CDC: 94 to 95 Percent of HIV Cases among Boys and Young Men Linked to Homosexual Sex

CDC funds “gay” activist groups like GLSEN that promote acceptance of behavior tied closely to HIV.

The following is a graphic from a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) online slide presentation, “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults” [1]– breaking down the incidence of HIV among young men ages 13-24. In 2011, an astonishing 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual (“male-to-male”) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases among young men ages 20-24 (more analysis follows graphic) were from “gay” sex:

HIV-Young-Adult-Males-2011-CDC

With the incidence of HIV among men so closely tied to homosexual sex, shouldn’t the government and all concerned and compassionate adults be urging young men and teenaged boys NOT to engage in or experiment with dangerous homosexual behavior? And yet, the CDC and other pro-”gay” institutions (including many schools public and private) are doing exactly the opposite, as they focus instead on affirming “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” youth as a “sexual minority.”

Feds Fund ‘Gay’ Youth Activist Groups

Another CDC document, “HIV and Young Men Who Have Sex with Men” (June 2012), reports that in 2011, the CDC awarded funds to two homosexual activists groups — the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSAN) — “to assist CDC-funded public health and environmental changes to help schools and communities meet the health and medical needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.” See this CNSNews article on the CDC grant.

With HIV rates growing among YMSM (young men who have sex with men), the CDC’s focus on building self-esteem among LGBT youth and creating a “positive school climate” for homosexuals — includes forming “gay”-affirming clubs in schools — seems disconnected from reality. The aforementioned CDC report on HIV and YMSM states:

“Gay-straight alliances (GSAs) are one approach being used to create safe and welcoming school environments. Research has shown that in schools with support groups such as GSA’s, lesbian, gay and bisexual students were less likely to experience threats of violence, miss school because they felt unsafe, or attempt suicide than those in schools without such groups.”

In the same report, the CDC identifies the behaviors among young homosexuals that are causing the escalating HIV rates:

“A CDC analysis of data from 13 YRBS [Youth Risk Behavior Survey] sites found that sexual minority students, especially those who identified as homosexual or bisexual, were disproportionately likely to engage in many health risk behaviors, including sexual risk behaviors (such as having sexual intercourse for the first time at younger ages, having multiple sex partners, and not using condoms); tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use; and behaviors related to attempted suicide.”

Elsewhere in the CDC report it touts CDC funding for “school health professionals … to help them understand the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and shape behavioral messages accordingly.” But those behavioral messages apparently do not include discouraging students from engaging in homosexual sex.

Elephant in the room

The chasm between the obvious and extreme health risks associated with “gay” male sex and the CDC’s politically correct, pro-homosexuality mindset reflects public policy malpractice on an Orwellian scale. “Gay” activist ideology and assumptions — including intrinsic (many would claiminnate) “gay”/bi/transgender identities — go unquestioned at the CDC. Ironically, the most direct answer to the HIV-youth crisis — teaching young people NOT to practice unhealthy homosexual sex — is the one thing that is essentially forbidden.

All across America, “gay” activists and their straight liberal allies are advocating “gay”-positive lesson plans and strategies in response to anti-homosexual bullying. However, while everyone can agree that all bullying is wrong, many “anti-bullying” programs double as pro-LGBT affirmation programs. This is troubling because:1) bullying can be discouraged with neutral messaging that does not promote “out and proud” homosexuality and transgenderism; and 2) in the name of “safety,” educators and cultural elites are advocating a sexual lifestyle that has continually been shown to be dangerous, particularly for males.

Reference:

[1] Produced by the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention, a division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. Data is for 2008-2011.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an edited version of the IPSF HIV/AIDS Campaign Logo created by Amrsobhy. The use of this image in no way implies endorsement of the author or content of this column. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

“Oops-care” by George C. Leef

Obamacare victimizes Americans, but politics means never having to say you’re sorry.

Remember the glowing, utopian talk about the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” back in 2009–10? We heard constantly that it was the solution to a national crisis, carefully contrived to guarantee high-quality insurance for virtually everyone without making anyone worse off.

And so the great mountain of a bill was quickly passed while the Democrats held unchallengeable control. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi breezily said, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Now we know that she actually meant, “We have to pass this before people find out what it will do to them.”

Day by day, we discover what is in Obamacare—pain and angst for many ordinary Americans as the law’s numerous edicts kick in. The February 24 Wall Street Journal featured an article right on point, “Obamacare and My Mother’s Cancer Medicine” by Stephen Blackwood. (Disclosure: I know Mr. Blackwood, but this piece would be exactly the same if we had never met.)

The article shows how damaging the law has been to his mother, who is stricken with carcinoid cancer. She had been covered by a Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy for 20 years and it served her needs well. “It was expensive,” Blackwood writes, “but given that it covered her very expensive treatments, it was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medicines that were keeping her alive.”

But then Obamacare came crashing down, requiring BC/BS to cancel Mrs. Blackwood’s plan last fall. Since that time, she has been through a nightmare trying to find new coverage. The plan she eventually had to go with seemed satisfactory, but just before she had surgery on February 12, she was informed that the insurer would not, in fact, cover her medications. Mrs. Blackwood is living on the precipice, and turmoil over insurance is the last thing she needs.

Why would the Congress and President Obama put a sick person through such difficulty? Why did they inflict what Blackwood aptly calls “a Procrustean disaster” on the many Americans who have had stable and satisfactory medical care arrangements shredded by government meddling?

Of course, none of the backers of the hilariously misnamed PPACA meant to harm people like Mrs. Blackwood. They meant well—or so they all say. They wanted to solve the problem of people who had to get by without health insurance. The bill simply had to be passed immediately.

Consequently, there couldn’t be any of the customary hearings on legislation that would have allowed experts to carefully examine the bill’s workings and think through the likely results—not just the nice-sounding intended ones. Slow, deliberate debate over the bill’s provisions would no doubt have revealed that it would have lots of harmful side effects, like the cancellation of plans that cancer patients were relying on.

Rushing Obamacare into law was the governmental equivalent of a doctor giving a patient a completely untested drug.

Any Democrat in Congress could have said, “I don’t care if my party’s leadership insists on this, I won’t vote for it until the bill has been carefully examined, and since it’s over 2,500 pages, that can’t be done quickly.” Too bad that there were no “profiles in courage” who stood up for caution and common sense.

Once the severe side effects began to manifest themselves, President Obama gave an interview in which he offered a wishy-washy pseudo-apology to the people victimized by his Great Leap Forward. “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurance they got from me,” he said. I’m sure that the Blackwood family and many others found those words to be soothing.

Let’s think about this situation from a different angle. Suppose that you had a problem at your house—a shaky shelf in your garage. Your neighbor noticed it one day while the two of you were talking in the driveway. The next day, unbidden, he came over, entered your garage, and tried to fix the shelf. But in doing so, he caused it to collapse on your car. Tools and cans of paint fell on it, doing considerable damage.

What would you expect him to do?

You would expect him to apologize sincerely for the intrusion, make amends for the damage he caused, then meekly promise not to bother you again. Most Americans, acting as regular people, would behave just that way.

Obamacare is like the busybody neighbor’s unwanted “help.” Unbidden, a group of arrogant politicians, supremely confident that they knew how to improve society through a maze of taxes and mandates and prohibitions, has harmed many of the people they supposedly represent. But don’t expect any apologies, much less a making of amends, and much, much less a promise to leave you alone in the future.

Politicians almost never act like, as Obama might say, “regular folks.” They don’t apologize and make amends. The President isn’t really sorry about messing up the lives of people like Mrs. Blackwood; all he is sorry about is that some Americans now realize they’re the eggs to be broken so he can make his omelet.

Other politicians responsible for giving us Obamacare are just trying to change the subject. Here in North Carolina where I live, Senator Hagan avoided Obama when he visited the state recently and is running smiley face ads telling voters that she’s in favor of “investing in education.”

I cannot remember any instance when a politician owned up to a mistake and said to his constituents, “I supported that bill (or that war, or that appointment), but now I can see what a blunder it was. I’m sorry and will try to undo the damage I have caused.”

Politicians almost never admit their mistakes and correct them, which is an excellent reason why we should keep politics out of as much of life as possible.

ABOUT GEORGE C. LEEF

George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock on the Foundation for Economic Education website and is reposted with permission.

GENETICS: “Racial hygiene” in America one baby at a time

There are two ways to create a super race. The first is to eliminate those who are genetically inferior. The second is to create more of those who are genetically superior. The first was originally called negative Eugenics, the second labeled positive Eugenics.

Today the word “genetics” has replaced the word “Eugenics.” The goals are the same.

The United States was the birthplace of the modern Eugenics movement. The American Eugenics Society was founded in 1922, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) was founded in 1931. Modern genetics evolved from and was created by the American Eugenicists. The purpose of GSA and its members is to, “[W]ork to advance knowledge in the basic mechanisms of inheritance, from the molecular to the population level.”

Genetics has two branches – negative genetics and positive genetics. It is important to understand how both are creating a “racially hygienic” society in America today.

NEGATIVE GENETICS

Edwin Black in his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race writes, “On January 19, 1904, the Carnegie Institution formally inaugurated what it called the Station for Experimental Evolution of the Carnegie Institution at bucolic Cold Springs Harbor, [New Jersey].” “The undertaking was not merely funded by Carnegie, it was an integral part of the Carnegie Institution itself,” notes Black, “[Carnegie Institute Chairman John] Billings and the Carnegie Institution would now mobilize their prestige and the fortune they controlled to help [Professor Charles] Davenport usher America into an age of a new form of hygiene: racial hygiene. The goal was clear: to eliminate the inadequate and unfit.”

No war, pestilence, genocide or government policy has done more to limit the numbers of defectives, feebleminded, poor and unwanted than the Eugenics (genetics) movement.

Edwin Black, author of War Against The Weak, writes, “The global effort to help women make independent choices about their own pregnancies was dominated by one woman: Margaret Sanger… Motherhood was to most civilizations a sacred role. Sanger, however, wanted women to have a choice in that sacred role, specifically if, when and how often to become pregnant.”

Black notes, “… Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior strains could multiply without competition from ‘the unfit.’ She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and the unfit as ‘human waste’ not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that  human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated.’ Moreover, for both political and genuine ideological reasons, Sanger associated closely with some of some of America’s most fanatical eugenic racists.” Sanger stated, “My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”

“The feminist movement, of which Sanger was a major exponent, always identified with eugenics,” wrote Black.

Today we see that negative genetics has led to more black abortions than births in New York City and a 73% black abortion rate in Mississippi. Some have labeled this national birth control effort “Black Genocide. “Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black,” noted Erma Clardy Craven (deceased) Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader.

POSITIVE GENETICS

Positive genetics focuses on creating a racially pure and superior race to “improve the human stock”. It is not unlike creating a superior ear of corn or breed of cattle. The genetics movement finds its roots in the American Breeders Association. It is not enough to stop the breeding of inferiors, it is just as important to breed the right human. German biologist Johann Gregor Mendel (1882-1884) was the father of genetics.

Recent news has focused on the ultimate achievement of the geneticists – the racially hygienic baby, a.k.a. “designer baby.” The Washington Post reports:

The provocative notion of genetically modified babies met the very real world of federal regulation Tuesday, as a government advisory committee began debating a new technique that combines DNA from three people to create embryos free of certain inherited diseases.

The two-day meeting of the Food and Drug Administration panel is focused on a procedure that scientists think could help women who carry DNA mutations for conditions such as blindness and epilepsy. The process would let them have children without passing on those defects.

“The technology involves taking defective mitochondria, the cell’s powerhouses, from a mother’s egg and replacing them with healthy mitochondria from another woman. After being fertilized by the father’s sperm in a lab, the egg would be implanted in the mother, and the pregnancy could progress normally,” notes WaPo.

As CH Waddington, a British developmental biologist and geneticist, wrote in 1957, “It is of course a truism which has long been recognised that the development of any individual is affected both by the hereditary determinants which come into the fertilised egg from the two parents and also by the nature of the environment in which the development takes place.”

It now appears that American geneticists, under the guidance and with the approval of the FDA, may create a new “racially hygienic” baby.

All that is left to do if controlling the environment via government policy. How do you do this? You make full implementation of the Affordable Care Act the “work of God“. But whose God?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image “Example of local structural homology” is courtesy of Fdardel. The use of this image does not in any way suggest that Fdardel endorses the author or the work in this column. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

ABOUT JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL – THE FATHER OF GENETICS

Gregor Mendel, through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance. He deduced that genes come in pairs and are inherited as distinct units, one from each parent. Mendel tracked the segregation of parental genes and their appearance in the offspring as dominant or recessive traits. He recognized the mathematical patterns of inheritance from one generation to the next. Mendel’s Laws of Heredity are usually stated as:

1) The Law of Segregation: Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair. Parental genes are randomly separated to the sex cells so that sex cells contain only one gene of the pair. Offspring therefore inherit one genetic allele from each parent when sex cells unite in fertilization.

2) The Law of Independent Assortment: Genes for different traits are sorted separately from one another so that the inheritance of one trait is not dependent on the inheritance of another.

3) The Law of Dominance: An organism with alternate forms of a gene will express the form that is dominant.

The genetic experiments Mendel did with pea plants took him eight years (1856-1863) and he published his results in 1865. During this time, Mendel grew over 10,000 pea plants, keeping track of progeny number and type. Mendel’s work and his Laws of Inheritance were not appreciated in his time. It wasn’t until 1900, after the rediscovery of his Laws, that his experimental results were understood.

NOTE: The American Eugenics movement was inspired by Mendel’s work on pea pods.

RELATED STORIES:

Facial recognition technology used to spot genetic disorders – Science – News – The Independent
Dr. Alveda King Tells Students of Modern Day Black Genocide
Hillary Clinton: Abortion Needed for Equality —and Human Development…
‘Death test’ predicts chance of healthy person dying within five years – Telegraph
Rev. Bill Owens: Administration ‘Is Promoting Murder’ by Promoting Abortion (+video)
Planned Parenthood President: When Life Begins Not ‘Really Relevant’ in Abortion Debate | National Review Online
In Georgia, 53.6% of the Babies Aborted Are Black | CNS News
Scientists create first ‘designer chromosome’
Genetics accounts for more than half of variation in exam results
Craig Venter’s DNA Company Is Planning to Make 100-Years-Old ‘The New 60′ – Bloomberg

VA employees actually destroy veterans’ records to ease backlog

There can be no debate that the Obama administration has a disdain for our military and its veterans. Now it seems we’ll no longer see Obama attend VFW and American Legion conferences — not that anyone will miss him.

Remember the empty promises about easing the veterans’ claims backlog? As a matter of fact, when was the last time you saw the FLOTUS and Dr. Jill Biden on a military base talking about supporting military families? Yep, the true colors of Barack Hussein Obama are as brilliant as ever.

But I’m not sure anything can be more disgusting and heinous than what the Daily Caller reported: Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) destroyed veterans’ medical files in a systematic attempt to eliminate backlogged veteran medical exam requests, a former VA employee said. Audio of an internal VA meeting obtained by The Daily Caller confirms that VA officials in Los Angeles intentionally canceled backlogged patient exam requests.”

Apparently this brilliant method of reducing the backlog was conceived in November 2008 and put into full implementation in March 2009 under the purview of the Obama administration.

As the Daily Caller reports: “We just didn’t have the resources to conduct all of those exams. Basically we would get about 3,000 requests a month for [medical] exams, but in a 30-day period we only had the resources to do about 800. That rolls over to the next month and creates a backlog,” Oliver Mitchell, a Marine veteran and former patient services assistant said. ”It’s a numbers thing. The waiting list counts against the hospitals efficiency. The longer the veteran waits for an exam that counts against the hospital as far as productivity is concerned.” By 2008, some patients were “waiting six to nine months for an exam” and VA “didn’t know how to address the issue,” Mitchell said.

So, rather than figure out a way to handle the requests, presto change-o! The VA Greater Los Angeles Officials simply decided to cancel them. You can hear the evidence.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/XnvhdV2DD0g[/youtube]

VA Greater Los Angeles Radiology department chief Dr. Suzie El-Saden initiated an “ongoing discussion in the department” to cancel exam requests and destroy veterans’ medical files so that no record of the exam requests would exist, thus reducing the backlog, Mitchell said. Dr. El-Saden, according to Mitchell, was “the person who said destroy the records.”

Mitchell tried to blow the whistle on the scheme to destroy veterans’ records and ended up being transferred out of his department and eventually losing his job. “I filed the initial complaint with the IG. The IG instead of doing their own investigation just gave it to the facility and made them aware of my complaint.” Mitchell eventually wrote to Congress about the issue in January 2011. Two months later, in March 2011, he was fired.

In April 2013 Mitchell received a letter from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel stating that OIG (Office of the Inspector General) found in November 2009 that “all imaging services across the country were instructed to mass purge all outstanding imaging orders for studies older than six months, where the procedure was no longer needed”. However, Mitchell contends that in Los Angeles, exam requests that were found to still be needed were “definitely” destroyed.

I believe this matter must be immediately investigated by the House Veterans Affairs Committee headed up by Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla). If a thorough hearing and investigation verifies this incident, the punishment should be heavy. It must send a message throughout the Veterans Administration that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. As well, there should be some sort of follow up investigation to ascertain if this is an isolated practice or promulgated elsewhere in the VA Hospital system.

Regardless, the fact that we are even discussing this issue is beyond believable. Veterans, if you have had any issue with your valid exam requests being delayed beyond a six-month point please let us know and contact the House Veteran’s Affairs Committee immediately. We owe our veterans a debt that cannot ever be fully repaid — but for goodness’ sake, we should at least try.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com. It is reposted with permission.

Affordable Care Act Parody: The True Purpose of ObamaCare Revealed

Political parody is at times more powerful than and mirrors reality. Americans are becoming acutely aware of the impacts of the Affordable Care Act on them and their families. In Florida alone over 500,000 individual policies have been canceled because they do not meet the ACA criteria. Those who have signed up find their insurance premiums increase, their coverage limited and their ability to choose their doctor restricted.

While this video parody is tongue in cheek, it represents a startling reality of the impact of bad public policy.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/OelTOGhfDSo[/youtube]

The featured photo was taken on March 19, 2010 “After dinner, the President returned to the Oval Office to continue pressing Congressmen to vote for the health care reform bill. In those final days before the vote, the President made hundreds of calls.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

RELATED COLUMN: Obamacare’s Dumping Ground

EDITORS NOTE: According to the YouTube video site for this video, “International E-Sports Group, R.T.I. & Constantin Film own the rights to this video. I own nothing & make no copyright claim whatsoever.”

Michelle Obama: Hey You Young “Knuckleheads” Sign Up for Obamacare

First Lady Michelle Obama called young people “knuckleheads” on her February 20th appearance on The Tonight Show.

The First Lady was promoting Obamacare for 20-somethings, who Obama described as at risk from cutting themselves cooking or injuring themselves while dancing. The discussion on Obamacare starts at 1:58 in the video.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/hazIopgMSQw[/youtube]

Check Out: The Patient-Centered Alternative to Obamacare

Host Jimmy Fallon told Obama that a lot of people “don’t have money to spend on [Obamacare.]”

She then pointed out that insurance is available for as little as “$50 a month — less than the cost of gym shoes.”

Obama failed to mention that some individuals have seen their health insurance costs skyrocket since Obamacare went into effect. Some are paying more than $500 a month and seeing price increases in the hundreds of dollars.

Read More: They Liked Their Health Plans, But Can’t Keep Them

After the interview segment, Obama participated in a skit with Fallon and Will Ferrell to promote her “Let’s Move” campaign, which is gearing up this week.

EDITORS NOTE: This story was produced by The Foundry’s news team. Nothing here should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation. The featured image was taken by My Hobo Soul and is is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. My Hobo Soul in no way endorses the author, The Foundry, Heritage Foundation or positions taken in this column. 

Florida Sheriff: Medical Marijuana Amendment a very bad idea

Sarasota County Sheriff Tom Knight did an op-ed in the Herald-Tribune on the Florida Right to Medical Marijuana Initiative, Amendment 2. Sheriff Tom Knight is the 10th Sheriff of Sarasota County, serving since January 6, 2009. To pursue this office, he left a 20 year career with the Florida Highway Patrol where he held the position of Troop Commander, managing a seven-county region with more than 300 employees, a central communications center and a $20 million budget.

According to Ballotpedia:

The Florida Right to Medical Marijuana Initiative, Amendment 2 is on the November 4, 2014 ballot in the state of Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment. The measure, upon voter approval, would legalize the cultivation, purchase, possession and use of marijuana to treat medical conditions when recommended by a licensed physician. The measure would also order the Florida Department of Health to register and regulate producers and distributions of medical marijuana and to issue identification cards to patients and caregivers utilizing marijuana.

The measure is sponsored by the People United for Medical Marijuana.

Sheriff Knight makes the following points in the Herald-Tribune op-ed:

  • There is overwhelming factual information pointing to the darker side of legalized marijuana, even when it is intended strictly for medical therapy. Messages in the $4 million-plus campaign to get this issue passed have tugged on our emotions and focused on isolated cases, without a thought or mention of the many negative, unintended consequences that are already playing out in other states that have legalized medical marijuana — even those whose ballot amendment language was far more restrictive than what is proposed in Florida.
  • Although many voters may think that medical marijuana will truly be limited to those with chronic, life-threatening conditions or severe, unmanageable pain, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that this will be our reality if it passes. Keep in mind that it will not be treated like real medicines — the kinds that are scientifically tested through clinical trials and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Instead, it will be more like a homeopathic substance, sold not by pharmacists but marijuana retailers.
  • In Colorado, where nearly 107,000 patients have approval for medical marijuana, the average user is a male in his 30s with no terminal illness and a history of drug abuse. Only 2 percent of Colorado medical marijuana patients report being treated for cancer, less than 1 percent report treatment for HIV/AIDS, and only 1 percent report treatment for glaucoma. The statistics from other states that permit medical marijuana show similarities.
  • What we will likely (almost certainly) see is a proliferation of marijuana dispensaries in our communities, because the profit potential here is enormous. Census data suggests that communities with populations comparable to Sarasota’s in states that permit medical marijuana have already experienced this. To evaluate this for yourself, visit www.weedmaps.com. Thus, Venice, Florida, could mirror Venice, California, where marijuana dispensaries are a common sight along the famous beach.
  • Because federal law makes marijuana illegal, corresponding banking and credit card restrictions make medical marijuana a largely cash business. As with any cash business involving a commodity that people crave, the infiltration of organized crime has followed. In November 2013, the Drug Enforcement Administration raided several Colorado marijuana dispensaries based on suspected ties to Colombian drug cartels. Given that Florida has almost four times the population of Colorado, this trend will easily migrate here.

Read the full op-ed by going here.

Recently Dr. Larry Reed was in Sarasota to discuss seven principles of sound public policy. In the context of the medical marijuana debate principle number three comes to mind:

Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.

Sheriff Knight is considering the long-run effects and all the people.

RELATED STORIES:

Students Find Way To Secretly Smoke Marijuana In Class – CBS Denver
Pocket hookahs proliferate with young marijuana users, sources say – The Denver Post
LA Times – Pot candy ‘geared toward children’ seized at San Clemente checkpoint

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is attributed to Rachel S. O’Hara, Staff Photographer for YourObserver.com.

Report: As Many as 165,000 Jobs Lost Because of Obamacare’s Medical Device Tax

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius may want to take back her claim that there is “absolutely no evidence” that Obamacare has caused any job losses. If the Congressional Budget Office report earlier this month wasn’t enough, the medical device industry delivered some troubling news about the effects of the health care law’s medical device tax.  The Daily Caller reports:

Obamacare’s medical device tax has already created a job loss of 33,000 in the medical device industry and 132,00 more job losses are expected, according to a new report from the industry trade group the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), obtained by the Daily Caller.

The AdvaMed survey breaks down the job losses from the first year that the medical device tax has been in place along with its broader job effects:

The tax has resulted in employment reductions of approximately 14,000 industry workers and forgone hiring of 19,000 workers. The total job impact of the tax on industry employment was approximately 33,000.

Independent estimates of the relationship between direct employment in the industry and indirect employment among suppliers and in the general economy found a ratio of four indirect jobs for each direct job.

Applying this ratio to jobs lost or foregone suggests that the impact of the tax on indirect employment would be approximately 132,000 jobs, for a total job loss due to the tax of as many as 165,000 jobs.

Apparently for Secretary Sebelius, job losses in the medical device industry don’t count.

The survey also finds that because of the tax:

  • 75% deferred, cancelled, or reduced investments and employee compensation.
  • Over 30% said they cut research and development.
  • Nearly 10% said they moved or expanded manufacturing outside the United States.

If it remains on the books, device makers say the medical device tax will continue hurting employees and innovation:

58% of respondents said they would consider reducing employment if the device tax were not repealed.

50% said they would consider reducing R&D investment if the device tax were not repealed.

A Gallup poll finds that jobs are the most-important issue for Americans. We must help put people back to work by lifting the barriers to hiring and investment. Repealing the harmful medical device tax would be a good step.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/TBu_dmoqzSU[/youtube]

EDITORS NOTE: Featured image courtesy of the Chemical Heritage Foundation. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

Obama (D-WH) and Grayson (D-FL): Liars of the Year?

Obama told the lie of the year. Congressman Grayson backed him up. Join Americans for Prosperity Florida at http://lieoftheyear.org and tell Grayson that ObamaCare is hurting Florida families!

[youtube]http://youtu.be/EC0ShygfR8c[/youtube]

Tom Tillison from BizPac Review reports:

Americans for Prosperity continued its campaign of standing up against Obamacare with the announcement Thursday of a series of television ad buys in Florida.

Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, joined state director Slade O’Brien in Central Florida to unveil two new ads focusing on Rep.Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and Rep. Joe Garcia, D-Fla., holding the lawmakers accountable for their support of Obamacare.

“President Obama told the lie of the year,” one ad begins. “And Congressman Grayson backed him up.” Grayson is then heard saying, “Everyone will love this bill.”

Read more.

Supreme Court Brief filed Supporting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga and Religious Liberty

Claiming “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty,” the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) yesterday filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in two separate cases, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. In both cases, the plaintiffs are devout Christians who built their businesses from the ground up.  They object on religious grounds to providing certain contraceptives which are mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services headed by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both cases are scheduled for oral arguments on March 25, 2014 and the Court’s decision is expected sometime before the end of June.

TMLC’s brief focuses on religious liberty, “This case is not about competing rights; there is only one right at issue here − the right to religious freedom.”  The brief goes on to explain that there is no constitutional right to “free” contraception or abortion.  Moreover, that “The employers are not objecting to their employees’ private decision to use these drugs, they are objecting to being forced by the government to pay for insurance plans that facilitate or contribute to these decisions. The employers object to being used to further a government objective that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

TMLC’s brief appealed to the foundations upon which our country was built:

“The United States was founded upon a set of noble and workable principles that formed the basis for the Bill of Rights. Paramount was the recognition that for a citizenry to be truly free, they must be allowed to think, to speak, and to worship God without government interference or unjustified restriction.”

The brief referred to our Founding Fathers:

“They risked their fortunes and their lives to create a country where people could be free to live and to worship consistent with their own conscience, and to provide for their families without unnecessary and crippling burdens created by an all-powerful government. The citizens currently before the Court challenging the Mandate can appreciate the struggles those early patriots faced. They too cannot allow injustice to prosper and are risking their fortunes and their livelihoods to defend the constitutional freedoms that define this country.”

Click here to read the TMLC’s entire 16-page brief

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) is a national public interest law firm located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  It has filed 11 federal cases involving 33 different plaintiffs challenging the HHS Mandate.  One of those cases, Eden Foods v. Sebelius et al, is currently in the U.S. Supreme Court, but not scheduled for argument.  The Government has suggested to the Court that the Eden Foods case be held in abeyance pending the decision in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The religious liberty of every American is at stake.  If we lose these cases, the guarantee of religious liberty under our constitution and laws becomes a farce.”

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby represented by the Becket Fund in June 2013, arguing that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to corporate entities, thereby shielding Hobby Lobby founder David Green from providing insurance plans that abide by the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate.

However, in August 2013, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the same arguments, forcing the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, to offer health insurance to their employees in a grave violation of their religious beliefs.

Cruz: Obama Should Apologize to Nation in State of the Union

By Andrew Johnson.

With the bungled launch of HealthCare.gov and the Affordable Care Act causing millions to lose their health-care coverage, Ted Cruz urged the president to use Tuesday’s State of the Union address to apologize to the American people.

“For the State of the Union, one of the things President Obama really ought to do is look in the TV camera and say to the over 5 million Americans all across this country who’ve had their health insurance canceled because of Obamacare, to look in the camera and say, ‘I’m sorry — I told you if you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep it…’”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/oD7oDpFh5WY[/youtube]

 

White Paper: Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement

Lately, the gay movement seems to be making large gains in its war on America’s Judeo-Christian culture. Gay characters have become the norm on sitcoms; it has become fashionable to attack the Boy Scouts; homosexual propaganda inundates many of our public schools; nearly all the mainstream religious denominations have “revised” their understanding of Biblical teaching concerning homosexuality; and the gay “rights” legislative agenda is succeeding beyond the advocates’ wildest imaginations.

And yet the destructive impact homosexuality has upon Western Civilization is rarely discussed by columnists, reporters, religious leaders, politicians or by anyone else for that matter. Even some conservative publications choose to ignore the issue and instead have published articles arguing for greater tolerance of the gay lifestyle.

Indeed, on the homosexual issue, conservatives seem divided between a “live and let live” attitude and one that concludes that the homosexual agenda will have to be curtailed if the Judeo-Christian culture is to survive. However, overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture. A vast amount of data demonstrating the deviant nature of the gay lifestyle is ignored by the media as well as the leadership of the psychological, psychiatric, and medical professions.

It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh. However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization ─ the nuclear family. An unmistakable manifestation of the attack on the family unit is the homosexual community’s efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement. The homosexual community and its allies in the media scoff at this argument. They insist it is merely a tactic to demonize the homosexual movement. After all, they argue, heterosexual molestation is a far more serious problem.

Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent.

This trend comes at the expense of our children’s safety. The incident in Los Angeles involving group homes operated by the Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social Services (GLASS) exemplifies this danger. GLASS receives taxpayer monies to take in troubled youth referred to them by the social service departments of various southern counties in California.

GLASS’s own website should have been warning enough. GLASS believes that some children are born gay (a view not backed by any science) and announced that they target “youth who are confused about their sexual identities.” The website links to a myriad of gay sites targeting the youth, including one promoting a book that promotes sex with children. GLASS’s founder and former executive director, Teresa DeCrescenzo, edited a book that helps youth discover their homosexuality.

It came as no surprise that the California Department of Social Services found “on numerous occasions beginning at least as early as 1994, adults affiliated with GLASS, including staff members, members of the GLASS board of directors and volunteers, sexually abused or molested children who were placed with GLASS.” The Department of Social Services found that DeCrescenzo, aware of the allegations of molestation, determined staff conduct not to be inappropriate. Apparently, DeCrescenzo believes molestation is part of the “coming out” process that she glorifies in her writings.

One would think that a molestation factory disguised as a group home would be a good reason for the State of California to shut down the whole GLASS group home operation. Remarkably, the state of California, allowing GLASS to continue operation, removed a few individuals and placed GLASS on probation. Even though additional molestation incidents occurred at GLASS facilities in 1999, they remain in operation until this day.

A Los Angeles Times investigation found that, in some cases, “it appears authorities never fully investigated those reports.” Indeed, not one person has been charged with child molestation or endangerment by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, an avid promoter of the gay agenda. After all, that would be hateful. If such a group home were operated by heterosexuals, the facilities would be shut down, any existing licenses revoked, and numerous criminal charges filed.

Homosexuals are targeting not just youth group homes, but all groups that work with youth. When a California family sued the Scouts in 1993 for exposing their son to a Scout leader who molested him, the Scouts were ordered to turn over 25,000 pages of documents to the plaintiff. This unprecedented glimpse into the world of Scout pedophiles revealed that thousands of boys had been molested by Scout leaders and other volunteers between 1971 and 1991 resulting in the expulsion of over 1,800 Scout volunteers for pedophile activity. The documents show that some Scout leaders molested over forty boys before getting caught and that many, once caught, simply moved to a different Scout troop and continued abusing boys.

Gay activists have spun the Scout molestation epidemic as a heterosexual problem. Examination of many of the higher profile cases, however, reveals that Scout molesters are attracted exclusively to boys and many lead mainstream gay lifestyles. John Hemstreet is a typical example. Hemstreet is a convicted child molester, former Boy Scout leader, and currently the President of the Toledo, Ohio chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). PFLAG is one of the groups leading the nationwide attack on the Boy Scouts of America.

Incredibly, the pro-pedophile group, North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which calls itself a homosexual group, wrote a letter to the national Scout office urging “the Boy Scouts of America to cease its discrimination against openly gay or lesbian persons in the appointment of its scoutmasters and scouters and in its membership. This will permit scouts to be exposed to a variety of lifestyles and will permit more of those individuals who genuinely wish to serve boys to do so.”

Using twisted logic, pro-gay academics argue in various social science journals that the molestation of boys is not a gay lifestyle issue and that such men are not really homosexuals. It is simply amazing that gay propagandists and sexology “experts” are successfully bamboozling the public and the media into believing that a man’s exclusive focus on young males should not be defined as homosexuality! But if an exclusive attraction of a male to other males of any age is not homosexuality, what is?

On one hand, homosexuals publicly claim that the molestation of boys is not part of the homosexual lifestyle. On the other, they are quietly establishing the legal parameters exempting the molestation of boys from prosecution on anti-discrimination grounds. For example, in Nevada a forty-two year-old man was arrested for molesting a sixteen year-old boy but was not charged by the district attorney. The reason given was that to do so would “discriminate against a class of people.” The deputy district attorney added that to charge the man “would be singling out homosexuals.” For years, conservatives have argued that so called anti-discrimination laws would eventually lead to granting legal protections for various homosexual deviances. It appears that time is coming sooner than expected.

Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a youth oriented culture. Very few gays exhibit a preference for older men. Some admit to a focus on teenage boys, some on prepubescent boys, and many cross over between categories. All are subsets of the homosexual deviancy. Moreover, most pedophiles consider themselves to be gay. In a 1988 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Child prostitution expert Dr. Jennifer James reports that the number of boy prostitutes who identify themselves as homosexuals has risen from 10% to 60% in the last fifteen years.

Most of the public is by now aware of NAMBLA, a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love. NAMBLA is currently the target of a class action lawsuit by parents of children molested and, in one case, murdered by individuals associated with NAMBLA. Publicly, the mainstream gay organizations distance themselves from NAMBLA. Clearly, this is merely a public relations ploy as the gay leadership realizes its agenda would suffer greatly if the public knew the truth.

The reality is that NAMBLA not only describes itself as part of the gay rights coalition, but its literature states that one of its goals is “cooperating with the lesbian, gay, and other movements for sexual liberation.” NAMBLA even “provide[s] financial and other assistance to GLB [Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual] youth organizations . . . .” Indeed, some NAMBLA chapters meet at mainstream gay centers such as Philadelphia’s Gay and Lesbian Community Center. NAMBLA’s meetings and conferences always feature mainstream gay leaders and speakers. For example, Don Kilhefner, of the Los Angeles Gay Community Service Center, gave a speech to Los Angeles NAMBLA members on the subject of “The Significance of Man/Boy Love in the Gay Community.”

The most comprehensive gay networking website, the Queer Resource Directory (www.qrd.org), links every gay group in the country including NAMBLA and other homosexual groups that focus on youth. NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades with the consent of the gay leadership. Many of the homosexual movement’s most prominent leaders endorse NAMBLA and its goals. Gay authors and leaders such as Allen Ginsberg, Gayle Rubin, Larry Kramer (founder of ACT-UP), Pat Califia, Jane Rule, Michael Kearns, and Michel Foucault have all written in favor of either NAMBLA or man-boy relationships. Harry Hay, whom many consider the founder of the American homosexual movement, invited NAMBLA members to march with him in the 1993 “March on Washington” gay rights parade. He also marched in the 1986 Los Angeles gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words “NAMBLA walks with me.”

Leading mainstream homosexual newspapers and magazines such as the Advocate, Edge, Metroline, The Guide, and The San Francisco Sentinel have not only published pro-NAMBLA articles and columns but also many have editorialized in favor of NAMBLA and sex with children. The editor of The Guide, Ed Hougen, stated in an interview with Lambda Report, “I believe they [NAMBLA] are generally interested in the right of young people to be sexual . . . . I am glad there is a group like NAMBLA that is willing to be courageous.” The San Francisco Sentinel was more blunt: “NAMBLA’s position on sex is not unreasonable, just unpopular. [W]hen a 14 year old gay boy approaches a man for sex, it’s because he wants sex with a man.”

There is also the matter of NAMBLA’s membership status in the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), recognized at one time by the United Nations as the official Non-Government Organization (NGO) representing the gay community worldwide. When NAMBLA’s ILGA membership became public, a whirlwind of international controversy erupted. Some gay leaders viewed this attention as harmful to the gay movement’s image and goals and urged the expulsion of NAMBLA for purely political purposes.

However, the media failed to report that ILGA itself had hosted workshops on pedophilia and passed resolutions in 1985, 1988, and 1990 to abolish age of consent laws claiming that “same sex age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect” and supported “the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality.”

Eventually, reacting to congressional legislation threatening the reduction of $119 million in financial support, the United Nations kicked out ILGA in 1995 for refusing to sever ties with a half dozen member groups that advocated or promoted pedophilia. Revealingly, even though ILGA did expel NAMBLA (many say it was for show), it could not muster enough support among its membership to expel other more powerful and discreet pro-pedophile organizations from Germany and other countries. It is extremely revealing that the majority of members of the world’s leading homosexual coalition, the ILGA, decided they would rather be excluded from UN deliberations than vote out groups that advocate sex with children.

Aside from support for NAMBLA by the mainstream gay community, there is a wealth of evidence that homosexuals are the prime force behind the escalating child molestation epidemic. Indeed, over the last fifteen years the homosexual community and its academic allies have published a large quantity of articles that claim sex with children is not harmful to children but, as stated in one homosexual journal, “constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life.” Such articles have appeared in pro-homosexual academic journals such as The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and The International Journal of Medicine and Law. The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality.

Indeed, the Journal of Homosexuality is the premier academic journal of the mainstream homosexual world and yet it published a special double issue entitled, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, containing dozens of articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article states that parents should view the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”

Similarly, mainstream gay publications make no effort to hide their pro-pedophilia views. For example, BLK, a leading black homosexual publication, defended pedophilia with an article entitled, “Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?” San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly editorialized, “The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.”

In 1995, the homosexual magazine Guide stated:

We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the children’s sake.
Without equivocating, the Guide is saying that gays must molest children for their own sake!

While the mainstream media has apparently refused to engage in any kind of investigative expose of the gay movement, it is not difficult to find support for child sex among key homosexual leaders in their publications and literature. For example, the founder of the infamous homosexual group, ACT-UP, Larry Kramer, wrote in his book, Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist, “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”

In a letter to the editor of a gay newspaper, Andy Humm, a key leader of one of America’s largest gay youth groups, Advocates for Youth, said, “No one should be denied basic civil rights because of his or her orientation, whether the person be homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, transvestite, pedophile, sadist, masochist, asexual, whatever one can imagine . . . . They are in themselves natural variations.”

A 1995 content analysis by Dr. Judith Reisman of the Institute for Media Education, focusing on advertisements in the nation’s most influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, reveals that 63% of the personal ads sought or offered prostitution. Many of them openly solicit boys. The Advocate also advertises a “Penetrable Boy Doll . . . available in 3 provocative positions.” Reisman found that the number of erotic boy images per issue of The Advocate averaged fourteen. Some homosexual publications, such as the southern Californian newspaper Update, are brazen enough to advertise for donations for the legal costs of homosexuals arrested for child molestation.

Indeed, NAMBLA and other pro-pedophile literature can be found wherever homosexuals congregate (homosexual bookstores, bathhouses, festivals, gay bars, etc.). When Americans for Truth About Homosexuality leader Peter LaBarbera asked the manager of one of Boston’s leading gay bookstores, Glad Day Bookshop, to quit selling pedophile literature he replied, “Our policy is to sell everything that’s available to the [gay] community.”

The owner of a prominent Philadelphia gay bookstore, Giovanni’s Room, pulled NAMBLA’s literature off its shelves only due to boycott threats but commented, “I think it’s a strange day for gay culture when we start banning something because it makes us uncomfortable . . . especially when that thing is a foundation of gay literature. If we pulled all the books that had adult-youth sexual themes, we wouldn’t have many novels, memoirs, or biographies left.”

The most popular gay fiction books on the market today are rich with idyllic accounts of intergenerational relationships according to writer Philip Guichard in a Village Voice article. Doubleday published a book in 1998, The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, which recommends numerous works that portray sex with boys in a positive manner. The Border bookstore chain sells a book, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, which includes a chapter devoted to the history of pro-pedophile literature as an indisputable part of homosexual literary history.

The Gay Men’s Press publishes a best seller list on which appear such books as Dares to Speak: History and Contemporary Perspectives on Boy-Love, Some Boys, and For a Lost Soldier. All these books can only be described as pro-pedophile. The authoritative Encyclopedia of Homosexuality claims to acknowledge, “the fact that until very recently man/boy love relationships were accepted as a part, and indeed were a major part, of male homosexuality.” The leading dictionary of the homosexual culture, The Queens’ Vernacular, lists 254 of its 12,000 words as having to do with sex with boys.

One of the nation’s largest publishers of homosexual literature and books, Alyson Publications, also publishes pro-pedophile books such as Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men. This book contains detailed instructions for homosexuals on how to avoid discovery and arrest when having sex with boys: “Avoid situations where a number of men are having sex with the same boy, or group of boys, over a period of time.” Unknown to most people, Alyson Publications is also probably America’s largest provider of pro-gay literature and reading material to public schools. Unfortunately, this market is growing at a tremendous pace. The infamous Heather has Two Mommies, currently being used in many public school systems to educate children about homosexuality, is an Alyson Publications book.

Even the alleged birthplace of the modern day homosexual movement, the Stonewall Bar in New York City, was notorious as a place where older homosexuals arranged to meet young boys for sex.

“Mainstream” homosexual conferences commonly feature speeches about intergenerational sex as it is now called. For example, at one of the nation’s largest homosexual gatherings, the annual National Gay Lesbian Task Force convention, featured a workshop at its 2001 confab entitled, Your Eyes Say Yes But the Law Says No, which included a speech by an S&M activist about laws affecting intergenerational sex. The convention also featured another workshop entitled Drag 101: How to Turn Kids in Make-up into Kings and Queens.

Pick up any gay newspaper or gay travel publication and one finds ads for sex tours to Burma, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and other countries infamous for boy prostitution. Published exposés on such tours by former homosexuals reveal that thousands of American gay men are patronizing boy prostitutes around the world. The most popular travel guide for homosexuals, Spartacus Gay Guides, is replete with information about where to find boys for sex and, as a friendly warning, lists penalties in various countries for sodomy with boys if caught.

The government of Sri Lanka announced that more than 10,000 boy prostitutes work its beaches as a result of the high demand created by affluent Western homosexuals. But the dirty little secret of the American homosexual community is the thousands of boy prostitutes who service them within our borders. A book exposing the boy prostitution world, For Money or Love, Boy Prostitution in America, reveals that boys are selling themselves not only in the cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, and New Orleans, but also in smaller towns across the country. In street jargon, the boys are known as “chickens” and their customers are known as “chickenhawks.”

Homosexual Internet sites are no different. A quick search using the words “gay” and “boys” easily locates thousands of homosexual sites that promote sex with young boys and/or contain child pornography. Indeed, it is the mainstream homosexual groups who filed suit to block Virginia Legislation, passed in 2001, restricting Internet use that proves harmful to children (such as chat rooms commonly used by pedophiles to find victims). Similarly, a pedophile’s conviction in Iowa for showing pornographic videos to five minor boys sparked widespread protests from homosexual activists when the conviction was upheld on appeal by the Iowa Supreme Court.

The Holy Grail of the pedophile movement is the lowering or elimination of all age of consent laws. The main warriors in this political and legal battle are “mainstream” homosexual groups. Robert Knight and Frank York of the Family Research Council have thoroughly documented this in a report. “As far back as 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a ‘gay rights platform’ that included a demand to ‘repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.’”

It is homosexual activists within the United Nations who are lobbying to give sexual rights to underage children. In England, the campaign is being led by Outrage! and Stonewall, both homosexual organizations. The Dutch homosexual group, Association for the Integration of Homosexuality, has succeeded in lowering the age of legal sex to twelve in Holland. Assisting them was another homosexual group, the COC, which stated:

The liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue . . . [and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished . . . by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possible made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to the erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity.

In Canada, the effort is led by homosexual activist and NAMBLA defender Gerald Hannon. In America, aside from NAMBLA, the effort is supported by most of the major homosexual organizations such as the National Gay Task Force. Indeed, the annual homosexual “March on Washington” invariably releases a “statement of demands” which includes abolishing age of consent laws. Homosexuals in Hawaii have already successfully lowered the age of consent there to fourteen. To be frank, it is difficult to find an advocate of lowering the age of consent laws in the United States or elsewhere who is not a homosexual activist.

What then does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually. Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals.

Family Research Institute founder and psychologist Paul Cameron, reviewing more than nineteen different academic reports and peer reviewed studies in a 1985 Psychological Reports article, found that homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in an 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male.

However, it should be noted that homosexuals account for only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. In other words, heterosexual molestations proportionally are a fraction compared to homosexual molestations. More recent studies confirm this statistic. In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that ‘‘around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.”

Sexual violence expert and professor of psychiatry Eugene Abel, in a 1987 study published by the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, concluded that homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is five times greater than the molestation of girls.

In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.
Other data has come to the forefront confirming that sex with young boys is a way of life for many homosexuals. In 1993, the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed 102 court martial convictions having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a four-year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, homosexual men victimized a youth.

A content analysis of molestation stories by the Family Research Institute involving five major newspapers found around 40% involved homosexuals, but this number is low due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is homosexual even if he knows that to be the case.

A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white gay men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. The Family Research Institute conducted a similar study and found that “11 times more gays than exclusively heterosexual men reported sex with a man while they were under the age of 13.” A study by homosexual activists and researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.

In a study on male rape published by the American Journal of Psychiatry, it was found that 6% of rape victims reported to a Philadelphia rape crisis center were boys under sixteen years old. And women are not raping them.

This type of behavior, however, is considered normal in psychiatric circles due to the influence of homosexual psychiatrists within the American Psychiatric Association. It is the homosexual caucus within that body that pushed to rewrite the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. The new definition defines sex with children as a psychological disorder only if it causes “clinically significant distress” for the molester! Under that definition, most molesters are perfectly normal people!

The American Psychological Association appears to have similar sympathies when it published a sloppy and error-filled article in its Psychological Bulletin in July 1998, arguing that there is no research documenting that sexual child abuse is harmful to children and that “a willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex” instead of using terms such as child abuse and victim. There was no outcry from the homosexual community. Indeed, they either remained silent or publicly defended the article. One of the nation’s most prominent homosexual journalists, Andrew Sullivan, attacked critics of the study in the New York Times. In the National Journal, gay journalist Jonathan Rauch strongly defended the study and argued that child molestation should be called “adult-adolescent sex.”

The epidemic in male child molestation occurring simultaneously with the rise of an aggressive homosexual subculture is not coincidental. Due to the AIDS virus, molestation is often a death sentence. Further, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 50% of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16, and 20% had sex with an adult male by the age of 10.

The Center of Disease Control (CDC) recently reported that as of the year 2000, there are now 31,293 AIDS cases in the 13-24-age category. The HIV/AIDs Surveillance Reports maintained by the CDC demonstrate that for the last few years around half of the age group 13-24 HIV victims were infected with the disease as a result of sex with adult men. However, one must bear in mind that due to the incubation period of the HIV/AIDS disease, many of these boys and young men were infected as long as ten years previous to the reporting of their cases. This translates into roughly 15,000 boys that have been infected by adult men since the CDC started to compile this information. This is an epidemic no one seems to want to talk about.

Indeed, the response instead has been an escalating effort by the homosexual community to compromise every major youth group possible and to inundate our public schools with pro-homosexual curricula, counseling, and social activities. The YMCA, Girl Scouts, and the Big Brothers, despite also being plagued by molestation incidents, have all capitulated to homosexual pressure campaigns. Indeed, Girl Scout leaders writing in the 1997 book, On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on their Scouting Experience, reveal that the Girl Scouts are inundated with lesbians─a third of its professional staff is lesbian─and they have even initiated a lesbian mentoring program! The Boy Scouts now stand alone among America’s major youth groups in resisting the homosexual agenda – and that explains why they are under such ferocious legal, legislative, and cultural attack.

Moreover, the liberal media omits any mention of a person’s homosexuality in covering molestation stories. This is reinforced by pressure from homosexual groups. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD) disseminated a “media guide” to reporters nationwide in which they urge:

A criminal’s . . . sexual orientation is not always obvious (or relevant) based simply on the circumstances of a crime . . . . [A]s a rule avoid labeling an activity or emotion as “homosexual’’ unless you would call the same activity “heterosexual” or “straight” if engaged in by someone of another sexual orientation.

The homosexual community knows that the capture of all major youth groups is absolutely necessary to the expansion of its movement. They know what most social scientists and sex researchers know but refuse to talk about: homosexually-molested children are likely to become homosexual. After all, one of the most common characteristics of homosexual molesters is the fact that they were molested themselves during boyhood. An article published by the American Medical Association reported that, “Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identity as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused.”

It is high time that America’s elected officials, health authorities, education leaders, and law enforcement officials act to not only tell the harsh truth─the homosexual community has targeted America’s youth─but act now to counter this horrible trend. Failure to do so will have disastrous consequences for both our culture and for the health of our children.

EDITORS NOTE: To print a downloadable copy of this white paper with references click here. This paper originally appeared in Regents University Law Review in 2002.

RELATED COLUMN: 5 Horrific Examples of Cultural Decay in America

Blame Cronyism for Obamacare Website Disaster

As we all know, the launching of the Affordable Care Act was a colossal disaster. We won’t even talk about the content of the law and the incredible burden it has placed upon health care providers, insurance companies, and worst of all, American consumers. We’ll confine this article toward analyzing the web site boondoggle which began on day one, October 1st.

Consider this: Before computers existed, the United States and its allies won a major war on two fronts on planet Earth, one against Nazi Germany and the other, imperial Japan in a period of 3 ½ years. That’s roughly the same period of time that was afforded the Obama administration to get a website in place for Obamacare.

But it failed.

Besides all the verbal tap dancing, has anyone in the administration competently explained how and why this happened?  Has anyone been held accountable for the wasted expenditure of $678 million which, along with three years of preparation, should have been ample resources to launch a new web site?  Have we been able to pinpoint the source of the incompetence?

Maybe the mainstream media won’t touch the subject, but the answer – or a good part thereof – is pretty clear. Start with Michelle Obama and that dreaded tag: Cronyism. That’s right, the company that earned the contract for building the website for 2/3 of a billion dollars was CGI Federal, whose senior vice-president is Toni Townes-Whitley. Whitley and Michelle Obama were friends and classmates at Princeton and both are members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni. It has been reported that Townes-Whitley and her husband spent Christmas at the White House with the Obamas in 2010, shortly after the contract award. That must have been a helluva toast.

What makes it more audacious is how the Obamas by-passed the normal government process of sending out specifications for bid, then evaluating and assessing all the companies that apply until the most experienced, most competent, most deserving and most cost effective win the bid.

But that didn’t happen in the Obama dynasty. While the House Committee on Energy and Commerce learned that four companies were prepared to bid for the contract, only CGI was considered, and then awarded the contract – No Bid! No competition.

There is no other explanation. It was a fix.

Not only did the administration employ incompetent people to set up a crucial website, they were equally responsible for failing to abide by the process that is supposed to prevent corruption in the system and assure Americans their tax dollars are well applied.

Where is the outrage by the mainstream media?

Sure, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius is on the hot seat at all the hearings, and she should be fired as well. But don’t count on it. When the heat dies down, she’ll likely get a loyalty promotion much like Susan Rice who lied through her teeth to five television stations following the Benghazi fiasco. Fact is, Sebelius is a convenient distraction from getting to the truth.

Since the cat is out of the box, we have come to learn that if the web site was constructed by a few computer-savvy technicrats, they could have put it together in three days, not three years, at a fraction of the cost. But who was looking? (see link, below)

That might be a stretch, but I’d easily bet that a competent team who was properly vetted could have had the site up and running in a matter of weeks or months, regardless of complications.  But that was not on the agenda for the Obama dynasty.

It is utterly amazing that this president skids scot-free on every scandal that points directly to the Oval Office, and never held accountable.

This one is obvious.  Maybe, too obvious.

Yet, we – the American taxpayers – are, and will remain, the loser.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate was Obamacare website builder | The Daily Caller

Michelle Obama’s ‘no-bid’ friend spent Christmas at the White House – BizPac Review

Three 20-Year-Olds Make Their Own WORKING Obamacare Site – In Just Three Days | Ben Swann Truth In Media

Study: Teen Pregnancy Rate Drops 45.7 Percent When Planned Parenthood Leaves Town

A study across the Texas Panhandle, using government statistics from 16 counties, found that the teen pregnancy rates among 13-17-year olds from 1994 through 2010 showed dramatic declines even as Planned Parenthood Federation of America facilities in the region shutdown—dwindling from 19 family planning facilities to zero.

For decades, PPFA has publicly maintained that it serves a key healthcare role for the American public by educating teens on “safe sex,” providing contraceptives, and reducing pregnancies. The breakthrough study titled “A Longitudinal Analysis of PPFA and Teen Pregnancy in the Texas Panhandle” refutes that claim. Found within a meta-analysis of Planned Parenthood, the report states that the teen pregnancy rate “reached its lowest point in recorded history two years after disaffiliation of the last two remaining facilities.”

The study analyzed data obtained from the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Annual Report, Table 14B, for the years 1994 through 2010: “In 1996, the year before opposition to Planned Parenthood began, the average teen pregnancy rate in the 16 counties where Planned Parenthood operated facilities was 43.6 per 1,000 girls aged 13 to 17. By 2002, the rate had dropped to 28.6. In 2008, the year the last two Planned Parenthood facilities disaffiliated from PPFA, the teen pregnancy rate was 27.2. And in 2010, two years after the Texas Panhandle became Planned Parenthood-free, the teen pregnancy rate had fallen to 24.1.”

Read more at Christian Post.

Federal Judge Grants Injunctive Relief from HHS Mandate for Five Non-Profits

On Monday, January 13, 2014, Federal District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, granted injunctive relief to five additional non-profit organizations in the Thomas More Law Center’s newest challenge to the HHS Mandate filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

This newest challenge on behalf of the five non-profit entities was brought by Erin Mersino, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The non-profit Plaintiffs include the Ave Maria Foundation, Ave Maria Communications (aka “Ave Maria Radio”), Domino’s Farms Petting Farm, Rhodora J. Donahue Academy Inc., and the Thomas More Law Center, all founded by Catholic philanthropist Tom Monaghan.

Murphy with CaptionIn granting the injunction, Judge Murphy noted that the Plaintiffs showed “a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits” of their case.  The Court rejected the government’s argument that the accommodation to the Mandate, which required the Plaintiffs to either pay for contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs directly or sign a “self-certification” which would act as a permission slip to their insurance company to pay for contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs, was sufficient to alleviate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional objections.  The government belittled the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs by nakedly claiming that the Mandate did not violate them—despite the Plaintiffs’ sworn statements to the contrary and the government’s own position that never challenged the sincerity of the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.

The Court, in rejecting the government’s position, proclaimed that “It is not the government’s business to decide what behavior has religious significance.”

The Court also made note of the “sheer number of exemptions” which allows other companies to avoid compliance with the Mandate, while the Plaintiffs did not qualify for an exemption and without judicial intervention would be forced to comply.  The Court recognized that since so many are exempted by the government from complying with the Mandate, there is no necessity for the Plaintiffs to comply at the expense of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The injunction protects the five entities from any compliance with the HHS Mandate. The government’s Mandate would have required the Plaintiffs to facilitate access to contraceptive and abortion-causing drugs and devices, as well as sterilization procedures, through their health insurance plan.

The Plaintiffs originally filed their federal lawsuit on December 20, 2013, and on December 23, 2013, they filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.  On December 31, 2014, hours before the Mandate would have been implemented against the Plaintiffs, the Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order blocking the enforcement of the Mandate and protecting the Plaintiffs for a limited fourteen day period while the Court considered the Plaintiffs’ request for relief.  This Monday, January 13, 2014, Judge Murphy gave his prior order more permanence by granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction which will protect the Plaintiffs through the pendency of the case.

Click here to read the Court’s Opinion

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on Judge Murphy’s ruling:

“Christians in America are under increasing attack by the Federal Government.  And it’s important we realize that we must look to the Federal Courts to protect our religious freedom guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.   In this particular case, we are grateful for Judge Murphy’s decision and the expeditious manner in which he rendered it.”

The ultimate purpose of the lawsuit is to permanently block the implementation of the HHS Mandate which requires employers to obtain insurance coverage for abortions and contraception on the grounds that it imposes clear violations of conscience on Americans who morally object to abortion and contraception.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas Perez, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Jack Lew, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; and their respective departments.