A. School Daze

Spokesmen for the homosexual lobby continue to praise the family as an important institution. They claim they support it, and say that they desire to extend its benefits more widely, so that it includes two men living together, or two women. On this thinking, future “families” will include three or more homosexuals or lesbians, and such exotic arrangements as a couple of “gays’ and a transgender or transvestite. Or two.
But then, one reads reports like the following, which give the lie to their words. (October 7, 2006 WorldNetDaily.com)

In Australia, 13- and 14-year-olds were given a school assignment: imagine yourself a heterosexual, living on the moon in a predominantly homosexual society.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

The kids had to answer 10 questions, including how they
felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would
use to help them cope.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

A typical instance of the “gay lifestyle” being force-fed to children in the guise of education and tolerance. Problems arose in this instance when one youngster refused to play the teacher’s little game and received a failing grade. The girl’s mother went to school, concerned because it was the first “F” that her daughter had received. There she learned the nature of the assignment her child had flunked, because, you see, “the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class.”

Try to imagine what would happen if a teacher in the public schools were to give his or her students a lesson on the Beatitudes, and directed the kids not tell their parents. Imagine the uproar that would result when it was revealed: the lawsuits, the moaning and groaning and gnashing of teeth by the liberal media, and the demands that the teacher be dismissed.
I can’t imagine it either.

If the homosexuals and their supporters are so proud of the sodomitical lifestyle, why this attempt to keep knowledge of the assignment from parents? Because, obviously, the teacher (is he gay or just a supporter of the gay lobby?) was afraid that most parents would, at the very least, counter the pro-homosexual propaganda with a few lessons at home about morality and the spreading of disease. And he feared a public reaction to his spreading of perversion.

But notice how the teacher is weakening the family. Families are, ideally, places of such intimacy and love that children should be encouraged NOT to keep secrets from their parents; places where children should feel free to confide in their parents and seek their guidance and support. (I know there are dysfunctional families: I used the word “ideally,” didn’t I? The homosexual lobby will have us believe that all families are dysfunctional and evil, except the ones they want to establish.) Children should be taught to share their lives, their problems, their triumphs, and their failings with their parents.

Instead, what does this teacher, with no doubt the approval of the “gay” lobby, teach them? To be secretive, sneaky, and I suspect, to lie if necessary to keep “teacher’s little secret.” A sure way to weaken the family further is to teach kids to avoid talking with their parents and sharing their days with them.
The homosexuals should be proud.

B. Some Liberals Even Hate Motherhood

Ah, that Catholic Church. It never learns. Whenever one of its spokesmen dares to mouth some truth or opinion contrary to the zeitgeist, it incurs the wrath of the politically correct.

An archbishop in Malta, for instance, recently defended traditional motherhood. You know what I mean: the mother stays home and takes care of the children—nurturing them, educating them, teaching them values, things like that. (Doesn’t the bishop know that government-run social organizations do all these things, and do them better, given. all their expertise, commitment, and love.) But that was not the worst of it:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Further, Archbishop Mercieca condemned the modern depiction
of the mother who stays home as a “failure” and old-fashioned,
saying her noble choice should be recognized and supported in
a concrete way.
(Valleta, Malta, October 6, 2006. LifeSiteNews.com)

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

The reaction was not long in coming, and was phrased in all the brilliant and insightful bureaucratese appropriate to the situation:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Outrage and dismissal from political and social leaders followed the Archbishop’s statements, the Times of Malta reported. Minister for the Family and Social Solidarity, Cristina Dolores, said his comments would generate guilt among women who had chosen to enter the workforce, and advised him to focus on the problem of missing fathers instead. The executive director of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality reacted to the address by calling for better social structures that would allow both parents to maintain “personal development” while giving children the care they need.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

“Better social structures” was not defined in the report (October 6, 2006 LifeSiteNews.com), but they probably include the usual: (1) more taxes which take money away from families, and in many cases force both parents to work; (2) naturally, since both parents are working, the children suffer, and the government, bless its little heart, steps in with more welfare programs, run by more bureaucrats, and employing more social workers to solve the problems created, in part, by higher taxes. Someone, after all, has to spend the money taken from families.

See how it works?

C. Will There Be A Quiz?

Most of us learned fairly early in our lives that “Whoever defines the terms wins the argument.”
Jason Gordon learned it. And he practices it. He’s a good definer.

Jason Gordon is a social science teacher at Solebury School, near Philadelphia. Being a dedicated teacher, wanting to instill in his pupils a burning desire to become involved in the various affairs and problems of the human community, Mr. Gordon arranged a little field trip for his students.

He took them to a local abortuary and the generous and welcoming staff was only too happy to give the kids a tour. The report doesn’t say whether the kids actually saw an unborn baby being murdered. (October 17, 2006 LifeSiteNews.com) If not, there’s always next semester.

At first, justifying his little excursion, Gordon said the outing was part of an “activism class.” But that characterization ran into problems. There were other “active” people nearby: pro-life demonstrators. Gordon, with the help of the baby-killers, made sure the students did not get too close to them. The staff was very solicitous of the students’ well being:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Escorts at the facility began playing a radio to drown out the pro-life demonstration and openly mocked the demonstrators in front of the students, participants told the Times.

When asked by the Times if he had ensured students were
given both sides of the argument, (Gordon) admitted he had not.

Gordon said the students weren’t permitted to speak with the pro-life demonstrators because he did not want them to become involved in activism--he denied that the student’s (sic) participation in the abortuary activities was itself a form of activism.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

So, after telling us that he took the kids to a place where babies are killed as part of an “activism” class, Gordon had second thoughts (or maybe FIRST thoughts) and decided that “activism” is a term that can be applied only to the actions of the demonstrators, and that it is a bad thing; whereas the field trip, not “itself a form of activism,” is a good thing.
Confused? Maybe the continuation of Gordon’s lecture on Modern American Usage will clear things up.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

I don’t want to polarize things by saying this is one side and that’s another. The opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice. The opposite of pro-life is anti-life. If they say they’re pro-life, I can say I agree with people living. I’m not for people dying. But I’m also for people having a choice. I’m not for people not having a choice to do what they want.”

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Gordon should stick to arranging field trips and avoid explaining his actions. Let’s try to understand that last quote.

< < Q U O T E > > >

I don’t want to polarize things by saying (1) this is one side and that’s another. (2) The opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice. (3) The opposite of pro-life is anti-life. If they say they’re pro-life, I can say I agree with people living. I’m not for people dying. But I’m also for people having a choice. I’m not for people not having a choice to do what they want.”

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

I’ve added the enumeration as an aid to understanding, but I admit it doesn’t help much. Is Gordon saying, (A) “I don’t want to polarize things by saying (1), (2), and (3)”? Or is he saying, (B) “I don’t want to polarize things by saying (1). Everyone knows (2). And everyone knows (3)”?
If (A), why doesn’t he want to say those things? He won’t be polarizing anything, just acknowledging a polarization that is already there; blatantly and obviously there.

If (B), Gordon recognizes polarizations when he sees them, even if he doesn’t want to do any of it. He explains to us that there are two poles: (1) Pro-choice versus (2) anti-choice. Helpfully, he re-phrases these poles as: (3) pro-life versus (4) anti-life. But right about here, something must have clicked in Gordon’s mind, because he recognized that what he said sounded like an admission that baby-killers are anti-life. And this of course will NEVER do. So he defines “pro-life” to be a concern “with people living.”

But if you support abortion, as Gordon does, “People living” does not include, because it cannot include, unborn children. Right? So, if unborn children are not “living,” then, they must be dead, right? And since Gordon tells us that he opposes dying, he must oppose abortion after all?

Well, no. We have forgotten that Gordon is a definer. Unborn children can’t be dead, because that would mean they were killed, and that would mean that they had once been living. And that too will never do. So Gordon’s (unspoken) premise is a definition of the unborn child as a nothing.
Now do you understand?

No?
Neither do I.

You don’t have to be intelligent to kill babies, or to support those who do. And you don’t have to be articulate either. But you do have to believe that those who listen to what you say or read what you write are more stupid than you.

Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.

1. St. Ignatius Must Be Spinning in His Grave

Recently, at Loyola University, which is considered by some to be a Catholic institution, a woman doctor named Judith Arcana spoke to students about the ‘Ethics of Human Reproduction.’ Arcana is militantly pro-abortion, being a member of “the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union, an underground organization that boasts that it performed 11,000 illegal abortions before abortion was legalized in the US in 1973.” (See the report by Meg Jalsevac, October 16, 2006 at LifeSiteNews.com)

A spokesman for the University put this pathetic gloss on the appearance of Arcana:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Steve Christensen, Manager of Communications at Loyola University, justified Arcana’s presence by stating that Loyola is a Jesuit school and so takes on the Jesuit mission to form the whole person. He said that that mission calls for an open dialogue which allows students to hear arguments from those that hold “technically opposing views to the Catholic Church.” Christensen had no comment about the US bishops’ instruction to not give a platform to pro-abortion speakers.

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

At Loyola, the “ethics of reproduction” are so broad that they include the killing of innocent children; at Loyola, a student is not a whole person until he or she is exposed to the lies of a murderer of the unborn.
This is what Jesuit schools probably refer to as “a liberal education.”

Views of the good doctor that “technically” oppose those of the Catholic Church include the following. Arcana believes:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

that the abortion movement will only gain ‘lost ground’ by admitting that abortion is the killing of a living child but that that is a choice for the mother.
She believes that it is essential to inform pregnant women that they are carrying a child but that it is a legitimate choice to kill that child. Arcana says that women must be informed that they are killing a living child within them when they have an abortion. She says, “it is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them.”


< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Arcana’a other deep thought is this:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Arcana stressed that abortion should be “compassionate, caring
and graceful” and drew an analogy between an abortion and
being treated for a broken leg.

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

I for one would love to know how Arcana defines “graceful” in the context of killing babies. Does she recommend that the abortionist play DVD’s showing ballerinas who have had abortions? Or would playing classical music on the radio suffice?
And I would love to know what Christensen meant when he said that Arcana’s advocacy of murder was a view “technically opposing” the view of the Church. Is he suggesting that abortion doesn’t really conflict with the Fifth Commandment? That it only appears to do so? My guess is that not only doesn’t he know what he meant; my guess is that he didn’t mean anything; my guess is that he threw the adverb in to make his statement, and himself, appear profound and thoughtful.

Maybe the powers-that-be at Loyola are willing to overlook Arcana’s support of abortion because of her honesty. Arcana is one of those arrogant, in-your-face baby- killers who don’t use euphemisms to rationalize what they do. She comes right out and admits that what happens in an abortion is that a living child is killed, but, hey! It’s Mom’s choice.
Admirable.

Loyola is a full-service university and serves proudly in the culture wars:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Loyola University Chicago is also one of the Catholic universities that maintains a link to Planned Parenthood on its website. It also links to the Howard Brown Health Center, a support center for the ‘lesbigaytrans community.’

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

It should be noted that there is a possibility that the Church authorities in Chicago might, perhaps, take some action. The gutless Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, may actually write a letter. One of his spokesmen said that

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

…in the past, the Cardinal has chosen to meet privately
with any leaders involved in similar situations or to
instruct them of the Church’s teaching by writing a letter.

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

This will be helpful. How much will it affect Loyola’s pro-abortion programs?
In 2004, Cardinal George protested that University’s granting of an award to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a dedicated pro-abortion politician.
The university ignored him.

2. Where Is Pius XII Now That We Really Need Him?

Meanwhile, Georgetown University, another Jesuit-controlled, pretend-Catholic institution, has honored one of its own: pro-abortion former Congressman Robert Drinan.
Oh, I almost forgot: Robert Drinan, S.J.
As summarized in a report by Hilary White, Oct. 25, 2006, on LifeSiteNews.com, Drinan is “one of the US’s most infamous and aggressive crusaders for abortion…”
Georgetown invented a new faculty chair, dedicated to human rights; that is, to rights for humans. Apparently, at Georgetown, as at the Supreme Court, the definition of the word “human” does not include the unborn. In naming the chair for the good padre, T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of the Georgetown University Law Center said: "Few have accomplished as much as Fr. Drinan, and fewer still have done so much to make the world a better place." Thus did some Nazi admirers of Hitler and Himmler think the world was a better place because of the work done in the death camps.

Drinan was not only a faithful (so to speak) supporter of abortion-on-demand. He made other contributions to the cultural and political acceptance of murder. Some people credit him with inventing the hypocritical “personally opposed, but…” position that such moral stalwarts as Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry hide behind. (Others credit the illustrious Mario Cuomo.) According to LifeSite:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Drinan continues to maintain his “personal opposition”
to abortion while he defends legalized abortion without
restriction up to the last moment before natural birth.

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Is the diocese of Washington, D.C. taking any position in response to this honoring of a baby-killer? “The media spokesman for Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, did not return calls by deadline.”

Back around 1950, Jesuit priest Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for preaching a politically incorrect (yes, even back then there were P.C. considerations) version of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” But a bit more than twenty years later, in the 1970s, a Jesuit could write and speak and vote in support of the murder of innocent children and suffer nothing more than an order not to run for re-election. And he underwent no further discipline when he continued his pro-abortion efforts thereafter. Instead, so-called Catholic institutions continue to heap praise on him.
Another fruit of Vatican II—Vatican authorities, including Popes, lacking the courage to apply Canon Law and to uphold Church teachings.

3. Soon These Sisters Will Be Staffing Abortion Clinics

Meanwhile…

I have heard that when Harry Truman would receive a particularly obnoxious and insulting letter, his staff would send out a brief acknowledgement which began:

Dear Sir: I think you should know that some moron is signing
your name to stupid letters…


In the same spirit, I think that Church authorities should know that militant feminists are posing as Catholic Sisters. One group of these ladies is circulating flyers advocating abortion and the gay agenda.

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

The National Coalition of American Nuns is calling on
Catholics to support candidates who “recognize the right
of women to make reproductive decisions and receive
medical treatment according to the rights of privacy and
conscience.” The provisions recognizing the “moral
adulthood of women” … were approved unanimously
by the coalition’s 15-member board at the group’s Oct. 8
and 9 meeting in Cincinnati.
(National Catholic Reporter, October 27, 2006, report
by Joe Feuerherd)

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Notice that “unanimously.” Apparently, the qualifications for board membership do not include being an open-minded, independent thinker, one who is willing to express one’s opinions even if they are opposed to those of the majority.
Notice, too, that “moral adulthood” justification of killing babies. Someone should tell these women that their 1970s rhetoric doesn’t impress very many people in this new century.

This group, or at least its governing board, promotes a full range of liberal issues:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

“We believe that citizens in committed relationships -- whether marriages or civil unions -- should retain all rights consonant with their state including, but not limited to, adoption of children, ownership of property, inheritance, health and end-of-life decisions,” says the letter.

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

According to the report in the admiring National Catholic Reporter,

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

the National Coalition of American Nuns is no stranger
to controversy. The winner of the group’s annual award…
receives a plaque emblazoned with the image of a
giraffe. It goes to someone “who sticks their (sic)
neck out and is not afraid to take a risk.”

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

No members of the board will ever be awarded a “giraffe.”

4. Just What The World Doesn’t Need

Meanwhile, the saintly Robert Drinan, S.J. has been cloned. A Canadian priest is running for elective office, even though the Vatican, more than twenty years ago, prohibited priests from holding elective office. This prohibition was the Vatican’s direct response to the embarrassment of Drinan wearing his vestments while saying Mass in the morning and wearing his Roman collar while preaching the wonderfulness of killing babies in the afternoon.

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

The 1980 ruling came not from any dicastery, but from the Pope
himself in response to the scandal at that time of an American
Jesuit priest, Fr. Robert Drinan who, as a US Congressman had
been a major player in forming US pro-abortion politics. Even
after being ordered by Rome to leave politics, Drinan spoke and
wrote in support of then President Clinton’s vetoing of the
partial-birth abortion ban.
(See the report by Hilary White, October 24, 2006 at
LifeSiteNews.com)

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

This prohibition was included in the latest edition of the Canon Law. But, as is all too common since Vatican II, the cowards who run the Church provided a loophole: if the local bishop thinks “there is serious necessity for the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good,” he can give a priest a dispensation.

Well, let’s see if the exception applies to this Canadian. The priest, Raymond Gravel, is described by LifeSiteNews.com as “probably Canada’s most outspoken opponent of Catholic teaching on sexuality.”

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Fr. Gravel has made his own support for abortion and
homosexuality, a matter of the public record.

In 2004, he boasted to a radio interviewer, "I am pro-choice
and there is not a bishop on earth that will prevent me from
receiving Communion, not even the Pope."

In February this year, Gravel joined a group of nineteen priests
who issued a letter condemning Catholic teaching on sexual purity

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Gravel appears not to want to push the envelope too far, however.

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Gravel says that he has sought permission to run for the
nomination from his bishop, Gilles Lussier of Joliette.
He told Radio Canada, “If it is impossible, if (running
for office)…is incompatible to remain priest, then I will
not.”

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Notice: He concedes that “running for office” might be incompatible with remaining a priest.” Perhaps it would take too much time away from his tending to the spiritual needs of his parishioners. But supporting abortion and perversity is apparently NOT incompatible with his “remaining a priest.”
The local bishop has announced that the Vatican did not give Gravel permission to run for office and serve if elected, and neither will he. But he has taken steps:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

When Father Gravel was sworn in as the Bloc Quebecois
candidate Oct. 29, he was no longer eligible to administer
the sacraments. He told local media that he will miss saying
Mass and celebrating the sacraments.

“By making the choice to take part in party politics, Father
Gravel retains the clerical state, but he is relieved of the exercise
of sacramental duties,” Bishop Lussier said. “He cannot exercise
any activity as a priest during his time of involvement in politics.
This measure aims to avoid any confusion among the faithful
and preserve the distinction between the political function and
religion.”
(See the report, 11/2/2006 at http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story
.php?id=21858)

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Fr. Gravel has chosen to serve the world, not the Lord. No doubt being relieved of his sacramental duties is causing Fr. Gravel much anguish of soul. But he can console himself with the knowledge that he will now have more time to work for an increase in the number of abortions, for the legalization of “gay marriage,” for the adoption of children by sodomites, and for other advancements, beloved by the secular world.

Copyright 2006 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com

What’s All This Nonsense About A Slippery Slope?


What some consider a “slippery slope” others consider “the hill of progress.” There are people who consider the following stories as advances along mankind’s evolution to freedom.

A. Brokeback Mountain: Part II

The homosexual lobby’s two greatest successes have been getting the laws against sodomy overturned and gaining the support of the media.
Out in the Wild, Wild West, polygamists took notice of these developments and are stepping up their campaign to legalize (and eventually, normalize) polygamy.
The media, always ready to crusade on behalf of perversity and against Judeo-Christian morality, is jumping on the bandwagon. According to a fawning story in the Washington Post by John Pomfret on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, there is a:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

…new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously
taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists
have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to
de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire
to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of
community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy
group based in Salt Lake.

In recent months, polygamy activists have held rallies, appeared
on nationally televised news shows and lobbied legislators.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Making his report a “human interest” story, the writer includes comments of some wives involved in what are now known as “multiple marriages.” One little cutie is described in glowing terms as a “petite brunette with a smile as bright as Utah's sky…(who insists) that she's just like you and me: ‘I'm a soccer mom. My kids are in music lessons. They go to public school. I'm not under anyone's control.’”
Be still my heart!

The Post story continues:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

In their quest to decriminalize bigamy, practitioners have
had help from unlikely quarters. HBO's series "Big Love,"
about a Viagra-popping man with three wives, three sets of
bills, three sets of chores and three sets of kids, marked a
watershed because of its sympathetic portrayal of polygamists.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

That “unlikely quarters” is either disingenuous or an inside joke among the cultural pagans. HBO slavishly promotes every perversion that seeks normalization.

We can expect more movies and television series in the future, depicting the joys of “sharesies” and evoking tears over the burdens imposed by the legal and cultural support of monogamy. I’m sure the natural beauty of Utah and its environs is equal to that shown in “Brokeback Mountain.”

B. The Closet’s Full of Pedophiles, Too

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, a political party made the news recently when it was unable to gather the 600 signatures needed to make its candidates eligible to run for office. According to a story by Janice Shaw Crouse for Concerned Women for America (seehttp://www.cwfa.org/articles/11891/BLI/dotcommentary/index.htm):

< < < Q U O T E > > >

The fringe political party is called PNVD, a Dutch acronym that stands for “brotherly love, freedom and diversity.” What they really stand for is a wide range of morally-unacceptable behaviors –– pedophilia, bestiality, child pornography, child drug use, having adults teach a child how to have sex and lowering the age of sexual consent to age 12.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

We have similar groups here in the states, not yet politically active. The best known is NAMBLA: North America Man-Boy Love Association.

Naturally, party leaders said Christians and other “radical right” groups are responsible for its unpopularity.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

PNVD party secretary Norbert de Jonge (said) that people
who wanted to sign in support of the party's candidacy had been threatened and intimidated.

People who were willing to sign had been afraid that opponents - "especially right-wing parties and their fans" - would gather the
names and addresses of signatories and harass them, he said.

"They were afraid that they would be made [out to be] pedophiles
or that they would be outed if they actually were pedophiles," said
de Jonge.

"And so people were afraid to sign. That's why eventually only
a very small percentage of what we needed ... signed for our party."

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Ever the optimist, DeJonge said:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

..the failure to gain enough signatures to run in the 2006 election was a setback but by no means a failure: The party would keep on trying and believed Dutch society's views on sex with children may shift by the next election.

"We're just not the kind of people to give up so we're going to continue, and maybe if we do not succeed in four years maybe we will succeed in eight years," he said.

"Part of what we're trying to do is we're trying to change the
mentality of the people. This is something we think is changing
and ... we call that a small success in what we're doing as a p
arty," de Jonge said.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Janice Crouse, senior fellow at Concerned Women for America, writes:

< < Q U O T E > > >

"The same arguments that they are using in the Netherlands are being used here in the United States. They just have not gained public attention in quite the same way and have not moved to launch a political campaign in quite the same way."

"The radical left is going to push every door possible to see what will open and provide greater opportunity to do the kinds of things that they want to do that have supposedly no consequences. They want to convince the American public that anything anybody wants to do is okay.”
< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

C. Some Canadian Men Like ‘em Young.

Lest you think that humankind is making progress only in Europe, consider the True North, Strong and Free.
A part of Canada’s Liberal Party wants the age of consent for a certain sexual practice to be lowered to age 14.
What practice?
Well, the least offensive of its names is “anal intercourse.”
It is also known as buggery.
It is the kind of sex preferred by sodomites.

LifeSiteNews. Com reports (Nov. 22, 2006) that, even though “ Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the "riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS:”

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads: "WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity."

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

The age of sexual consent in Canada for heterosexual intercourse (you know, the normal kind) is 14; i.e., Canadian law considers that fourteen-year-old girls (that is what they are) have enough maturity to consent to heterosexual intercourse.
Now, a branch of the Liberals wants 14-year-old boys to have the same freedoms and abilities as girls.
Equal protection of the laws, indeed!

What these people want is for perverts to be able to prey upon children of both sexes.

Boys, girls….doesn’t matter.

As long as they’re young.


Copyright 2006 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.

Proving once again that “It Ain’t What You Know, It’s Who You Know,” consider this story from Asheville, N.C.

Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, is a swell fellow. He is the kind of guy who:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

… would "offer a homily during worship services" and
facilitated his congregation's "opening our doors to all people
regardless of sexual orientation…"

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

In recognition of his merit, he was awarded the Martin Luther King Jr. Association Community Humanitarian Award in 2005.

One hopes the award was bestowed in ignorance of Andy’s hobby.
This pillar of the community recently pleaded guilty to 16 counts of sexual exploitation of minors; that is to say, of producing and spreading child pornography. According to the report on WorldNetDaily.com, Reed:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate
material containing a visual representation of a minor
engaging in sexual activity." That activity is defined by state
law as including masturbation, intercourse and "touching –
in apparent sexual stimulation or sexual abuse – of the genitals,
pubic area or buttocks."

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Some of the children involved were six years old.

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

His offenses involved a long list of counts that he used the
Internet to collect and share graphic child pornography –
mostly involving children as young as six who were filmed
"engaged in sex acts with adults or other children," according
to a local news report.

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

(When he was praised for opening doors for “all people regardless of sexual orientation,” did that include perverts who find children sexually attractive?)

Reed could have been sentenced to as much as 81 years in prison. Instead, he will serve a minimum of 10, and a maximum of 12, months.

MONTHS!

It seems Andy has a lot of friends in the community. Loads of community leaders have circled the wagons and made sure the court knew of Andy’s wonderfulness. One wrote that she was proud to share Andy’s:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

“commitment to ensuring that compassion and democracy
are at work across our community.”

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Which, you notice, extols her own wonderfulness, too. This woman, Beth Lazar by name, also brags that she:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

worked with Andy on several projects at our church,
most significantly our becoming a welcoming congregation,"

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Was Beth aware of Andy’s other projects? The ones in which he welcomed six-year-olds into a “congregation” consisting of those who prey on children?

Andy appears to be a Renaissance man:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Steve Hagerman, the executive director of the Asheville
Symphony, wrote on symphony letterhead that, "Reed has
been a long-time supporter of the arts in Western North
Carolina and has been involved in many worthwhile causes
in our community."

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Yeah, and some not-so-worthwhile causes, too.

The encomiums keep coming. Someone named Oralene Graves-Simmon, who is head of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Association of Asheville, put in a good word for Andy when she wrote:

< < < < Q U O T E > > > >

Andy has spent all the years that I've known him bringing
people together regardless of race, creed, color, or other
differences, gladly working with anyone and everyone, and
doing whatever needs to be done, to accomplish our mutual
goals.

< < < < E N D Q U O T E > > > >

Aahh, the highest praise: bringing people together!
Regardless of sexual orientation, let’s not forget.
And regardless of age, too.

NAMBLA should give Andy an award in recognition of his valuable contributions to the perversion of children. He can place the plaque on his shelf, right next to the Humanitarian award.
As soon as he gets out of jail in a year or so.

But I doubt that having friends at the Orchestra and in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Association was a sufficient reason to give this predator such a light slap on the wrist. I think politics had something to do with it.

If Andy were a Republican, this sweetheart of a deal would be all over the media. “60 Minutes” would investigate; some dedicated Democrat would manufacture evidence showing President Bush had ordered the lenient sentence; Dan Rather would leave his forced retirement and cover the story; and Pelosi and Kennedy would demand that the President be impeached.

As it is, using Lexis/Nexus, I found only one reference to the story, a report in the Ashville newspaper of less than 250 words.

That's because good-old-boy Andy is a true-blue Democrat.

So is the prosecutor who made the plea bargain with him.
So is the judge who sentenced him.
So are most of the people who praised him in writing.

T alk about party loyalty! Those Democrats will always rally ‘round one of their own!

Copyright 2006 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.

Does It Matter Whose Ox Is Being Gored?

One of the foundational axioms of contemporary liberalism is that only whites can be guilty of racism; a corollary is that hate crimes occur only when whites commit crimes against blacks, never when blacks commit crimes against whites.
The homosexual lobby wants us to adopt the following belief as another axiom: since only “straights” can be guilty of homophobia (a rather ridiculous word—if you analyze it, it is a synonym for “misanthropy”—the hatred of mankind, and not just “hatred of homosexuals”), hate crimes occur only when “straights” commit crimes against “gays,” never when “gays” commit crimes against “straights.”
A recent instance of this belief comes from Illinois.
In 2002, a devout Catholic woman and mother of four adult children named Mary Stachowicz was employed at a Chicago funeral home. One of her co-workers was a homosexual named Nicholas Gutierrez, who lived with his boyfriend in an apartment above the home.
One day, Mary questioned Mr. Gutierrez about his sodomitic lifestyle, along the lines of: “Why do you do what you do?” This so enraged Mr. Gutierrez that he killed Mary by strangling her.
After, that is, he beat her, raped her, and (succumbing to his homosexual predilections) sodomized her. Then he stuffed her body in a crawl space under the floor of his apartment.
There was never any question as to who killed Mary. But under our system, even the likes of Mr. Gutierrez are entitled to an attorney to try to beat the rap. Naturally the defense tried its damnedest to get the man off. In this case, however, the defense was almost as pitiful and as obscene as the original crime.
It was Mary’s own fault, you see. If only she would have refrained from berating him; if only she had not challenged his “lifestyle,” Mr. Gutierrez would have let her live. In an attempt to win the sympathy of the jury, Mr. Gutierrez’s public defender said that Mary, all five-feet-five inches of her, physically attacked the six-foot defendant.
Uh-huh, and the gazelle attacks the lion.

So the defense presented a version of what has been called the “Texas Defense:” “Judge, my man said he didn’t do it; but if he did, it was self-defense; and if it wasn’t, she had it coming.”
No wonder people have such low opinions of lawyers. Unfortunately for Mr. Gutierrez and his attorney, the jury didn’t buy it. Earlier this month, they deliberated only a few hours before convicting Mr. Gutierrez of murder. He faces the death penalty.
If you rely on the liberal media for news, you’ve probably never heard about the case. I certainly never read about it in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Why not?
Because of Mr. Gutierrez’s homosexuality, that’s why! The liberal media never report murders of normal people by homosexuals.

Americans for Truth has an excellent essay on the case, which as of the time of this writing can be found at: http://americansfortruth.com/news/matthew-shepard-vs-mary-stachowicz-why-did-ap-hype-one-murder-victim-and-ignore-the-other.html#more-552. Among other points, Americans for Truth tells us:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

A complete Nexis media database search on Mary’s name
found only 13 articles; a similar search on “Matthew Shepard”
found 997 articles in the last month alone.

Associated Press completely ignored the Gutierrez trial, ensuring
that it would receive little national attention.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Matthew Shepard, for those callous enough to have forgotten, was the homosexual who, seeking “companionship,” asked two “good ole boys” to join him for some sodomy. He became a contemporary secular saint when they murdered him. His killers, who are serving life sentences, were portrayed as rabid homophobes. Shepard is lionized as a martyr; movies were made about him; songs were written about him; the homosexuals and the liberals wanted his murder to be treated as a “hate-crime.”
But Mary Stachowicz’s death doesn’t merit mention in the mainstream, gay-loving media. And to any suggestion that her murder be considered a “hate-crime,” the homosexual community has a ready answer.
Hate crimes, you see, are attempts to intimidate the entire community to which the victim belongs. The killing of Shepard, doncha know, was directed at all homosexuals. But slaying Mary Stachowicz was just a random one-on-one event, perpetrated by one whose feelings had been hurt.
Brilliant, huh?

Defense counsel for Mr. Gutierrez was only parroting the attitude of many homosexuals who said candidly that they thought Mary Stachowicz got what she deserved. Some members of the homosexual community posted these brilliant and touching thoughts on “gay-oriented” websites:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

"The b---- had it coming to her. I'm glad he killed her.
Too bad he'll probably spend the rest of his life in prison
getting his little butt pounded, but still, I'm glad he killed
her. The b---- deserved to die."

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Allow me to interject: Gutierrez would probably enjoy having his little butt pounded, which is another reason the guy should get the death penalty.
Then there’s someone named “Iris” who is either a lesbian or a sodomite with a penchant for flowery names. Look at the metaphor “Iris” uses about religion:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

"Iris" wrote to the ACLU Online Forum: "I am in no way
condoning this man's behavior. Murder is murder. He should
receive life or the death penalty for his actions. But one fact
remains ... if she would have been minding her own [expletive]
business instead of attempting to ram her religion where it didn't
belong, none of this would have ever happened. I really don't
feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her."

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Others blamed---you guessed it, the Catholic Church. To wit:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

On the Naked Writing blog, "JodyW" commented,
"Gutierrez is responsible for what he did. So the RCC
[Roman Catholic Church] is responsible for continuing
to put forth a silly, stupid and factually wrong doctrine
of ‘objective disorders’ and ‘intrinsic moral evil’ regarding homosexuality. For all that that evil doctrine has
done and continues to do, they have a lot to be held
accountable for."

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

(Source of quotes: http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2877&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport)

No hate displayed in those thoughts, right? No attempt to intimidate heterosexuals or Catholics, right? No hate displayed by Mr. Gutierrez in his brutal, perverted killing of Stachowicz, right?
See how it works?

Copyright 2006 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.