In laymen’s terms, Hagar said, SOCE  was defined as any therapy whose sole purpose or aim was to change a person’s  sexual orientation from same-sex to opposite sex attraction.

Banned SOCE treatments would exclude psychotherapies that provide acceptance,  support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping,  social support and identity exploration and development, including sexual  orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or  unsafe sexual practices and do not seek to change sexual orientation.

Yes, your children at birth and in your home.  Once at school and at the doctor’s office, not so much.

DCG

Kirk Cameron now a target…

tol-er-ance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others…

Kirk Cameron Blasted by GLAAD Over Gay Marriage Comments

TMZ:  Kirk Cameron’s comments to Piers Morgan on gay marriage are not sitting well with the folks at GLAAD … who think the former “Growing Pains” star “sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character.”

Cameron said during last night’s show that he does not support gay marriage, and when it comes to homosexuality in general … he said, “I think that it’s … unnatural. I think that it’s detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

Herndon Graddick, Senior Director of Programs at GLAAD, tells TMZ he feels Cameron, a Born Again Christian, is “out of step with a vast majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”

A GLAAD spokesman says they plan on monitoring Cameron’s media bookings and various acting gigs to ensure “the news and entertainment industry is aware of his outrageous anti-gay views.”

I’m sick and tired of bleeding heart liberals calling themselves the tolerant ones when, in fact, they have no tolerance if you don’t agree with them. Why isn’t Kirk allowed to express his personal Christian beliefs without being condemned?  Why must he get in line with the “vast majority of Americans”? 

You want to be gay?  Have at it.  I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your home.  But that doesn’t mean I, as a Christian, have to change my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Can you imagine the backlash if Christians decided to monitor GLAAD’s activities to bring attention to their outrageous anti-Christian views? 

DCG

Who defines the terms of the debate?

Debate: : a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

New York Times interviewed Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon in which she talked about her childhood, education, acting career, and of course, her sexual orientation. 

She was once married to Daniel Mozes and had two children with him.  She is now  involved with Christine Marinoni. With the help of a male friend Nixon will not identify, Marinoni conceived a child. She gave birth to their son, Max Ellington Nixon-Marinoni, on Feb. 7, 2011.

Cynthia (r) and her girlfriend Christine

From the Times: 

Nixon manages to keep a similarly cleareyed perspective on her relationship with Marinoni, despite the titillation it has caused in the tabloid media. She has less tolerance for the skepticism she says her relationship has sparked among some gay activists who find her midlife switch in sexual orientation disingenuous.

“I totally reject that,” she said heatedly. “I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.”

Her face was red and her arms were waving. “As you can tell,” she said, “I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.

So the homosexual community is upset because she made a choice to be gay?  She slept with men and is now with a woman (isn’t that bisexuality?).  Aren’t the tolerant liberals suppose to be all about “choice”?  I’m confused…

I dont’ care what you do in the privacy of your bedroom.  What I do care about is your inability to debate those that have a different opinion than yours.  Who does define the terms of the debate?  Certainly not any “bigot” that may have an opinion that doesn’t align with yours.

John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher, posed a view on freedom of speech that I like to refer to when a “tolerant” liberal cannot adequately express a critical opinion and attempts to shut down those that disagree with them.

An influential advocate of freedom of speech, Mill objected to censorship. He says: “I choose, by preference the cases which are least favourable to me – In which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on truth and that of utility, is considered the strongest. Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality… But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side.

Mills outlines the benefits of ‘searching for and discovering the truth’ as a way to further knowledge. He argued that even if an opinion is false, the truth can be better understood by refuting the error. And as most opinions are neither completely true nor completely false, he points out that allowing free expression allows the airing of competing views as a way to preserve partial truth in various opinions. Mill also eloquently argued that freedom of expression allows for personal growth and self-realization. He said that freedom of speech was a vital way to develop talents and realise a person’s potential and creativity.

Ms. Nixon would have more weight, in my opinion, if she could comprehensively describe why she believes the “bigots” (homosexual community) have no right to define the terms of the debate (starting with why you label someone a “bigot” if they don’t have the same belief as you).  And if you truly believe in your convictions, you should have no problem taking them on head on in a debate, without resorting to name-calling. 

Who defines the terms of a debate?  Apparently not those that disagree with you.

DCG

California Law Lets 12-Yr-Olds Get STD Vaccines w/out Parental Knowledge

Nos. 40 and 41 of the “45 Communist Goals for America” that was entered into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963, are:

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce” and “Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.”

Last Sunday, October 9, 2011, in the name of preventative medical care, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that does just that.

Assembly Bill 499 allows a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease (STD) — such as vaccines for HPV, HIV and hepatitis — without parental consent or knowledge.

The bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins and co-authored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma — both Democrats.

Ten other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws allowing such “preventative care” for minors without parental consent.

Critics of the law and advocates for parent’s rights have spoken out against the measure, but to no avail.  President of SaveCalifornia.com, Randy Thomasson said, “[Governor] Brown has no excuse to deny patients essential information and trample parents’ consent for their children, who lack the brain development to make big decisions like this.  It is unfair and wrong for AB 499 to coerce children behind their parents’ backs, when calling or emailing a child’s mother or father to set an appointment is the respectful way to communicate vital information and answer important questions.”

As blogger Giacomo notes:

“In the United States, parents have a legal obligation to care for and provide for all minor age children.  If a minor causes damage to someone else’s property, the parents are legally responsible for restitution.  In most states, a parent cannot evict a child under the age of 18; 16 in some states.  In cases of divorce and child support, one of the parents are generally liable to pay monthly child support to the other until the child reaches 18 and in some states graduate from high school.

Yet when it comes to one of the most personal, moral and religious subjects of sexually promiscuity, parents have absolutely no rights to know or control their minor child’s activities. It’s because of the need of the liberal socialists to undermine and erode both religious and family values of a people in order to set up a socialist government.

What’s even more scary is that these laws coincide with similar laws being pushed by the United Nations to give complete sexual freedom to all children down to the age of 10 to 12.”

By the way, you’d be interested to know that:

  • No. 11 of the “45 Communist Goals for America” is “Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces”;
  • No. 15 is “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.”
  • No. 17 is “Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum.”
  • No. 20 is “Infiltrate the press.”
  • No. 26 is “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
  • No. 28 is “Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
  • No. 29 is “Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.”

I can go on, but you get the picture….

To quote the kids: “Are we there yet?”

H/t beloved fellow Tina.

~Eowyn

Apple, Google, Facebook Censor Christians

This is a follow-up on my Sept. 22 post, “Study Shows Social Media Censor Conservatives-Christians“.

Father John Flynn, LC, writes for Zenit, Oct 2, 2011, on how social media sites such as Facebook, Google, Apple, and Twitter censor Christians, as detailed in a report commissioned by the Virginia-based National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), a non-partisan, international association of Christian communicators according to a description of its mission on its Web site.

The report, “True Liberty in a New Media Age: An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms,” concludes that “Christian ideas and other religious content face a clear and present danger of censorship on Web-based communication platforms.”

The study revealed a number of ways in which the policies of the new media giants affected religion.

Apple

On two occasions Apple has blocked Christian apps on the iTunes App Store due to the religious content:

  1. In November of 2010, Apple revoked its approval of the Manhattan Declaration App. This declaration was a statement of Christian beliefs about marriage, the sanctity of life and religious liberty. The reason given was that one of the points in the declaration was that homosexual conduct is immoral and this, in Apple’s view, was offensive.
  2. In March 2011, Apple also censored the app for Exodus International, a Christian ministry that helps people to leave the homosexual lifestyle. Once again Apple declared that this was offensive and violated its guidelines.

Then, in July 2011, Apple pulled iTunes out of the Christian Values Network, a portal that contributes funds to charities. The report said that this action was caused by complaints that some of the charities had policies critical of homosexual rights initiatives.

In fact, the only apps that Apple has blocked due to the views expressed in them are ones that reflect Christian views. In general, the NRB report finds Apple to have a two-faced policy on content. When it comes to satire, humor or political commentary the norms are quite different, giving wide latitude to content. But Apple’s guidelines on religion define content should be prohibited if it is “offensive, mean-spirited” or if it contains material that has “abuse,” or is “inappropriate” or “unacceptable.” Using such fuzzy terms means that Apple has very wide discretion to determine which religious ideas they prefer and which they will censor, the report pointed out.

There is no doubt, the report concludes, that Apple’s policies on religious content would be found “extraordinarily wanting” if they were matched up against the standards for free speech that the Supreme Court has established under the First Amendment.

Google

Scott Cleland, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Information and Communication Policy, has stated that “Google rejects traditional Judeo-Christian values.”

Indeed, Google refused to place a Christian pro-life advertisement from the Christian Institute on its search engine, on the grounds that Google’s “policy did not permit the advertisement of Web sites that contain abortion and religion-related content.” The Christian Institute took Google to court and as a result the ad was allowed and Google changed its policy to allow ads on abortion from religious groups so long as they are framed in a factual way. Google’s policy is still, however, to block any ad on abortion that contains the phrase “abortion is murder,” as this is deemed to be “gruesome.”

Another problem outlined by the report related to Google’s guidelines for its Web tools available for non-profit groups. The free or discounted use of these tools is not allowed for churches, faith groups, or organizations that take religion or sexual orientation into account in hiring employees. According to the report Christian churches who have applied to Google for non-profit status are being rejected.

Google also blocks advertising content that is critical of groups for their religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, thereby eliminating ads by Christian pro-family groups that oppose what some homosexual advocacy groups are doing to promote the legalization of same-sex marriage. It also means that criticism of other religions or sects as being theologically wrong would violate Google’s policy.

A further case involving Google was related to a Norwegian site that contained criticism of Scientology. Lawyers representing Scientology protested to Google that the site contained copyrighted content. As a result the pages of the critical site were removed from Google’s index. But there are a number of Christian groups that expose religious movements for their lack of fidelity to the Bible. In order to do so they need to quote from the original sources. Copyright law allows the fair use of material for reporting and criticism, so Google’s approach could unjustly block legitimate Christian groups from engaging in criticism of what they consider to be false teachings.

Google also showed itself willing, during the time it operated in China through a local version of its Web site, to cooperate with the government in blacklisting words from its search engine relating to the Falun Gong religious group and the Dalai Lama.

Facebook

Facebook has a policy of erasing anti-homosexual comments from its site and has partnerships with some organizations that promote the homosexual agenda. As an example, Facebook removed a posting of a photo of two men kissing. This decision was quickly reversed and Facebook made an apology. By contrast in other cases of photos involving sexual depictions unrelated to homosexuality the material has been permanently removed.

Facebook also has a “hate speech” language policy that prohibits “Inflammatory religious content; Politically religious agendas.”

There are similar problems with other new media organizations, such as MySpace, which also has very broad and ill-defined policies when it comes to hate speech and homosexuality. The Internet service providers Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon also violate free speech and their rules would allow censorship of Christian content, according to the report.

H/t SpiritDaily.

~Eowyn

Idaho Legislator Lays It on the Line about The Agenda

~LTG

Brazil Under the Left Foreshadows America’s Future

Our guest writer, Siegried, is familiar to this site’s readers.

A regular commenter on Fellowship of the Minds, Siegfried is a fellow conservative and a lawyer by profession. Though she’s not American, Siegfried finds U.S. history and our founding principles at once fascinating and compelling.

Having lived in Brazil and Denmark, she knows more about them than most Americans. I therefore asked her to impart her knowledge and perspective on the shadow cast by the Left on the two countries. Siegfried graciously agreed!

Here’s her first op-ed for Fellowship of the Minds. Please give her your warm and enthusiastic welcome and appreciation.  :D

~Eowyn

THE LEFT’s impact on Brazil

To understand the left’s impact on Brazil, it is necessary to know a bit of its history.

After the 1964 coup d’êtat by the Armed Forces, Brazil became a military dictatorship. In 1961, the right wing opposition elected Jânio Quadros, whose electoral campaign had been critical of his predecessor and government corruption.

During his brief tenure as president, Quadros moved toward resuming relations with some communist countries. In the last days of August 1961, Quadros resigned, apparently hoping he would be reinstated by popular demand. His vice-president, João Goulart was outside the country at the time, visiting Communist China. Believing him to a communist, the Brazilian Armed Forces tried to prevent the nomination of Goulart as president. To placate the military, a parliamentary system was implemented to reduce Goulart’s powers as president.

As his support among the middle class plummeted, Goulart tried to mobilize the lower class. The military, with the middle class’ support, took control. That, in turn, radicalized the students. Not finding support among the populace, the students resorted to extra-procedural action modeled after the Red Army radicals in West Germany.

In 1968, the students undertook nation-wide protests and demonstrations. In response, the government declared a state of siege, issued AI-5, which suspended habeas corpus and concentrated power in the executive branch by shutting down the legislature and the judiciary. The protests were suppressed with violence.

That, in turn, further radicalized the students into an armed uprising. By the end of the decade, the urban guerrilla movement swelled to include some 20 organizations. The recruitment was carried out in schools and universities, initially with lectures in Marxist theory.

In 1985, the military returned power to civilian rule. A law pardoned both the military and the urban terrorists for their deeds. Leftist ideas proliferated — in music, books, journalism, and throughout academia. Even the most extreme and subversive leftist notions became common currency. Members of the urban guerrilla movement now moved openly into civil life. One of them was Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Lula da Silva

Lula, as he now is popularly called, was the president of the Steel Worker’s Union of São Bernardo do Campo and Diadema. Along with many of the guerrilla “intellectuals,” he had founded the Worker’s Party (Partido dos trabalhadores or PT). In 2002, after many attempts, he was elected President of Brazil and showered with international acclamation.

Lula’s presidency was marked by a successive series of scandals involving corruption in every single branch of government — the executive, legislative, and judicial. Although those scandals were investigated and culprits identified — among whom was Lula himself — almost no one was punished.

As president, Lula financed many projects for the poor by redistributing taking wealth from rich families like the Fome Zero and the Bolsa familia. That boosted Lula’s popularity.

Hoping to secure a permanent seat for Brazil at the United Nations Security Council, Lula implemented educational reforms ostensibly to increase literacy. School curriculum was infused with his Worker’s Party’s socialist beliefs and ideals. Tests were eliminated in the name of equality, which only produced a generation of illiterates or functional illiterates with high school diplomas.

By the end of his eight years in power, Lula had increased Brazil’s national debt by 1 trillion US dollars. Sounds like someone else you know in a country north of Brazil? LOL

This is Lula’s legacy:

1. Lula claimed to have fixed the economy, but he only harvested the good work of President Itamar Franco that, with the help of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, created the economic success, the Plano Real (real plan).

2. In 2009, Lula signed into law a project that aimed to legalize abortion, censor the media and take away the right of land owners to protect their land against invasions. He later claimed he had signed the law without reading it and so was unaware of its contents.

3. In 2010, with the support of the Brazilian Supreme Court, Lula violated a bilateral agreement with Italy by refusing to extradict Cesare Battisti, a convicted murderer and terrorist.

Rousseff and Lula

4. Lula’s handpicked successor Dilma Roussef, Brazil’s new president is also the first woman to hold the office. Like Lula, Roussef is a socialist. She had participated in the militant activities of the Comando de Libertação Nacional — COLINA (National Liberation Command) and advocated Marxist politics among labor union members. Her role in COLINA is unclear, but it is presumed that she had handled weapons. Rousseff was also the main leader of VAR Palmares — an organization that was a self-avowed “political-military organization of Marxist-Leninist partisan orientation which aims to fulfill the tasks of the revolutionary war and the establishment of the working class party, in order to seize power and build socialism.” As one of the principal masterminds of Var Palmares, Roussef led strikes and advised bank robberies. Many people died as a result of her militant activities.

5. In his eight years as president, Lula worked to make homosexuality socially acceptable:

  • In 2011, the Supreme Court changed the text of the Brazilian Constitution to allow gay marriage. But according to Brazil’s law, the Judiciary does not have the authority to change the Constitution; only the legislature, representing the people, has that power. In other words, gay marriage is still unconstitutional, as is the decision that allows it.
  • Similar to California’s new law SB 48, the Brazilian government also plans changes in the country’s public school curriculum by teaching children as young as 6 that it is normal and acceptable to be a homosexual. Further, transgenders should not only be accepted but should have the right to use public restrooms according to their “real” sexual orientation, instead of their biological gender.
  • Priests will only be allowed to preach about the biblical views on homosexuality inside a church and during Mass.
  • Gay parades and slut walks are celebrated by the media while religious marches are ridiculed.
  • The government also plans to pass a law against homophobia, which will criminalize any act that might offend or injure — physically, psychologically, philosophically or emotionally — homosexuals. The law is so vaguely worded that you might be arrested if a homosexual feels offended by the way you look at him/her. Worse still, even though the law hasn’t yet been passed, some people are already being prosecuted for the crime of homophobia. This violates the maxim of legal thinking: Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali (“No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law”).

It is very clear how the left ideology has damaged Brazil.

At first, the minimum wage was raised, social-engineering projects were created — all of which appeared to be first steps toward fighting poverty. The logical next step should be to educate the populace, thereby equipping them to work and become self-reliant.

But the social-engineering projects instead became an end in itself, creating a spoiled and entitled population. As more and more people grew aware that they could collect government welfare checks, they became lazy, to the point that many decided to stop working and just live off the government. Education lost its value as many young Brazilians started to believe it is not important or necessary to study.

Lula added to that anti-education mindset by repeatedly declaring he had solved Brazil’s economic problems despite not being educated. No wonder then that more and more young voices chanted: “If Lula, a man with very little education became the president of the nation, why is there a need to learn?” Those Brazilians who still respected education and wanted to learn are now subjected to a curriculum of Marxist indoctrination.

Not having learnt to think for themselves, and being manipulated by a complacent and politically-correct media that praises every move of the president, the population became mere pawns. When a man is unable to think for himself, he is unable to understand concepts of justice, moral, ethics and freedom.

Brazil is moving in direction of economic collapse. It is impossible to maintain all those social projects with so few Brazilians paying taxes to support them. Inflation is already on rise and I believe, very soon, the country will break. When that happens, the Left will seize the opportunity, blame all of Brazil’s problems on “the elite,” subvert the Constitution and the rule of law, and seize complete control of what remains of the country.

Brazil foreshadows what will become of the United States of America. As in Brazil, so it is happening in America today: A populist President with Marxist ideals, intent on wealth redistribution, aided by a complacent media and a popular culture of political correctness. I fear for you!

~Siegfried

Persecution of Christians in America: Teacher Removed for Criticizing Gay Marriage

If you’re still wondering whether America has fallen under the Tyranny of the Left, I present you these two contrasting cases:

Exhibit One:

Corey Wight, 55, WSDOT employee

A state employee keeps his job even though he’s accused of stabbing and robbing the prostitutes he solicited. Corey G. Wight, a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) engineer, was allowed to return to work because the WSDOT says it can’t fire him because his offense isn’t “directly related to the scope of his employment.”

Exhibit Two:

But a high school teacher is removed from teaching for saying he disapproves of gay marriage on his personal Facebook site.

John-Henry Westen reports for LifeSiteNews, “Florida High School removes teacher for criticizing gay ‘marriage’ on Facebook,” August 18, 2011:

Mount Dora High School has removed a veteran social-studies teacher Gerald (Jerry) Buell from his classroom for Facebook comments critical of homosexual ‘marriage’. Christopher Patton, Communications Officer for Lake County Schools told LifeSiteNews that Buell was moved to administrative duties pending the results of an investigation into a suspected code of ethics violation.

On his personal Facebook account, outside of school time, Buell posted a reaction to New York’s passage of homosexual ‘marriage’ saying he “almost threw up.” He also referred to homosexual unions as sinful and referred to it as part of a “cesspool” of behaviors in remarks quoted by the Sentinel.

While LifeSiteNews was unable to reach Buell at his home, his staff page on the school’s website – which has been deleted at the time of this publication – revealed him to be a devout Christian. “First and foremost, I am a man of God,” he wrote. “I try to teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself. That doesn’t mean I give a sermon and serve communion each day…what it means is I try my very best to teach and serve and minister to my students as a teacher led by and connected to the Creator of the Universe.”

In answer to castigations of being hateful, Buell told the Orlando Sentinel, “I’ve had kids that I’ve known that have been homosexuals. They know that I don’t hate them. I love them. It wasn’t out of hatred It was about the way I interpret things.”

Patton told LSN that a complaint email was received Tuesday with quotes given to the Sentinel. Buell, he said, has thus been removed from his classroom and reassigned to the district office to undertake other non-teaching duties while the board investigates if his actions constitute a breach of the code of ethics.

A very similar case to that of Buell’s is the Canadian case of teacher Chris Kempling who in 1995 was suspended from teaching for writing letters to a local newspaper explaining Christian belief on homosexuality. Kempling fought the charges all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, where his appeal was denied – leaving him with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Buell’s is not new to the United States. Last summer a Catholic professor was fired from the University of Illinois for sending an email to students in a course on Catholic doctrine, explaining how homosexual activity is contrary to the natural moral law.

More recently Canadian television sportscaster Damian Goddard was fired for Tweeting his support of Burlington hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who created a stir when he criticized New York Rangers hockey star Sean Avery for shooting a TV ad backing gay “marriage.” “I completely and wholeheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage,” Goddard tweeted.

+++

Please stop this Tyranny of the Left. Do something by expressing your disapproval and outrage to Buell’s principal and the school board.

Contact Information:

Principal Pam Chateauneuf
ChateauneufP@lake.k12.fl.us

Debbie Stivender, Lake County School Board
Stivenderd@lake.k12.fl.us

~Eowyn