Posts

Social Science and the Nuclear Family by Steven Horwitz

The question of the importance of family structure, specifically marriage, is back in the limelight. Conservatives are promoting three papers that provide some strong evidence that children raised by married parents do better along a number of dimensions than those raised in other household forms.

For many commentators, this makes for a strong case against those who appear to claim that family structure has either a minimal effect or doesn’t matter at all. As someone who might well fall into that group, or at least appear to, I think there are several responses to these new studies, all of which can acknowledge the empirical evidence that being raised by two loving parents is better for kids than alternative family structures.

One side note: conservatives might wish to not use the term “family structure denialists” as Wilcox does in the link above.

Comparing a legitimate disagreement over empirical evidence and public policy to those who would deny the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust is an unacceptable rhetorical move whether it comes from leftists speaking of “climate change deniers” or conservatives speaking of “family structure deniers.” The disagreements in both case are legitimate objects of intellectual discussion and the language of “denier” indicates a refusal to engage in good faith debate.

On the substance of this issue, the conservatives cheering these recent studies don’t always note that there are differences among single-parent households formed through: 1) the choice to have and raise a child by oneself; 2) death of a spouse; and 3) divorce. Each of these presents a different set of circumstances and tradeoffs that we might wish to consider when we think about the role of family structure.

The conservative defenders of the superiority of the two-parent family (and it’s presumably not just “two parents” but two parents of the opposite sex, which raises a whole other set of questions), might wish to disentangle the multiple reasons such a family structure might not be present. For example, the children of widows do better than those of women who choose not to marry the fathers of their children, and the children of widows have outcomes that look more like those of kids from two-parent families.

The empirical evidence under discussion has to be understood with an “all else equal” condition. A healthy marriage will indeed produce better outcomes than, say, single motherhood. But there is equally strong social scientific evidence about the harm done to children who are raised in high-conflict households. Those children may well be better off if their parents get divorced and they are raised in two single-parent households with less conflict.

When parents in high-conflict marriages split up, the reduction in their stress levels, especially for women, leads to improved relationships with their children and better outcomes for the kids. In general, comparisons of different types of family structures must avoid the “Nirvana Fallacy” by not comparing an idealized vision of married parenthood with a more realistic perspective on single parenthood. The choices facing couples in the real world are always about comparing imperfect alternatives.

In addition, to say that married parents create “better” outcomes for kids does not mean that other family forms don’t produce “acceptable” outcomes for kids. It’s not as if every child raised by a single mother, whether through divorce, widowhood, or simply not marrying the father, is condemned to poverty or a life of crime.

Averages are averages. Though these three recent studies do continue to confirm the existing literature’s consensus that marriage is “better” for kids, there is still much debate over how much better those outcomes are, and especially whether other family structures are or are not sufficient to raise functional adults.

And this leads to the next point, which is that parents matter too.

The focus of the “family structure matters” crowd is almost exclusively on the outcomes for kids. That parents matter too is most obvious with divorce, where leaving a bad marriage may be extremely valuable for mom and/or dad, even if it leads to worse outcomes for the kids. The evidence from Stevenson and Wolfers that no-fault divorce has led to a decline in intimate partner violence, as well as suicides of married women, makes the importance of this point clear.

We can acknowledge that higher divorce rates have not been good for kids, but we can’t do single-entry moral bookkeeping. We have to include the effects of divorce on the married couple, because adults matter too. When we add this to the idea that conflict in marriage is bad for kids, the increased ease with which adults can get out of marriages, and the resulting single parenthood, is not so clearly a net problem when we consider the well-being of both children and adults.

These calculations are complicated and idiosyncratic, which seems to suggest that they should be left to those with the best knowledge of the situation and not artificially encouraged or discouraged by public policy.

This last point raises the final question, which is what do these studies mean for public policy?

If two-parent families are better than the alternatives, what does this imply? Are conservatives suggesting that we subsidize couples who have kids? Should that apply to only biological parents and not adoptive ones? Isn’t this a case for same-sex marriage? Should we make divorce more difficult, and if so, what about the probable result that doing so would reduce the number of marriages by increasing the cost of exit?

I would certainly agree that we should stop subsidizing single-parenthood through various government programs, but I’d make the same argument about two-parent families as well. In any case, what’s not clear is what the conservatives trumpeting these studies think they mean for public policy.

Perhaps, though, they think the solutions are cultural. If conservatives wish to argue that these studies mean that we should use moral suasion and intermediary institutions such as houses of worship to encourage people to marry and stay married if they wish to have kids, or that we should encourage young people to use contraception and think more carefully about when and with whom they have sex, that’s fine. And in fact, teen pregnancies are down.

But if intermediary institutions can do all of that, then they can also play a key role in helping single parents who make the difficult decision to divorce or continue a pregnancy in the complicated circumstances of their lives. Such institutions will also likely do that more effectively than can the state.

So if we are genuinely concerned about single parenthood, we should be asking what are the best ways to deal with it. Libertarians like me might well agree with such conservatives if they think the solutions are cultural or should rest in the hands of such intermediate institutions. But if they think there are public policy solutions, particularly ones that limit or penalize the choices facing couples, I wish they would spell them out explicitly in the context of their discussions of these studies.

One last thought: It ill-serves libertarians to deny the results of good science and social science, whether it’s climate change from the left or family structure from the right. We should, of course, critically interrogate that work to make sure that it is, in fact, good. But if it is good, we should welcome it as we should first be concerned with the truth and not our ideological priors.

The next questions we should ask, however, are about the implications. In the case of these recent studies on family structure, it is incumbent upon us to assess both the quality of the work and its implications, and we should pay particular attention to what is not being seen and what questions are not being asked.

Just because one family structure is better for children all else equal means neither that other family structures aren’t good enough for kids, nor that all else is always equal, nor that we shouldn’t consider the well-being of adults when we discuss the consequences of alternative family structures.

This post first appeared at the excellent philosophy blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

VIDEOS: American Pride 2016

We need to sow some good seed into our culture if we expect to reap a crop that will restore honor and decency to America.  Here is one way to do it!

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about the America Pride Project click here.

Game Plan for Taking Back Our Kids

WOODLAWNAn old 1960s U.S. Army buddy, acclaimed life coach and author Steve Chandler sent me a copy of his latest book, “Crazy Good.” In his book, Steve points out that embracing a victim mindset has extremely negative consequences; is not empowering and actually weakens you.

The validity of Steve’s statement is well documented. This is a truth the Left does not permit us to say. If Steve were to state this truth on stage speaking to a black audience, liberals would call him a white racist and me an Uncle Tom for standing up and applauding in agreement with him. How dare this white dude advise blacks to abandon their victim mindsets. Off with his head!

Folks, not only has the Left banned speaking the truth in our country, they are striving to make it illegal. Yes, they want to throw your derriere in jail for disagreeing with their anti-God and anti-American agenda

Nothing sticks in my craw more than allowing Leftist thugs to run the show, beating up on hard working decent Americans, attempting to force them into submission. My early years living in the projects of east Baltimore taught me that if you give bullies an inch, they will take a mile.

Thank God GOP presidential contender Dr Ben Carson is standing up to despicable liberal operatives in the mainstream media, determined to silence him from sounding the alarm regarding the devastating consequences of cradle to grave welfare (government dependency). 

Political experts continue to scratch their heads, puzzled why Dr Carson and Trump’s stars are soaring higher and higher in the polls. It “ain’t” rocket science. The American people are sick of being bullied by Leftists. Americans are thrilled that Dr Carson and Trump are standing up to Leftist bullies in the media and Democratic Party. Both Carson and Trump are fearlessly speaking truth and offering solutions most beneficial to America. Liberals hate it!

Frankly, going into another rant listing Obama’s assaults on freedom and America is too emotionally draining and depressing. Lets just say things are pretty bad when killing babies for profit, killing cops, hating achievers and blacks hating whites are the new celebrated norms. Who could imagine a day would come in America when people are jailed and businesses are closed for not gleefully blessing same sex fellatio, anal sex and same sex cunnilingus

However, due to my faith, I remain extremely hopeful. Dr Carson and Trump’s popularity point to a growing once silent majority committed to turning our country around. In skirmishes across America, we are winning victories against PC. Parents are pushing back against liberal school boards’ vile intentions. http://fxn.ws/1L6C3zS

Americans are finally starting to push back, saying “no” to PC tyranny. High quality Christian movies are on the rise. Though hidden by the MSM, youths are leading a powerful pro-life movement; the largest generation of pro-lifers since 1973

Despite Obama and his MSM operatives best efforts to convince Americans that man is smarter than God, polls confirm a majority of Americans smell the stench of our rotting culture. http://bit.ly/1MvPKoa

Folks, we need to stop being so passive and aggressively educate and take back the hearts and minds of our kids. On a road trip visiting relatives in five states, I was stunned by how well Leftist media and public education had transformed the yoots (youths) in my family into brain-dead liberal zombies. They believe white cops murder blacks. Opposing Planned Parenthood equals hatred for women. Republicans are rich, racist and mean. Democrats truly care about them. I had a tough time controlling my gag reflex.

Insidiously, dumbed-down by public education on purpose, most youths are clueless regarding their rights written in the U.S. Constitution. They have no concept of the sacrifice and price our founders and patriots paid for freedom. Thus, it has little value to them. Just as Esau foolishly gave away his birthright for a bowl of beans, many millennials gladly surrender their freedom to government in the name of fairness (social justice) and the promise of security.

Ben Franklin said. “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

So what is the solution? How do we rescue the hijacked hearts and minds of America’s youths? The answer is we follow the lead of Dr Carson, Trump and my favorite candidate, Ted Cruz. Stop allowing the Left to dictate our behavior. Don’t jump on the bandwagon with Leftists criticizing a conservative for speaking truth unfiltered through PC. Boldly push back against PC. Liberals taught our kids lies causing them to hate their country. We MUST counter the lies with the truth about this remarkable, unique and God inspired experiment called America.

Rush Limbaugh is doing his part by publishing a best-selling series of patriotic children books. I am extremely excited and honored to be involved in launching the American Pride Calendar and coffee table book. A father bought several copies because his 10 year old son said it was the best thing he ever read.

To my fellow Christians, branch out of the pews and into the political arena. And for crying out loud, VOTE!!! Prayer is wonderful. But it is time to do something. The Bible says faith without works is dead! More Christians are beginning to realize our government’s and MSM’s War on Christianity; a special shout-out to the ministries of John and Matthew Hagee. Religious freedom rallies are popping up around the country.

Our nation did not reach its current level of debauchery over night. But it is not too late to rescue this stolen generation and generations to come. Committed to fighting with my articles, songs and appearances until God takes me home, I am in this to win it. Raise your hand if you are with me. Wow, I see a lot of hands. Praise God!

RELATED VIDEO: Woodlawn official trailer:

Arming Children: The Islamic State and Mexico’s Gulf Cartel

There is much talk about disarming law abiding American citizens by the Obama administration but little done to stop the use of children as hit-men by Mexican drug cartels  and soldiers by the Islamic State.

This is the worst form of child abuse – using children to kill, slaughter, behead, assassinate.

child soldier of Islamic StatePamela Geller in her column “Generation Kill: The Child Soldiers of the Islamic State” writes:

Look at this child [right]. Remember him. This is your children’s future.

This is who your children will face in the future. These children are being trained to kill. These children are being schooled in the sharia and jihad. Our children are being disarmed and misled about the genocidal ideology behind this war. Sheeps to slaughter.

The below video, called “The Cubs of Dijla” in a reference to the young boys being indoctrinated and groomed to fight, shows children as the clip’s primary speakers. They deliver monologues and recite verses of the Quran, marking the first time the Islamic State has depicted boys—one as young as three—speaking at length directly into the camera.

gulf drug cartel child killerMia De Graff writing for the Daily Mail reports:

These are the baby-faced members of Mexico’s menacing Gulf Cartel [right].

In an unprecedented series of photos, scores of hitmen have unmasked themselves to apparently prove: ‘We aren’t afraid to show our faces, we want you to see nothing but the Gulf Cartel.’

Shockingly, some look as young as 12.

The Gulf Cartel is one of Mexico’s oldest, dating back to the Prohibition era.

With roots in the United States, Europe, West Africa, Asia, Central America, and South America, the organization wields significant power over the drug-trafficking trade – despite losing ground to rivals in recent years.

Read more.

Here is a video about Mexican drug cartels:

The use of children as killers is as bad as using children as sex slaves. Evil is evil. Not to call this evil is a travesty. Sadly the Gulf Cartel and Islamic State continue to recruit, train and use children to kill — these are the baby-faced hit men of the 21st Century.

Children at Increasing Risk of Islamist Radicalization in UK

Children are increasingly at risk of radicalization in the UK, according to an investigation by The Telegraph.

The Channel Project, which acts to prevent vulnerable people being radicalized, had some 758 under 16s reported last year for worrying behavior. Of those, 113 were under 12.

Those reported included a three-year old, whose entire family was reported for worrying behavior.

The Channel Project does not arrest those reported to it, but implements its de-radicalization strategies.

Deputy Chief Constable Craig Denholm, one of the police officers in charge of the Channel Project., told The Telegraph:

Channel supports people who are vulnerable to being radicalised and drawn into terrorism. It works in a similar way to other safeguarding, partnership activity where agencies come together to support vulnerable individuals; for example work to address drugs, guns and gangs issues through early intervention.

“Types of support can include life-skills, mentoring, and access to education, careers advice, and consideration of housing need amongst others. It has increasingly become recognised by partner agencies as having an important role to play in safeguarding communities from harm. Both vulnerable adults and young people are safeguarded through Channel.

“In exceptional circumstances some younger children are provided support as part of a wider, whole family approach.

“This does not mean that a young child is expressing radical views. However, this enables a family to benefit from the expertise and wrap around support that Channel provides.

There remain doubts about the efficacy of the counter-extremism program, particularly since it was revealed that one of the boys placed on the program when a 13-year old later went on at 15 to attempt to mastermind an Islamic State bomb plot in Australia to attack the ANZAC Day commemoration ceremony.

The number of teenagers and children referred to the Channel Project will double in the next two years, if current trends continue, due to the rise of the Islamic State.

David Cameron launched his new approach to tackling Islamist extremism this month, with the government’s new strategy on countering violent extremism to be rolled out in September.

His new strategy may prove a turning point in the struggle against Islamism in the UK.

RELATED ARTICLES

How to Scam ISIS

Three ISIS Terror Trials This Week in America

ISIS: The Next Generation

Islamic State Receives $6.9 Billion in Money Transfers

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of an Islamist protest in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

What Is “Libertarian Parenting”? Laissez-Faire Is Wrong for Families by Steven Horwitz

One of the dangers of modern libertarianism is that some people want to apply the ethical rules and insights that make complete sense in the market to micro-orders such as the family and the firm. Because our day-to-day life is made up of these micro-orders, it would seem to many libertarians that any consistent philosophy should go all the way down.

But as Hayek argued in The Fatal Conceit, the macro order and its rules — which he called the “extended order” — are distinct from the norms and rules that make up these more localized levels of description. When we fail to make this distinction, we wrongly apply the ethics of the extended order to the intimate orders of families and firms, which risks crushing those micro-orders.

This problematic tendency is most pronounced in the ways some libertarians discuss parenting.

They often begin by asking what “libertarian parenting” would look like. Naturally, they then imagine parents being analogous to government and children being analogous to citizens. Unsurprisingly, they conclude that, on libertarian grounds, parents should interfere as little as possible in the lives of their children. Some even propose organizing the household on market principles.

For example, advocates of libertarian parenting might argue that children should always get paid for chores and that parents should never say, “Because I said so!” to their kids. With the best of intentions, they believe that what we might call “laissez-faire” parenting will create children who will be more likely to support a laissez-faire society.

I think they are deeply mistaken for several reasons.

First, there is the empirical evidence from psychology. Psychologists distinguish among a number of parenting styles, but the major ones fall on a spectrum from most involved to least:

  • authoritarian
  • authoritative
  • permissive
  • neglectful

The advocates of libertarian parenting clearly reject the “authoritarian” style and presumably would reject “neglectful.” What they seem to want is perhaps something like permissive parenting:

Permissive parents … allow children to make their own decisions, giving them advice as a friend would. This type of parenting is very lax, with few punishments or rules. Permissive parents also tend to give their children whatever they want and hope that they are appreciated for their accommodating style. Other permissive parents compensate for what they missed as children, and as a result give their children both the freedom and materials that they lacked in their childhood.

As it turns out, permissive parenting doesn’t work very well. The psychological research indicates that children of permissive parents suffer from a variety of problems as they mature.

By contrast, authoritative parenting provides the best results:

Authoritative parents encourage children to be independent but still place limits on their actions. Extensive verbal give-and-take is not refused, and parents try to be warm and nurturing toward the child. Authoritative parents are not usually as controlling as authoritarian parents, allowing the child to explore more freely, thus having them make their own decisions based upon their own reasoning. Often, authoritative parents produce children who are more independent and self-reliant. An authoritative parenting style mainly results when there is high parental responsiveness and high parental demands. Authoritative parents will set clear standards for their children, monitor the limits that they set, and also allow children to develop autonomy.

In other words, it’s perfectly appropriate to place limits on your children’s actions and to insist on only such freedom as is age appropriate. Authoritative parents have high expectations and are not hesitant to say no to their kids. The evidence is clear that this style produces the best psychological outcomes for children.

This style of parenting is not just the best for individual outcomes, but also for promoting a liberal social order.

Many things that might seem to be “anti-liberty” that happen within healthy families are, in fact, preparing children for life in a free society. What children need to become responsible adults is not freedom but structure. For example, they need to learn the importance of following rules, as a free society is a rule-governed society. Political and economic freedom are enhanced by rule-following, and parenting can model that.

It’s perfectly fine as a libertarian parent occasionally to say, “Because I said so.” Obedience to legitimate authority, which includes following rules, is not anti-libertarian. It’s a necessary skill in a world where some people and institutions actually do have authority. And small children in particular do not need everything explained to them. That’s how you end up putting them in the center of your familial universe, which is the mistake that permissive parents make. Parents should be leaders, and they should lead by example.

Encouraging and even forcing your kids to share their possessions is not socialism and it’s not bad parenting. It is not a bad thing to demonstrate to kids that sharing with other individuals they know, even when they might not wish to share, is often an effective way to prevent conflict and establish trust. You can also help them to understand the difference between the expectation to share with known others versus anonymous others. Sharing is what families do, after all. Would children rather their parents didn’t share the income they earn and the food they prepare?

And requiring chores without compensation is an excellent idea and it’s not anti-liberty. The institutions of civil society, such as families and religious organizations, are not bound together by the cash nexus. (There’s a reason that cash gifts among close friends are often considered tacky.) The world does not divide into either state or market. Outside state and market, we often do things out of obligation to others, whether it’s some form of expected sharing or providing help without monetary compensation. Learning that this is often the appropriate way to behave helps to ensure that the institutions of civil society survive and thrive. They are just as important to liberty as are the institutions of the market.

One area where the “libertarian parenting” advocates are correct is in the importance of allowing children to play on their own, without constant parental supervision. The psychological literature is clear about the benefits of unsupervised play for helping children develop the capacity to create, follow, and enforce rules; think about issues of fairness; and learn empathy. Most important, from a libertarian perspective, such play requires the continuing consent of the players. Behaving in ways that upset other children will bring play to an end. Unsupervised play teaches children how to negotiate and compromise to ensure that playing relationships are consensual. Consent is at the core of both markets and civil society, and parents who let their children play without parental supervision are helping those children to develop skills and abilities central to a free society.

When libertarians think about parenting, we should not be asking, “What sort of parenting appears to be implied by our ethical and political views?” Instead, we should be studying what psychologists know about child development and seeing how that aligns with the aptitudes and attitudes we know are necessary for a free society. We shouldn’t want parenting to be libertarian; we should want to parent in ways that produce children who have the skills they need to value and sustain liberty.

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

What if there were “Straight Guys Pride Parades and Festivals” nationwide on Fathers Day 2016?

Father’s Day falls on Sunday, June 19th, 2016. What would happen if fathers and straight guys across America held “Straight Guys Festivals” or “Straight Pride Parades” in every city, town and community in America?

What if personalities like Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Mark Wahlberg, Robert DeNiro, Tom Selleck and Arnold “the Terminator” Schwarzenegger appeared leading the parades and giving speeches about the importance of being a straight man and father.

What if they called “being straight” a civil right? What if they demanded special treatment under the law for being straight? What if they called those who oppose men being men “straightophobic”? What if they demanded that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman? What if there was a million straight man march on Washington, D.C.

Check out this YouTube video from Broke Straight Boys. This is what is happening across America. Which is better, this behavior (boys selling sex to the same sex for money), or being straight, married and with a traditional family? You decided after watching this revealing video of the Denver Gay Pride Parade (WARNING: This video contains graphic material and language and is not suitable for children):

Why those who are not straight would come out fighting mad as they did in Columbus, Ohio.

straight white guy poster

For a larger view click on the poster.

According to Sean Brown from Mad World News:

” It’s often said that the same people who promote ‘gay pride’ parades and other such events that promote a certain race or lifestyle would get upset should heterosexual or white people hold similar gatherings, even though they claim to be for equality. A series of joke flyers that were placed around an Ohio town has proven what many of us have known to be true. A spoof flyer was posted around the Columbus area advertising the Straight White Guy Festival to be held at Goodale Park, which is home to the annual Gay Pride Parade. They claim the festival will be held in September, according to [WBNS Channel] 10 TV.”

The flyer reads: “Come help us celebrate our enjoyment of being straight white and male.”

Brown notes, “This was obviously done as a joke to mock the left’s hypocrisy in their promotion of minority groups at the expense of others. The head of an organization that pushes same-sex marriage saw the flyers and expressed his discontent in the creator’s humor, even though the fake flyer said ‘everyone welcome.'” 

“This kind of thing implies there’s some kind of struggle going on for being a straight white person in Ohio. Straight white people are doing just fine,” said Michael Premo.

But are straight white guys “doing just fine”? Isn’t there a struggle going on in the U.S. to denigrate, if not eliminate, the straight guy?

When President Obama uses an Executive Order giving hiring preferences to homosexuals on federal contracts some might call this “discrimination against straight guys.” Or when Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who offhandedly came up with seventy-one categories for non-straight men and women.

As a straight guy I understand the pressures from the President, his political allies and certain media outlets to get in touch with my “feminine side.” LOL!

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘True Blood’ actor Nelsan Ellis: Former star quit because he did not want to portray a gay vampire – DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Major corporations funding ‘gay’ attacks on children, families & society – Fight back!

Huge fundraising banquet for homosexual agenda in Boston THIS WEEK! You can take action now.

Most people don’t know that major corporations in America are funding the massive push to introduce homosexuality and transgenderism into the elementary school grades, pass laws across the country to criminalize Christian belief in the workplace, force “gay marriage” through the federal courts, viciously harass pro-family groups, and much more. They’re companies you likely buy from.

This is what the average parent and citizen is up against. It’s time to say: We’re not taking it any longer.

At the center of this effort is the world’s largest and wealthiest LGBT advocacy group, the (Orwellian-named) Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Based in Washington, DC, it has a multi-million dollar annual budget to force its agenda on society.

This Saturday evening, Nov. 22, 2014 HRC is holding a lavish fundraising banquet in downtown Boston. Major companies are sending high-level representatives, donating thousands of dollars, and playing a big role in the event. This is one of the largest of the many events HRC is holding across the country. HRC calls this “one of the largest fundraisers in the country.”


This is the banquet’s advertising logo.

Boston area corporations that are sponsoring this include Staples, CVS, Citizens Bank, and Liberty Mutual Insurance, and dozens more. (See below.)

What these corporations are paying for

Make no mistake: HRC is very serious about changing your family and all of America. But they couldn’t do it without funding from corporate America. Here’s just part of what that money pays for:

1. Fascist-like campaigns to harass and threaten individual pro-family leaders, their families, and their organizations

  • A disgusting campaign of hate targeting the individual leaders of pro-family groups that includes crudely drawn “wanted posters,” and absurd lies about them. (See our report.) They also post information encouraging homosexual activists around the country to contact and harass them and their families, and if possible get them fired from their jobs.
    HRC’s crudely drawn “wanted posters” are used to demonize individual pro-family leaders.
  • This campaign has incited death threats using language that is so vile – including mentions of rape, excrement, and mutilating body organs  – that they can’t be quoted here. One pro-family activist targeted says he’s afraid to leave his wife and young child alone in his house.

2. Funding to homosexualize children in the nation’s public schools

  • A sophisticated program targeting elementary schools across the country — to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism in the minds of children. This includes a reading list of “gay family” books for young children.
    This is from HRC’s website — and example of what they are doing in
    elementary schools across the country. 
  • Organizing events in high schools across the country such as national “Coming Out Day” to persuade students to identify as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.
  • “Training” sessions for teachers across the country to give them techniques to push homosexual and transgender issues in their K-12 classrooms.

3. Funding and grassroots roots lobbying for laws across the country to criminalize Christian belief and morality and push transgenderism into public places:

  • Lobbying efforts in cities like Houston, TX to pass transgender “bathroom bills” allow men to go into women’s’ restrooms and locker rooms.
    HRC’s blog keeps their members up to date on their well-funded lobbying efforts across the country.
  • Funding for lobbying efforts in states and towns across America like Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, (recently in the national news) for laws that force Christian ministers to “marry” same-sex couples or face fines and jail terms.
  • Funding of massive lobbying effort in Congress for national legislation that would criminalize businesses that have pro-family values regarding homosexuality and transgenderism.
  • Funding for “enforcement” of oppressive laws against Christian businesses by instigating expensive lawsuits against them if they don’t comply.
  • Funding to overwhelm local citizens attempting to repeal oppressive laws that were pushed through in their towns.

4. Support for federal court cases around the country to overturn the popular votes of citizens on“gay marriage”

  • Conducting expensive public propaganda campaigns in the media leading up to the court hearings to sway the judges.
    The HRC website documents their “successes” helping federal courts strike down constitutional amendments voted on by the people.
  • Helping the Obama administration select “gay-friendly” federal judges during the appointment process.

What are you going to do when your child comes home from school reading homosexual books? Are you going to be the next one who is sued — for a huge amount — for standing up for your beliefs at your own business? How do you feel watching federal judges force “gay marriage” in state after state as the voters watch helplessly?  Well, you can do something.

What you can do NOW

There are 22 corportions sponsoring the HRC fundraising dinner in Boston.

Four companies are major sponsors or “hosts”. For now, we’re focusing on those.They need to hear your outrage and reconsider that decision. Are you going to make your voice heard?

1. Sign our PETITION

2. Call and/or email these four companies:

(See calling/emailing instructions below)


Citizens Bank – donating $25,000

Chairman and CEO- Bruce Van Saun

Phone: 401-456-7000
(Dial 0; when operator answers ask for Chairman’s office.)

Email:  bruce.vansaun@rbs.com

Write to CEO at:
Citizens Financial Group
1 Citizen’s Plaza
Providence RI 02093
Website   FaceBook


Liberty Mutual Insurance – donating: $25,000

Phone (complaints): 800-344-0197

Email: PresidentialSVCTeam@libertymutual.com

Chairman & CEO: Charles Clough, Jr.Write to CEO at:
Liberty Mutual Insurance
175 Berkeley Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Website  FaceBook


Staples – donating $18,000

Phone: 508-253-5000
(Dial 0; then dial 4 for “customer relations specialist”)

Chairman and CEO- Ron Sargent

Email: ron.sargent@staples.com

Write to Chairman at:
Staples Corporate Headquarters
500 Staples Drive
Framingham, MA 01702
Website  FaceBook

CVS Health – donating $10,000

(A division of CVS pharmacy)CEO- Larry MerloPhone: 401-765-1500
(Dial #; then dial 9; then dial 0; when operator answers ask for “the executive secretary”)

Email: larry.merlo@cvscaremark.com

Write to CEO at:
CVS Health
One CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895
Website  FaceBook

Here’s what to say – via phone and email:

Sample: Email Subject: 
Your company is funding attacks on families

Sample: What to say / body of email:
Paste into body of email the text below and edit if you wish. You can also say this when calling.

(If you are a customer, by all means mention that.)

I am outraged that your company is taking part in the Human Rights Campaign fundraiser in Boston on Nov. 22. By doing this, you are helping fund vicious personal attacks on pro-family leaders which have led to death threats. You are funding homosexual programs and books for vulnerable elementary school children, and the destructive transgender push in America’s schools. You’re paying to pass laws that force Christian business owners to face fines and jail terms for professing their belief. And you are sending a message to parents and citizens across the country that you don’t want their business.

(Your name, city, state)

(Note when calling: Some of these companies record incoming calls. Some may ask you for your telephone number. We hope that won’t stop you!)


Other companies sponsoring the banquet (most have headquarters in New England):

EMC Corporation  Website  FaceBook

Biogen Idec  Website  FaceBook

Accenture  Website  FaceBook

BNY Mellon  Website  FaceBook

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care  Website  FaceBook

Sun Life Financial  Website  FaceBook

5 Star Travel Services  Website  FaceBook

Amgen Medicines  Website  FaceBook

Morgan Stanley  Website  FaceBook

Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts  Website  FaceBook

Delta Dental of Massachusetts  Website  FaceBook

eLearning Innovation  Website  FaceBook

Common Core Rapidly Losing Support

As their children either start or return to school, parents are naturally concerned about the quality of education they receive from kindergarten through twelfth grade. In the past, before the teachers unions gained virtual control of the schools and before the federal government decided it had to impose “national standards”, it was the job of local boards of education to ensure students learned the basics—the three R’s—and, if history is any indicator, they did.

There should be no federal intervention in our school systems, but programs such as 2001’s “No Child Left Behind” and Obama’s “Race to the Top” have conditioned people to accept its role. The most recent example is Common Core, but it is the creation of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The support it has received from the White House, the Department of Education, and voices on Capitol Hill has left many with the impression it is a federal program. That doesn’t make it any less awful.

If you want to learn the facts about it, read a brief analysis by Joy Pullman, “Common Core: A Bad Choice for America”, which you can download for free from The Heartland Institute’s website or purchase copies in quantity. Pullman, a research fellow, is the managing editor of Heartland’s “School Reform News”, published ten times per year. For the record, I am a Heartland advisor.

As Pullman notes in her analysis, “In 2010, every state but Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia adopted Common Core education standards, a set of requirements in each grade in math and English language arts.” As school begins this year, four states, Indiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Carolina have already dropped the program. Watch other states such as Louisiana and Wisconsin do the same.

Common Core

Click on the image for a larger view. Poster courtesy of ThePeoplesCube.com.

Here’s why. As Pullman notes in a recent article, for the first time the annual Pi Kappa Delta/Gallup poll revealed that “a majority of Americans—81%–has heard of Common Core. And 60% oppose it.” As more Americans learn more about Common Core, they too will oppose it, but the most intriguing finding of the poll was that, among teachers, there was a drop of support from 76% last year to 46% this year! The poll demonstrated that “Majorities wanted local school boards to have far more control over what schools teach than state or federal governments.”

Pullman said, “Everyone is for ‘standards’ in the abstract. Everyone is not for ‘standards’ that, like Common Core, coerce teachers and schools, and impose bad education theories on the countries.”

“Nationalizing education, like nationalizing anything,” says Pullman “requires compromise to get enacted. And compromise inevitably sacrifices quality. Quality has to grow from the ground up, through cooperation and competition, or it will never exist.”

What teachers and parents subject to Common Core requirements have learned rather quickly is that the program has a number of serious flaws. It not only slows the process of learning multiplication, it dampens the development of the creative thinking process, and offers a skewed, leftist selection of reading materials about U.S. history.

Pullman says, “The most important thing to understand about education standards is that research has demonstrated they have no effect on student achievement. That’s right: no effect at all. A series of data analyses from the Brookings Institution found no link between high state standards and high student achievement.”

Any parent and any teacher will confirm that different students learn at different rates and some encounter problems in certain areas. Some are better at mathematics. Others are better readers and writers. Still others find science or the arts of greatest interest. People are different. It is foolish to think that children aren’t.

This is not to say that the states don’t have education standards. They do and local boards ensure that their curriculums meet them.

At the national level, Pullman points out that “the country already has a national testing program that sets cut scores: the National Assessment of Educational Progress” that is “a valid, well-respected measuring stick that already offers states and citizens the ability to compare schools’ progress across state lines without the intrusions and muddle curriculum Common Core introduces.”

I recommend you download Pullman’s analysis, but in the meantime let me offer a good way to understand Common Core. It is the Obamacare of education.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by RealClearEducation.com.

Introducing kids to adult/youth “gay clubs” in communities, outside of schools. A dangerous intro to “gay sex.”

Probably the fastest and most dangerous way that schoolchildren are introduced to homosexual behavior is through adult-youth “community” gay clubs, which are run by homosexual (and transgender) activist adults and seek to attract local high school and middle school children.

Contingent of men and children from Boston LGBT club BAGLY marching in Youth Pride Parade. They were shouting “Trans Rights Now!”[All photos by MassResistance]

This is the fifth part in our series on this year’s annual GLSEN Conference held in Boston in April 2014 which brought together LGBT teachers, school officials, and education activists (and their “allies”) — along with children as young as fifth grade
— where they outlined their latest tactics for the schools.

Community “LGBT youth” clubs: Mixing vulnerable kids with adult “gay” activists

Unlike the “gay straight alliance” clubs inside the schools – which are themselves outrageous — these meet at various places in the community and are completely unsupervised by any outside entity. However, schools know this and are still cooperative in steering vulnerable kids to these clubs, where the kids develop relationships with the adult activists. In our experience, the school authorities do not notify parents when they introduce their child to these groups.

“Business card” given out to kids at the conference.

How dangerous can these clubs get?  Most parents and public officials don’t have a clue.  Back in 2007 MassResistance posted a shocking public letter written by a 20-year-old homosexual activist in Maine describing the abuses going on by adults to kids in the local “gay youth” club. It included his own admission of sexual relations with two younger boys.

Last year a Massachusetts mother introduced legislation to stop the public schools from steering students to outside “gay clubs” after a counselor at her 16-year-old son’s high school referred the boy to a local club without the parents’ knowledge or consent.

Here’s from the mother’s testimony before the Massachusetts Legislature:

Our son was seeing a [therapist] for childhood traumas that are known to cause sexual identity issues in adolescence.

At [the gay club] our son was told that he was born gay, could never change, and that anyone who didn’t embrace his sexual identity was a hater and a homophobe, including his family. . . He was provided with sexually provocative and anti-Christian literature .  . .

The school administrators defended [the school counselor’s] actions [in referring him to them].

In recent years, these outside “gay youth clubs” have also emphasized cross-dressing, transgenderism, and even sex-change medical procedures for kids. MassResistance recently documented how these clubs partner with even more extreme groups and radical government-funded transgender programs.

Conference workshop

At the GLSEN LGBT Teachers Conference it was clear that steering kids to these outside “gay youth clubs” and getting them involved with adult homosexual activists is no accident, but a part of their agenda. To start with, they had a workshop devoted to it:


“Youth / adult collaboration” involving homosexual activists is every parent’s nightmare. But the homosexual movement sees this as an important “positive” way for youth to be helped to free themselves from the influence of “homophobic” parents, and particularly their religious beliefs. In their eyes, this is good for kids’ emotional and psychological well-being.

There are various strategies for using schools to get kids involved with these groups. As mentioned above, one is to have a trusted counselor or advisor to suggest it as a “support group.”

In contrast the image they carefully craft for public officials, concerned citizens, and the media, is a well-honed script describing education programs, emotional and psychological support, and claims that reinforcing homosexual behavior prevents suicides.  The latter claim often references the unscientific and discredited Mass. Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

This article from the local Wellesley MA newspaper is a classic example of how the community “gay youth” clubs carefully craft their image for the public. It was passed out at the conference.

“BAGLY”

Note that the conference workshop presenters are from BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Youth) . BAGLY is the largest, most aggressive (and most well-funded) LGBT “youth club” in Massachusetts.

BAGLY is run by a middle-aged man who dresses as a woman. As an official member of the state-funded Massachusetts Commission on GLBT Youth, BAGLY has an entrée into public schools across the state. It helps organize the annual “Youth Pride” Day and runs the accompanying evening “Youth gay/transgender” prom in Boston City Hall. (We have a full report on this year’s “Youth Pride” event coming up. Here’s our report from Youth Pride Day 2009.)

A group of activists from BAGLY posed for us at the 2014 Youth Pride event earlier this year.

BAGLY does not hide the fact the fact that children and adults freely mix (see top photo). Its website admits that it has no minimum age, and that:

All LGBTQ youth ages 22 and under are welcome to participate in BAGLY’s program activities and events. The average age range of the youth who currently participate in our weekly programming is 14 – 20, while our annual events are usually more inclusive of 21 and 22 year-olds.

BAGLY’s attitude toward sexual activity between participants is also very clear:

[O]ur approach to programming and services is youth-centered, non-judgmental and “sex-positive” (meaning we think consensual sex is natural and healthy).

Despite all of this, the state continues to fund BAGLY’s activities and the schools continue to include it.

“WAGLY”

Literature from WAGLY (West Suburban Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth) was also distributed and promoted to kids at the conference. As BAGLY is mostly centered around the Boston inner-city area, WAGLY is located in the western suburbs.

ABOVE: WAGLY contingent marches in this year’s “Youth Pride Day” parade.LEFT: These are the kinds of people they pair up schoolchildren with: Man marching at left of top photo, wearing WAGLY shirt, is wearing women’s high-heel shoes.

WAGLY uses many of the same strategies to attract schoolchildren as the other “LLGBT youth” community clubs. They seem to focus on offering kids “a welcoming place” for “support,” and the group meets in unsupervised “gay friendly” settings away from the public schools.  Some of WAGLY’s literature, which was passed out at the conference, is shown below.

In 2010, the WAGLY adults and kids marched with a different banner, but the same purpose.

“LGBT Coalition of Western Massachusetts”

The LGBT Coalition of Western Massachusetts is also disturbing because it is much more overtly adult-oriented than the others. But seems to use the same “mentoring” tactics to attract kids and to involve them in ts events and activities. Their literature was also passed out at the conference.

RIGHT: LGBT Coalition booklet passed out at conference.BELOW: Excerpt from the LGBT Coalition booklet describing their youth/adult “mentoring” program.
Postcard passed out as part of the LGBT Coalition package, also pitching their “mentoring” program.
And, of course, a business card.

Other “LGBT youth” community groups

There are several other “LGBT youth” community clubs across the state that are quite active, but weren’t promoted at this conference. However, we’ve observed that those groups use the same tactics and work as closely as they can with local public school administrators and teachers.

It is shocking that most parents, citizens, and even politicians are completely unaware that this is happening to vulnerable kids in their public schools and communities – and that teachers are being instructed in how to promote it to schoolchildren at conferences like this. MassResistance will continue to expose this!

Why is natural marriage good?

Natural is better than unnatural, right? Frank Turek in his op-ed titled “Natural Marriage is Not Bigotry, It’s Biology” writes:

The real reason governments have an interest in promoting natural marriage because only natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Strong marriage laws encourage men and women to procreate and then stay together to mother and father their children. That benefits children and all of society because children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations.

Why is this so? Because men and women are different. Mothering and fathering are different. A mother brings unique benefits to her child that a father cannot provide and vice versa.

Here is my simple and powerful case for marriage the way nature intended.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ZR_Bb8IPZHI[/youtube]

Sarasota School Board member Shirley Brown got a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood: Is she pro-abortion or pro-life?

Shirley Brown WEB

Shirley Brown.

The Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates (FAPPA) in 1998 rated Florida elected officials. The issues each elected official was rated on were abortion and reproduction. On that 1998 list is current School Board member Shirley Brown. At the time of the FAPPA rating Mrs. Brown was a state legislator and only one of eight who received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.

Shirley Brown’s campaign website states she is, “The mother of two children – including one who grew up to be a teacher herself – Shirley also has 3 grandchildren. She attends Church of the Palms with her husband Jack, daughter Angie, and granddaughter.”

Oxymoron is defined as a “figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.” An oxymoron is using  the words Planned Parenthood in conjunction with mother and grandmother. Shirley should be grateful that her mother did not abort her. Shirley’s two children should be grateful that they were not aborted. Shirley’s three grandchildren should also be grateful they were not aborted.

It is ironic that all those who are pro-abortion have already been born.

Aren’t school board members all about protecting the children? Since its establishment, Planned Parenthood has aborted over 55 million children who would have gone to our schools, perhaps onto college, gotten jobs, married, raised their own children and would now be productive citizens in America. All paying taxes to keep our public schools funded.

Perhaps Mrs. Brown should watch this video of supermodel Kathy Ireland explaining why she became pro-life:

Or this video by 22-year old Taylor Hyatt:

The church Mrs. Brown attends has this graphic on its website:

church of palms mission statement

For a larger view click on the image.

Mrs. Brown has been equipped to be a disciple for the service of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Mrs. Brown has aligned herself more with Jesus Christ?

Question: Mrs. Brown are you pro-life now?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Must Watch: Planned Parenthood Caught on Camera Helping Sex Traffickers Get Abortions for Child Sex Slaves

Is Planned Parenthood Abusing Tax Dollars?

“LGBT” Teachers Conference in Boston – Part II: Pushing ‘Gay’ clubs in Middle Schools

The latest push: “Gay” clubs for kids in middle schools. Here’s how they get them in — and what comes with them.

The homosexual-transgender movement is working hard to indoctrinate schoolchildren as young as possible. By far, the most effective way is to get them into school-based “gay” clubs that are run by activist, often radical, adults, but though otherwise unsupervised. They have been working at this for several years (see our 2008 report) but are now ramping up their efforts considerably.

We reported last week, on this year’s annual GLSEN Conference in Boston which brought together LGBT teachers, activists, and supportive administrators to discuss their latest tactics for the schools.

A prominent part covered strategies for setting up “gay-straight alliance” (GSA) clubs in as many middle schools as possible, given that most high schools now have them.

Getting kids to feel involved — especially middle school students — is a major tactic of the LGBT movement. These buttons were given out at the GLSEN Conference in Boston.

At that conference, there were kids as young as 11 and 12, and that younger age group was clearly the focus of much of the conference.

Middle school student gives speech at LGBT conference opening session

Middle school are such an important target that GLSEN recruited an activist “LGBT” middle school student to address the conference’s opening session. She said she’s bisexual (in middle school!) and that her sister is lesbian.

The girl spoke about how she helped organize the “Day of Silence” in her middle school. She said that one teacher was reluctant to put up the posters because of parent conferences that evening, saying that parents might not be comfortable seeing it. The girl labeled the teacher “ignorant” and said the teacher is “no longer working at the school” (which brought a cheer).

She added that “kids are figuring out who they are younger than ever” (i.e., being persuaded to self-identify as L, G, B, or T) and that “we need to create a safe environment for them in the lower grades.” This was a mantra that was repeated again and again in the conference. (“Safe environment” is the Orwellian term for a school that aggressively enforces pro-“LGBT” sexual ideology and suppresses all dissent.)

Given that middle school students would not have these ideas and talking points on their own, this shows how well the adult activists instruct them.

Helping kids be “safe” at school is the Orwellian term for aggressively enforcing pro-“LGBT” sexual ideology — and more importantly, suppressing all dissent. In particular, it’s used very effectively to confront any criticism by adults, including parents.

The workshop: “Starting a Middle School GSA”

The LGBT movement is getting serious about the lower grades. One of the prominent workshops at the GLSEN conference was “Starting a Middle School GSA.”

At first glance, a “gay” club for middle school students would seem beyond something even most liberals would buy into. But that’s simply another challenge for the movement to overcome. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that ANY “gay” club at all, even in high school, was beyond the pale.

Here is how the conference program listed it:

3.1 Starting a Middle School GSA: A Sustainable, Grassroots Approach
Practical advice and encouragement for students, staff, parents and community members who would like to establish a sustainable GSA in their local middle school.

Presenter(s): Anna Watson, Friends of the Ottoson Middle School [Arlington, MA] GSA

This workshop gave step-by-step instructions by a seasoned activist.

The presenter, Anna Watson, started out by saying that she believes that “coming out” is a “life-saving adventure” and that kids are coming out at younger and younger ages. Thus, they need support groups to help them do that.

She told the workshop attendees that she has been an “LGBTQ” activist and organizer for several years. In particular, she is interested in starting GSA-type groups for young people.

“Queering the ‘Burbs Since 1992.”  Anna Watson gave out this card at the workshop. She is no casual activist, obviously.

She said that in city schools there are lots of GSAs, but it’s different in the suburbs. This is likely because the parents are more attentive to what’s happening in the schools. She used the term “suburban gap” and said that just a few people with a lot of energy can make it happen.

The strategy: Build up incrementally then hit with petition!

Her goal at the Ottoson Middle School in Arlington, Mass., was to put in a GSA with “permanent club” status — with a line item in the school budget for financial support.

At first, the principal was resistant, even though Arlington is a very liberal town.

The homosexual movement has found that a very effective approach for overcoming resistant school officials is using a petition as a pressure tactic, along with other maneuvers.

Watson’s tactic was to do incremental, smaller things to set up an informal GSA and have it become active as much as possible in the school. They would get everything else in place so that there would be no procedural or other excuse not to allow it. Then they would go over the head of the principal and blitz the superintendent with a petition — with as large a force as necessary — to push it over the top with a demand it be given permanent “club” status in the school.

The Petition presented to the Superintendent (and Anna Watson’s timeline of events)

That strategy worked perfectly. Here’s the timeline of events that Watson described:

1. Starting in the fall of 2010, Watson began discussing it with the principal. Since the principal had an interest in anti-bullying, Watson positioned it as an anti-bullying group.
2. Spring 2011: Watson established an “informal” GSA group at the school that met every other week. She submitted a grant to the local “Arlington Education Fund” for funding.
3. Fall 2011: The grant was awarded from the local group. The GSA’s outside activities, including a stipend to the adult staff advisor, were now funded and it started meeting every week.
4. Spring 2012: The GSA began giving out “Human Rights” awards to students at the school. They also attended the GLSEN Conference that year, brought in “educational” groups, and established a “peer leader” program in the school.
5. Fall 2012: They persuaded the principal’s discretionary fund, the PTO, and the Parent Advisory Council to give the GSA funding. They also had volunteers raise money in the community.
6. Fall 2013: The petition was put together and formally presented to the Superintendent, accompanied by a lot of pressure.  The superintendent easily capitulated and granted the GSA permanent club status and a budget item in the school budget. They achieved their goals.

The principal and any other staff who might have been resistant were completely steamrolled. It’s a strategy that can be replicated at other schools where there is any significant resistance.

Other comments at the workshop

Many of the other people at the workshop were experienced GSA activists. Some of their remarks and ideas on starting a GSA were interesting:

  • Some schools have made it easier by having a less overt title, such as calling it an “affinity” group rather than a GSA.
  • One person said, “For school clubs, no permission slips are needed. Thus parents do not know. The same is true for GSAs. You don’t have to let your parents know. There is a sort of goodwill around it.”
  • They always say that GSA’s are about “school safety” and suicide prevention. They also remember to make a point to say that GSAs “are not about sex.”
  • One teacher recommended that the GSA follow the GLSEN “Ally week” program. (See more on that below.)

How to get kids to come to their first GSA meeting? Most middle school kids would not normally think of going to a “gay” club. So the LGBT activists use a variety of tricks and misleading tactics. Once the kids are there, it’s easier to persuade or pressure them to keep coming back.

Here are some of the ideas brought up by activists at the workshop:

  • Announcing a “cheese & food” party.
  • Getting the school football coach to come is a great draw for bringing kids to a GSA meeting.
  • One school put up posters with the message: “You don’t have to be gay to be in the GSA.”

For a larger view click on the flyer.

The LGBT movement will use any tactic they can to lure kids into their “gay” clubs for the first time. GLSEN passed out this information at the Conference.

What is Watson’s next project? Apparently, her next goal is to set up AGLY (“Arlington Gay and Lesbian Youth”) which would probably be a youth/adult “gay” club not connected with the school. There are several of those around the state, supported at least in part by taxpayers.

GSAs: A poisonous experience for vulnerable kids

In our experience going back nearly twenty years working with parents and kids, the GSAs in the schools are emotionally poisonous and physically dangerous to vulnerable kids, many of whom have serious psychological issues to deal with. And GSAs are often run by radical “gay” adults who themselves are psychologically dysfunctional.

GSAs persuade students that homosexuality, transgenderism, etc., is perfectly normal to engage in. They take troubled kids and tell them that if they feel “different” or that they “don’t fit in” then they’re probably really “gay” or “transgender.” This causes enormous trauma down the road. We’ve seen that these kinds of “clubs” lead kids into engaging in perverse sexual activities.

Also in GSAs: Indoctrinating kids in radical “queer theory” as “LGBT allies”

But additionally, a purpose of GSAs is to indoctrinate the kids (including those calling themselves “straight”) in the radical ideas of the LGBT movement, which they term “queer theory.” Most people are not aware just how extreme this is. Then the GSA leaders have the kids spread those ideas to the rest of the school through events like the “Day of Silence”“Gay History Month”, and “Transgender Awareness Day.”

When getting this training, the kids are told that this helps them become “allies” of the LGBTs. The concept of being an “ally” pushed very hard throughout the schools. It becomes another identity for the kids in their fight for so-called social justice.

At the GLSEN Conference, this “training” pamphlet, titled “Ally Packet” was given out. It’s a pretty frightening example of what the LGBT movement teaches children, and what parents know almost nothing about.

“Ally Packet” given out at GLSEN Conference

Here are just a few examples and excerpts from the 8-page pamphlet. THIS is what the LGBT movement is teaching schoolchildren:

What is an Ally?
An ally is a member of the dominant social group who takes a stand against social injustice directed at target group(s) – for example .. . heterosexual individuals who speak out against heterosexism and homophobia. An ally works to be an agenda of social change rather than an agenda of oppression.

Characteristics of an ally
Recognizing that unlearning oppressive beliefs is a lifelong process.

Appropriate Group Terminology
Genderqueer: A term used by individuals, especially transgender youth, who identify as neither male nor female, or as both, and who often seek to blur gender lines.

Appropriate Social Justice Terminology
Gender-Normative Privilege: The benefits and advantages that gender-normative people receive in genderist culture.

Inappropriate Terminology
Homosexual: A clinical term for gay men and sometimes lesbians.
Transvestite: An outdated clinical term for crossdressers.

What are Biphobia, Homophobia, and Transphobia?
Example of Biphobia: Believing that bisexuals are confused or indecisive about their sexuality. Example of Transphobia: Believing that cross-dressing is a sexual perversion or that people who cross-dress do so for sexual gratification.

How to Be an Ally to LGBT People
Validate people’s gender expression. For example, if a person assigned male at birth identifies as female, refer to that person as “she” and use her chosen name.
Educate yourself about LGBT histories, cultures, and concerns.
Support and involve yourself in LGBT organizations and causes.

What is Heterosexual Privilege?
You can belong to the religious denomination of your choice and know that your sexuality will not be denounced by its religious leaders.
You can expect to see people of your sexuality positively presented on nearly every television show and in nearly every movie.

Myths and Realities of LGBT Life
Myth: The majority of child molesters are gay men. Reality: Very few gay men molest children. Myth: Bisexual men are largely responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS to heterosexual women. Reality: This stereotyping of bisexual men ignores the realities of AIDS. It is unsafe sexual practices and needle-sharing behavior, not membership in a particular group, that spreads HIV.

Lots of help from your tax dollars

In Massachusetts, once these “clubs” are set up, they get substantial organizational and financial help from the state. This will likely become more prevalent in other states.

Among other things, the Mass. State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education maintains a staff to make sure that the GSA clubs across the state are properly organized and that the school is cooperating with them. The Department also provides training for GSA adult leaders.

In addition, the state-funded Mass LGBTQ Youth Commission goes into the schools and works directly with students and pushes LGBT programs statewide.

Just the beginning

The GSAs and the “training” are, unfortunately, just the foundation of what the LGBT movement is doing in the nation’s high schools and now, the middle schools.

In upcoming posts we will reveal more from the 2014 GLSEN Conference. As we’ve said, most people are completely uninformed of what the LGBT movement does with schoolchildren . . . and where this leads beyond the school doors.

How teachers’ “attitude restructuring” is hypersexualizing your kids

Note: Thomas R. Hampson, chief investigator, Liberty Center for Child Protection, contributed to this column.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.” – Matthew 10:16

Ira photo1

Ira L. Reiss. Photo courtesy of the Kinsey Institute.

Ira L. Reiss, a sociologist and professor emeritus at Minnesota University, was a charter member of Alfred Kinsey’s Sex Cult. His papers, articles, and audio and video recordings already are housed at the Kinsey Institute, 57 years of his work so far. Reiss, like other Kinsey disciples, advocated the production of pornography and its display for “training” purposes to prepare students entering the new sexuality fields spawned by Kinsey’s supposed revelations on sex. Kinsey gleefully promoted this type of material, which during the late ’60s started to be called Sexuality Attitude Restructuring (later renamed Reassessment), or SAR, sessions.

These training sessions are promoted as sexual desensitization seminars, pornographic extravaganzas of all manner of enthusiastic sexual activities presented to groups of men and women as training to become certified therapists, counselors, educators or researchers. In addition to desensitizing sexologists to the images of heterosexual activities, sado-masochism, group sex, sodomy, the use of sex “toys” and homosexual behavior, the sex leaders also hold small group discussions to explore the participants’ attitudes and biases in order to neutralize any “negative” views.

But the stated purpose of these sessions is not the whole story, or even the real story.

Early on, these sessions were not used to merely desensitize and encourage acceptance of all sex acts but as indoctrination into a “sex positive” mindset. (Such training has been a requirement for certification by the American Association of Sex Educators Counselors and Therapists, or AASECT, from the beginning.) SAR leaders also often pressured participants into sexual experimentation with each other.

Insiders view of sexual science book coverReiss revealed this in his book, “An Insider’s View of Sexual Science since Kinsey,” recounting his experience at an eight-day SAR session in San Francisco in 1972. At the time, Reiss already was a professor at the University of Minnesota where its medical school was one the first in the country to offer SAR training to medical students. But it was a new, untested program.

The director of U of M’s SAR program had secured a grant from the Playboy Foundation to send 25 couples from the University, all expenses paid, to San Francisco to receive training from the group that had followed on Kinsey’s practices, the National Sex Forum (aka the National Sex and Drug Forum). The purpose was to improve the programming at Minnesota. Reiss and wife were among the volunteers for the Playboy-sponsored training of future national sex educators. Reiss reports:

“The view presented by many of the staff was supportive of people trying out the full variety of sexual acts that exist (S and M, gay, extramarital, group sex, etc.). The supposed purpose was to allow people to break through their old restrictive sexual attitudes. I had no objection to offering such options. However, as they elaborated, it became clear that this support of broad experimentation was more than just permission giving – it was presented as a demand to experiment.”

When Reiss resisted, the SAR leaders ridiculed him, one of them saying, “Are you hostile to group sex or gay sex, and is that why [you are] so cautious about trying something new? Are you biased?”

Reiss did not object to the activity. Rather, he objected to demanding it. It should be promoted, not required, according to Reiss. Such promoting, demanding and encouraging of freewheeling sexual libertinism SAR trainers have been doing for over 40 years now.

While AASECT requires SAR training as an element in their certification standards, the Kinsey Institute is still involved, and Planned Parenthood has joined in. SAR trainings are regularly available now.

Mentally and emotionally corrupted graduates of the SAR training become the “experts” who design sex-ed courses and teach our children. Thus, they have “determined” that the anus is a “genital” as it is described in the currently used sex education program in Hawaii, that orgies are natural entertainment, that sex addiction is a myth, that addiction to pornography is not possible, that it’s normal for children of any age to have sex and that they have the right to choose whatever sexual activity they may think to try with whomever they want, and that sodomy (legalized by the Supreme Court in 2003) is a healthy sexual practice for all sexual orientations.

The whole purpose of these “sex positive” programs is not to liberate adults from their Victorian moral prisons but to indoctrinate children into an unrestrained, sexually available lifestyle. Even if such “programs” are not being taught in all schools yet, this material has been made available on multiple websites and are widely promoted to all, regardless of age. The Kinsey Institute, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, AASECT and others all provide, or recommend, sites that extoll the virtues of unrestrained sexual experimentation.

Is it any wonder that youthful STDs, pregnancies, abortions and abuse are pandemic?

Which brings us to one of the big lies spread by these organizations: safe/safer sex.

Typical of schools throughout the country, the Minnesota AIDS Project experts (SAR graduates) tell youngsters they can cut and use plastic wrap as a “barrier” when a child has oral/anal contact.

What?

To make matters worse, many of these groups have for years been spreading the false advertising that condoms and dental dams are FDA approved for such bizarre and damaging use. They are not. (See my recent column, “Condoms never FDA-approved for sodomy.”)

Do “condoms” and homemade barriers give the protection Planned Parenthood and other groups claim? Or do these groups promote their use merely as cover for the real purpose – to hypersexualize younger and younger children, groom them and leave them increasingly vulnerable to disease, death and sexual abuse by peers and adults?

Isn’t it time we start holding these groups legally accountable for knowingly spreading their junk science? Let us hear from you if you are among the millions who have been harmed by their “grooming” lies.