Sunday, April 27, 2008

The ideology of the 60's sexual revolution is a cognitive STD

"Daddy, how many sex partners should I have?"

Apparently a majority of our state legislators think the answer should be, "as many as you like, but fewer is better, as long as you use ‘protection’ – none is safest, but we really don’t think you are capable of saying ‘No.’" That essentially is what they want to require schools throughout the state to teach children in grades 7 through 12.
Thanks to years of sex education with that convoluted message, the Center for Disease Control recently reported that one in four teenage girls are infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) – nearly 50% for African American girls.

One might ask, "How do we stop this epidemic?"

The answer, say comprehensive sex ed advocates, is mandatory comprehensive sex education that encourages children to engage in unhealthy sexual behaviors, giving them the illusion that using condoms makes it safe. In other words, mandating more of what has already produced alarming rates of STD’s among teens. Bills currently before the legislature, like SF 3349, deceptively named "Responsible Family Life and Sexuality Education Programs" promote condoms, dental dams and contraceptive use while encouraging acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles and unhealthy behaviors such as anal sex and anal-oral sex.

How does that make you feel about your child or grandchild’s chances of avoiding infection?

That uneasy feeling in your gut is telling you that our sex education programs are not working. The reason, in this author’s humble opinion, is because they are driven by an unhealthy ideology. Sadly, however, most sex education advocates and parents are in denial that the ideology exists, allowing it to stalk the unprotected values of yet another generation.

We are still steeped in the ideology of the sexual revolution. It’s a cognitive STD.

When abortion rates go up, the tendency among many educators is to blame teaching abstinence. When a report shows a rise in STIs and STDs like Chlamydia, blame abstinence. An ideology that denies the notion of personal responsibility seeks to enable risky behavior with an illusion of safety. Rather than changing behavior, it attempts to remove consequence with condoms, dental dams, pills, vaccines and abortions.

Denial is a powerful mental defense mechanism that in this case obscures the failure of a sexual revolution that swapped abstinence-based values for the more enlightened partner of free sex. And now our kids are paying the price.
Denial is easy to identify if you’re not caught in its blissful delusion. Look for it every time you hear phrases like "facts based" or "technically accurate information" vs. "ideology founded on fear and misinformation." We should also look for it in the mirror.

A recent University of Minnesota poll revealed that 89 percent of parents polled favored a comprehensive approach to sex education versus 10 percent who favored an abstinence-based curriculum. 81 percent of the parents polled also agreed that taking a sex education class doesn’t make children more likely to engage in sex. Polls like these expose our desperate need for intervention. It shows that the majority are not aware of the specifics of what’s being taught to our children, or the documented consequences.

According to a review of comprehensive sex guidelines established by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, masturbation, sexual intercourse, cohabitation, oral and anal sex, and homosexuality are recommended as part of the curriculum.

We can no longer deny the results of a failed ideology, laid bare by a growing body of facts that proves the folly of reckless sexual behavior. We need to accept responsibility and stop deceiving ourselves into believing that what educators term a "comprehensive" approach, can be an effective surrogate for values taught at home and re-reinforced at school.

To the contrary, Brigid Riley, the executive director of the Minnesota Organization of Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and Parenting (MOAPPP), is at the Capitol lobbying legislators to mandate "comprehensive" sex education. Riley, the consummate enabler, assures them that "Comprehensive sexuality education actually encourages young people to wait longer to start being sexually active," and goes on to say, "When they do become sexually active they’re more likely to use contraceptives and condoms. And they have fewer partners."

The facts don’t support the claims of the enablers. With 1 in 4 teen girls infected with STDs and teen pregnancy continuing to rise, the failure of the current sex-ed curriculum is obvious. Do you see the ideology? Can you hear the denial?

If not, then perhaps it time to look in the mirror and imagine your child asking you, "Mommy and Daddy, how many sex partners should I have?"

Monday, April 21, 2008

Dawkins crashes screening of Expelled

By Barb Anderson

Ben Stein, known for the catchphrase “Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?” in the 1986 movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, is challenging the elitist academic establishment for attacking our freedom of speech in the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. He is willing to sound the alarm, but he needs your help.

Just as Ferris Bueller’s Day Off dealt with rebellion, this time Ben Stein is encouraging students to rebel against Big Science and the academic suppression of anyone who questions Darwinism—including scientists and college professors who are sympathetic to intelligent design (ID). This groundbreaking documentary makes shocking and profound points about how professors and scientists who dare to disagree are being silenced, penalized and removed from academic posts.

On Thursday, March 20th, 2008, a private, invitation only showing was held at the AMC Theater at the Mall of America. In this revealing documentary, viewers learned about scientific evidence that questions the claims of Darwin, heard from scientists who are being silenced for questioning Darwinism, and listened to the views of several of the world’s best-known atheists who appear in the documentary. Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist from Oxford University and author of The God Delusion, was given considerable video footage in the film to present his anti-God views.

At the conclusion of the documentary, Associate Producer Mark Mathis took questions from the audience. Audience members were surprised when Richard Dawkins himself, stood up in the middle of the theater, was visibly angry, and accused the producer of expelling Professor Myers (a biology professor at the University of Minnesota who also appeared in the film) from the March 20th showing. Dawkins, apparently himself a gate crasher, complained that he had been duped into being a part of this movie, and that his comments were taken out of context.

Mathis calmly and respectfully replied that Dr. Myers was not expelled from the movie—that this event was a private showing by invitation only. He observed that Dr. Myers is welcome to attend the movie on opening weekend in April when he can purchase a ticket like everyone else.

Mathis also reminded Professor Dawkins that he had been thoroughly informed of the premise of the film, was given ample time on camera to express his views, and that he was also given a “healthy check” to appear in the movie. Mathis openly expressed his respect for the intelligence of Dr. Dawkins, however, he added, “Sir, you do have one blind spot—God!”

True science does not function well with blinders. The freedom to view and discuss new ideas makes it possible to reject outdated concepts and advance better ones. For those who have dared to challenge political correctness and have been attacked for doing so, this fast-paced, entertaining documentary just might be a dam breaker.

Apparently, Expelled has been well received as it landed in the Top 10 box office money-makers in it’s opening weekend April 18th. You will love this movie and at the same time you can be a part of making positive change in the culture by supporting this film and its message. Help Ben Stein sound the alarm!

Friday, April 18, 2008

12 years of medical pot " destructive to lives and communities."

April 16, 2008

Limey Nargelenas, Deputy Director Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police 426 S 5th Street Ste. 200 Springfield, IL 62701

RE: Medical Marijuana in California

Dear Deputy Director Nargelenas:

This letter will be pointed and brief, as a discussion on the pros and cons of medical marijuana is rendered meaningless when the outcomes are viewed. Passed in November of 1996 the ballot initiative has had ample time to demonstrate its value. Frankly, marijuana use by healthy youth and adults is at epidemic levels in California.

Anecdotal observation is that the vast majority of medical marijuana users in California are young and healthy and simply enjoy using marijuana.

One of the claims supporting passage of the ballot initiative was that marijuana would be used by cancer and glaucoma patients; by those persons with such horrible medical conditions that nothing but marijuana would give them relief. Experience shows that very few of those participating in medical marijuana fit this seriously, chronically ill category. Frequently officers contact parolees, probationers and gang members in possession of both marijuana and marijuana recommendations.

Even more disturbing are children possessing physician recommendations and routinely using marijuana. Virtually anyone in California can obtain a physician’s recommendation to use marijuana. Unfortunately many of those engaged in marijuana use are unable to achieve educational goals or function in careers. They become chronically unemployed or underemployed and often engage in illicit drug sales or other criminal activity to fund their marijuana use. The effect on children and families has been and continues to be devastating.

I talk with many parents who see their children start the destructive path of drug addiction with the use of marijuana. In fact practically all those I have encountered living in addiction started their addiction with marijuana use. These types of laws are confusing to children and make it harder for them to live free of substance abuse.

California’s medical marijuana ballot initiative called for personal growth and possession of marijuana or the use of a caregiver for that purpose. However, the result has been a large number of marijuana dispensaries opening throughout California. These dispensaries are magnets for crime. Marijuana currently sells for around $5,000 per pound at the retail level. Because it costs very little to produce marijuana this value promotes the involvement of organized criminal enterprises in the production of marijuana to meet the demands in California. We have seen tremendous increases in both outdoor and indoor marijuana grow operations. These grows are rife with danger for individuals, the community and law enforcement.

These large growing operations are being staffed and funded by organized drug cartels. Environmental damage is significant and when grows are discovered we often find the workers were virtually forced into working the grow at peril of their lives and the lives of their families.

Based on the almost 12 years of medical marijuana experience in the state of California it is our observation that it has been destructive to lives and communities. Passage of any form of medical marijuana anywhere in our nation is bad public policy and will cause crime and public safety problems.

A great deal of information has been compiled regarding this issue and can be made available to you via our California Police Chiefs Association Executive Director, Leslie McGill. I wish you success in your efforts to protect and serve the people of your state and in your effort to withstand the corrosive influence of relaxed attitudes toward the use of marijuana and other drugs.


Jerry P. Dyer President

California Police Chiefs Association P.O. Box 255745, Sacramento, California 95865-5745(Office) 916-481-8000 (Fax) 916-481-8008 e-mail HTUlmcgill@californiapolicechiefs.orgUTH web site
CC: Judy Kreamer

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Medical Marijuana: Strib and Pioneer Press Blow Smoke

Reading today's Pioneer Press and Star-Tribune editorials urging legalization of so-called medical marijuana, you might think they were motivated by compassion for the suffering. That's what they want you to think. That's why the editorials focus on the relief some people with nauseau or chronic pain obtain from smoking marijuana, and condescendingly dismiss legitimate law enforcement and drug policy concerns.

It's also why they don't mention the most basic reason why legalizing smoked marijuana for medical purposes is dumb and unnecessary: true "medical" marijuana is already legal. It's called Marinol, the prescription form of the active compound in marijuana.

Smoking is not a legitimate delivery system for any medication. Smoking anything for medical purposes is not safe, it's not reliable, dosage of medication is uncontrollable, purity is not consistent. By contrast, Marinol, as a prescription medication, is a safe, reliable, controllable - and legal - way to obtain the medical benefits of marijuana.

Don't take our word for it - read for yourself: "Medical" Marijuana - The Facts (

Why didn't either the Strib or the Pioneer Press mention Marinol? It's simple - the push for legalizing so-called medical marijuana isn't about compassion. If it were really about compassion, they would be vigorously promoting the use of Marinol for people who might benefit from it instead of trying to legalize the smoking of marijuana.

No doubt, compassion is the motivation for some of the legislation's sponsors. But they - and the suffering people who try to find relief from marijuana - are being used by the behind-the-scenes backers of the legislation, whose real goal is legalization of marijuana across the board, not just for "medical" purposes. If you doubt that, ask the lobbyists for the legislation who pays them and where they worked before coming here to push medical marijuana.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

If you keep the child, you don't get paid.

Today on WCCO radio with Jack Rice, Attorney Steve Snyder said that gestational surrogacy is not baby selling.

No, paying a woman for carrying, birthing and giving up her child is analogous to paying a day care provider for taking care of your child while you work. (See his quote below.)

One thing is certain, neither gets paid unless they hand over the child.

I understand that Steve is passionate and believes in what he is doing, however comparing a uterus to a daycare center seems a bit of a stretch.

“Well, if I have a child that is born, and in the first week of it’s life (because my wife and I both work) we take it to the house of a daycare provider, who we have screened and have agreed to, to provide alternate care for our child, and that child goes there for a week and at the end of the week we arrive to pay for our child er, pick up our child, and pay for her services, we’re not buying our baby from the daycare provider.”

Minnesota: the next breeding ground for baby selling and reproductive prostitution?

Statement by Anna Kroushl at April 8 Surrogacy Press Conference

My name is Anna Kroushl. I was a surrogate mother and I very strongly oppose Minnesota's gestational surrogacy bill. My reasons are many.

In 2001, I contracted with a couple in Illinois to produce a child for them in exchange for financial compensation. I was newly divorced, had 3 very young children and was living with my parents at the time. I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to help a childless couple as well as help my family get back on our feet and into a home of our own.

In July of 2002, I gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Regardless of all the mental conditioning I did before and during the pregnancy, telling myself that this child was not mine and she was created for this couple, my body did not believe it. It did not believe what my mind told it because the very concept of conceiving and gestating a child with the specific intention of giving it away flies in the face of human nature itself. One does not overcome the natural instincts of motherhood that have been fashioned from millions of years of conception, gestation and childbirth of the human race with the man-made concept of gestational surrogacy.

Growing another human being within your own body is the most intimate and sacred of all the human experiences and it is in this very intimacy that mother and child are bonded. Through a series of events, emotional experiences and hormonal reactions, both mother and child are inimitably hardwired to respond to one another. The hormonal dance of motherhood is beautiful and complex. It is perfect and this perfection has existed for as long as there has been a human race. The genetic make-up of the child makes no difference to the infant or the gestating mother’s body. All of the same hormones such as oxytocin - the bonding hormone - flood the mother’s body upon birth and the milk she produces is the perfect nutrition for that specific infant at that specific time. The infant knows her voice and prefers it to all others. She knows her smell and taste and prefers it to all others as well. Mother and child are uniquely imprinted to each other.

To the gestational mother’s body – that child is hers and to remove her child from her after birth feels like a death to that mother’s body….and often times to her mind as well.

I oppose this bill because it supports the objectification of the gestating mother. She is merely a vessel, a womb, and a gestational machine that produces a product for which she is paid.

Gestational surrogacy commodifies and objectifies the children born of these arrangements. In many instances, gametes are purchased and in all instances wombs are rented. It reduces the child to a purchased, manufactured product. Nowhere in this bill do I find the rights of the child being addressed.

It takes the most intimate and reverable act known to man and reduces it to contracts and compensation, biological functions and body parts.

Gestational surrogacy has the distinct potential to exploit not just lower income women, but also middle class women and families who have become inundated with debt. The agencies that advertise to entice women into gestational surrogacy arrangements always make it look like it is an attractive win-win situation. $25,000 compensation and make a childless couples’ dream come true! They make it seem like the perfect stay-at-home way to get back on your feet doing something your body already knows how to do.

Unfortunately, no amount of psychological testing or counseling will ever prepare a woman for what it feels like to have the baby you have just gestated and birthed taken away from you upon said birth. Nothing could ever adequately prepare a woman for those biologically encoded feelings of loss and devastation.

This gestational surrogacy bill legalizes and promotes reproductive prostitution. Money exchanged for reproductive services is no different than money exchanged for sexual services. Both acts use a part or parts of the woman’s body for a specific amount of time for a specific amount of money. Minnesota has laws in place to protect women from accepting money for sexual favors because this financial element is coercive and exploitative. The money exchanged in both situations causes people to do what they ordinarily would not do if compensation were removed.

Sexual prostitution is a crime in Minnesota for both prostitute and client. Why, then, is perfectly legal for a woman to rent out her womb for 9 months but illegal for her to rent out her vagina by the hour? The 40-week experience of gestating a child is 1000 times more intimate than the singular act of sexual intercourse and its integrity is in dire need of protection.

This bill promotes the intentional fragmentation of motherhood and does nothing to maintain its deserved integrity and sanctity. Gestational surrogacy not only promotes the destruction of embryos, but it also promotes the unconscionable act of selective reduction.

I have sat and listed while many a gestational surrogate has recounted in horror their selective reduction experience. They signed contracts to allow a certain amount of embryos to be transferred into their uterus and agreed to submit to selective reduction procedures to reduce to twins or a singleton, but after seeing the fetuses on the ultrasound screen, they changed their minds. After being reminded that they would be in breech of contract if they refused to submit to the procedure, they went through with it. One woman I know was told to “shut up and quit crying” because it made it more difficult for the doctor to inject the fetal sac with saline solution.

She, and many others, found this experience so traumatic that they still have nightmares and exhibit symptoms of Past Traumatic Stress Disorder years after the procedure was done.In gestational surrogacy, the woman’s body no longer belongs to her – it belongs to the contract she signed.

Surrogacy has taken something very precious and irreplaceable from me and from my family. Surrogacy has destroyed a part of our souls. If one more woman and one more family have to go through the pain that we did, then that is one woman and one family too many.

Please, veto this bill.