Gay leftist brainwashing children

Some creep named Eric Ross is pushing his gay marriage agenda on little *first grade* schoolchildren.

This is in tandem with a move by Mark Leno and his fellow Commiecrats in the California State Senate, who have just passed a bill mandating the teaching of homosexual, lesbian, bi-, and transgendered history. This at a time when our public schools rate below the historically lowest scoring State Of Mississippi in measured achievements. Gay studies--just the sort of strategy to raise those English composition and vocabulary scores among the linguistic and arithmetic illiterate, right?

Of course, the Big Lie propaganda is that anyone who doesn't think that such a relationship merits the *exact* same legal status as a marriage (whatever status it may merit, and I grant it could merit a domestic partnership status for legal purposes) is an evil bigoted hater who wants to put gays up against a wall and shoot them. Worse than that, Mr. Ross goes on to say that somehow it is all Ronald Reagan's fault:

I can’t wait for the day when our children get a complete picture of history instead of one-sided, fractioned pieces of information," said Ross. "Knowledge is power and hiding information from people only hurts us. Maybe HIV and AIDS wouldn’t be as devastating now if Reagan didn’t hide from the fact that it existed for so long. And if you didn’t know that the President failed to acknowledge the existence of the epidemic until over 20,000 Americans died, you would benefit from the passing of the FAIR Education Act.

Gee, I didn’t know Ronald Reagan went from bathhouse to bathhouse spreading AIDS, did you?

Who but an insane radical like Eric Ross would fail to admit that promiscuous anal sex, more often than not conducted with strangers, was and is inherently dangerous and a threat to public health?

To quote no less a lesbian luminary than Camille Paglia:

The fact is that everyone who preached "free love" in the 1960’s and 1970’s is responsible for AIDS...This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven--absurd. We must face what we did.

Eric Ross apparently still can’t face it. But this is the liberal Demunist Commiecrat mentality in a nutshell: that Eric Ross has the right to put anything in his mouth or up his anus without consequence, and then has the right to socialized medicine and to blame Ronald Reagan and the Republicans when the inevitable consequences occur.

And how exactly did Ronald Reagan "hide" from AIDS? Might he have had bigger problems to face, like a stagflation economy at home, and the Soviet nuclear blackmail and Communist subversion in Latin America and elsewhere abroad?

Eric Ross "hopes that having an LGBT inclusive curriculum will also help children see the important contributions from the LGBT community." But the only contributions I see from the likes of Eric Ross are dishonesty and an appalling lack of personal responsibility.

For the record, I have blogged on this before back in the Proposition 8 brouhaha in November 2008. And I will state it again: no, sorry, such a relationship, however wonderful and loving and committed it may be, is not the same as a marriage. That's the way it has been all the way back even to Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was common. Keep a permanent homo-sexual partner? Sure! And may they be happy. But "marry" them? Why? Marriage exists as a state of social obligation of procreating couples. It exists for no other reason. There are all sorts of different wonderful human relationships that are not covered by marriage. Nor should they be. They carry no social obligation, nor moral imperative; and should fall outside of government meddling and incentives.

Nor is this only a Judeo-Christian objection. Marriage is everywhere in every culture. It's a natural consequence of the human condition, namely mortality and procreation. And that remains true even when married couples are barren and childless. It's binary because of the binary sexes. It's necessary because of the way the next generation comes about. And it tends to be monogamous because having rootless single men, as is common in polygamous societies, causes instability and chaos. We don't have marriage just so that women or men can wear a dress or tuxedo one day in their life so that they can feel pretty.

Of course, the Commiecrat radicals will falsely claim that this is "bigotry". Anyone who believes marriage should be a special institution for promoting stronger families in procreating couples is a bigot by definition according to the leftists, because that marriage does not include relationship type monogamous homosexual.

And I say, well, if that one, then why not relationship type polygamous, with all the problems that leads to? (See "The Suicide Bachelors Of Polygamous Islam"). Or relationship type platonic friendship? Or relationship type swinger? Or consensual incest between a consenting adult brother and a sister? Or just two straight dudes or chicks who want to band together for business reasons and nothing else?

And they call me crazy and a bigot, because that is all the leftist dupes know about "reasoning".

But by their own leftist non-standard they themselves are bigoted against other relationships *they* don't think are marriage. And there are so many wonderful (and not so wonderful, come to think of it) endearing friendships and partnerships that humans can have. Why not recognize them all--equally? Every last one of them? Because the simple answer is that some relationships ARE more important than others. This is why slogans like "Equality for all" applied to sexual relationships are utterly bogus.

"Green" (sic) Energy: A Warning from the UK

This editorial from the London Spectator describes how British "green" energy policies have backfired and made pollution worse. Take heed, as similar policies are being implemented here in California and the rest of the USA:

A GREEN DARK AGE -- by Matt Ridley

The government’s new emissions target will despoil the countryside, rob the poor – and enrich landowners like me
‘Greener food and greener fuel’ is the promise of Ensus, a firm that opened Europe’s largest (£250 million) bio-ethanol plant at Wilton on Teesside last year, and has now shut it down for lack of profitable customers. This is actually the second shut-down at the plant — which takes subsidies and turns them into motor fuel — the first being a three-week refit to try to stop the stench bothering the neighbours.
Welcome to the neo-medieval world of Britain’s energy policy. It is a world in which Highland glens are buzzing with bulldozers damming streams for miniature hydro plants, in which the Dogger Bank is to be dotted with windmills at Brobdingnagian expense, in which Heathrow is to burn wood trucked in from Surrey, and Yorkshire wheat is being turned into motor fuel. We are going back to using the landscape to generate our energy. Bad news for the landscape.
The industrial revolution, when Britain turned to coal for its energy, not only catapulted us into prosperity (because coal proved cheaper and more reliable than wood, wind, water and horse as a means of turning machines), but saved our landscape too. Forests grew back and rivers returned to their natural beds when their energy was no longer needed. Land that had once grown hay for millions of horses could grow food for human beings instead — or become parks and gardens.
Whether we like it or not, we are now reversing this policy, only with six times the population and a hundred times the energy needs. The government’s craven decision this week to placate the green pressure groups by agreeing a unilateral and tough new carbon rationing target of 50 per cent for 2027 — they wanted to water it down, but were frightened of being taken to judicial review by Greenpeace — condemns Britain to ruining yet more of its landscape. Remember that it takes a wind farm the size of Greater London to generate as much electricity as a single coal-fired power station — on a windy day (on other days we will have to do without). Or the felling of a forest twice the size of Cumbria every year.
Yet this ruthless violation of the landscape is not even the most medieval aspect of the government’s energy policy. Its financing would embarrass even the Sheriff of Nottingham. Every renewable project, from offshore wind farms to rooftop solar panels to bio-ethanol plants, is paid for by a stealth poll tax levied from everybody’s electricity bills called the renewable obligation (RO).
The RO already adds an astonishing £1.1 billion a year to the electricity bills of Britons; by 2020 it could be £8 billion, or 30 per cent extra. Unlike the poll tax, which was merely not progressive, this tax is highly regressive. It robs the poor — including those too poor to pay income tax — and hands much of the money to the landed rich in three different ways: higher wheat and wood prices; rents for wind farms; and the iniquitous ‘feed-in tariff’, by which the person who produces electricity by ‘renewable’ means is paid three times the market rate. As a landowner myself I refuse to join the feeding frenzy of the last two, but I cannot avoid the first.
Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet secretary, put it this way in a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation this week: ‘It is astonishing that the Liberals who attach such importance to fairness turn a blind eye to this transfer from poor to rich, running to billions a year. If you live in a council tower block in Lambeth you don’t have much opportunity to get your nose into this trough.’
Driving up the price of electricity this way destroys jobs. One Spanish study suggests 2.2 jobs lost for each one created by green energy schemes, another Scottish one finds 3.7. If you don’t believe the numbers, ask a local widget-maker if the size of his electricity bill affects his ability to take people on or lay them off.
So let’s recap. The current energy policy is taking your money off you through your utility bills, handing that money to a rich landowner — like me — to buy first-growth claret with, putting up the price of your food and your (chipboard) furniture, threatening your job and spoiling your view.
It had better be worth it. The sole intended benefit you will get from all this pain is lower carbon emissions. Not a guarantee of a cooler climate, because Britain is such a trivial part of the world economy, and carbon dioxide’s effect on climate is one of several factors. But at least it will give William Hague a warm glow of satisfaction in showing the Chinese what he calls ‘the UK’s international moral leadership on the issue’.
But notice I used the word ‘intended’. Does any of this actually lower carbon emissions? With the single exception of hydro, not one of the renewables has managed to save an ounce of carbon. Wind is so unreliable that coal-fired stations have to be kept spinning in the background (powering them up and down wastes even more energy and carbon). Wheat for ethanol is grown using tractors running on almost the same amount of diesel — and is anyway full of carbon itself (infra-red rays do not distinguish between carbon atoms from plants that grew yesterday and from plants that grew 300 million years ago). Solar will always be a statistical asterisk in cloudy Britain.
As for wood, consider the effect of a simple rule passed by the London borough of Merton in 2003 and slavishly emulated by planners all over the country. The Merton rule requires all developers who build a building of more than 1,000 square metres to generate 10 per cent of energy ‘renewably’ on site. The effect has been to make it worth my while to thin my woods in Northumberland for the first time in decades.
How so? Faced with the need to find an energy source sufficiently dense to fit on site, developers have turned en masse to wood (or biomass as they prefer to call it). This has led to convoys of diesel lorries chugging through the streets of London to deliver wood to buildings — how very 13th-century! Delivering, drying and burning this wood produces far more carbon dioxide than delivering gas would.
And lo, by bidding up the price of wood, the effect has been to cause landowners to harvest their timber younger than before, which increases carbon emissions. Thus enriched by having lost less money in managing woods, people like me take a holiday — on a jet. So as policy own goals go, the Merton rule is a quintuple whammy. According to one estimate, Britain is producing about six million extra tons of carbon dioxide each year as a result of redirecting its wood supply from current use by the wood-panel and other related industries into energy supply.
The neo-medieval policy of picking winners — or rather losers — creates a salivating lobby for subsidies (even the RSPB takes money from wind farms to shut it up about their eagle killing). But it is saddling ordinary Britons with uncompetitive energy prices, lost jobs, rising fuel poverty, spoiled landscapes — and higher carbon emissions too. Time for a peasants’ revolt.

What is *really* wrong with "Rapture" kooks

Randy "Macho Man" Savage died for all mankind, so the Rapture was averted.

More seriously, another hyped "Rapture", this time coming from the kooky old coot Harold Camping and his "Family Radio" organization, proves a bust. "But thank you for calling and sharing...."

If Harold Camping stole any money from his contributors, he should be arrested as soon as he returns to his Alameda, California home. But I suspect all the money sincerely went toward broadcasts, websites, podcasts, printed tracts, billboards and newspaper advertisements about the coming End Of The World:

With no sign of Judgment Day arriving as he had forecast, the 89-year-old California evangelical broadcaster and former civil engineer behind the pronouncement seemed to have gone silent on Saturday.

Family Radio, the Christian stations network headed by Harold Camping which had spread his message of an approaching doomsday, was playing recorded church music, devotionals and life advice unrelated to the apocalypse.

Camping previously made a failed prediction Jesus Christ would return to Earth in 1994.
In his latest pronouncement, he had said doomsday would begin in Asia, but with midnight local time come and gone in Tokyo and Beijing and those cities already in the early hours of May 22, there was no indication of an apocalypse.

The Oakland, California, headquarters of the network of 66 U.S. stations was shuttered with a sign in the door that read "This Office is Closed. Sorry we missed you!"

Family Radio officials, with the help of supporters, had posted over 2,000 billboards around the country warning of a May 21 Judgment Day.

The headquarters, which appears to be normally closed on Saturday, was also shuttered on Friday.

Camping, whose deep sonorous voice is frequently heard on his radio network expounding the Bible, could not be reached for comment on Saturday.

The shades were drawn and no one answered the door at his house in Alameda, California.

Sheila Doan, 65, who has lived next door to Camping since 1971, said he is a good neighbor and that she is concerned about Camping and his wife, because of the attention his pronouncement has received.

"I'm concerned for them, that somebody would possibly do something stupid, you just don't know in this world what's going to happen," she said.

What is sad is that other than the demented Harold Camping broadcasts, the other Family Radio broadcasts consist of nothing but old fashioned hymns (boring and atonal to my rock-and-roll ears, but I guess some people must find them comforting), Bible readings that sound mainstream, and advice on how to be a good spouse / parent / friend, etc. Even though all sensible Christians scoffed at Harold Camping's wacky forecast, I fear this otherwise normal aspect of Family Radio will be a tool of the liberal media and cultural elites to further bash decent Christian people. Never mind that 99% plus of all other Christian preachers properly dismissed Harold Camping as a kook.

I will still take a million goofy Harold Camping Christians predicting the end of the world over just one neck-slashing Muslim jihadist terrorist.

But what is sadder still is that all too many people -- and not only Christians -- fall for this nonsense known as "Premillennial Dispensationalism",which first made inroads to America in the 19th century but seems to have taken hold of even more imaginations since the 1960's.

Since then, once or twice each generation (just far enough apart for people to forget the last failed prediction) someone, making up calculations based on their interpretation of sections of the biblical books of Daniel, Matthew and Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible, inevitably predicts that Jesus will absolutely, positively return on a given day.

Why do people fall for this crap?

Personally, I think this fatalistic doctrine is popular because
(1) people love the idea of being "in the know" about what is going to happen...similar to people who visit the "Madam Lauras" of the world to get their fortunes told or wholeheartedly believe their horoscopes.
(2) people love the idea of being in the generation that won't die. Dying sucks and it's comforting to think you'll avoid that part.
(3) it absolves them of needing to do anything about the future. If there is no future, why plan for one, much less join the fight?

I spoke to one young couple twenty years ago who weren't having children because the world would soon end. Another father didn't think his boys needed to study advanced math because they didn't have enough time left on the earth to use it. One preacher told his congregation to run their credit cards to the max and "leave the debt to Satan."

America was built on the Protestant Work Ethic, not Premillennial Dispensationalism.

Unfortunately, far too many conservative Christians have deserted the Protestant Work Ethic.