The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “education”

Unsympathetic Public School Burns Two Girls Alive, Pathetically Hides Behind Liberal-Based Law

There are an infinite number of reasons why, if you have children in public schools, you should immediately remove them from that destructive environment and place them either in a private school setting or home school them.  And even if you don’t have children in public schools, or don’t have children at all – you still need to fight the public school system’s tyrannical, imperial, bureaucratic and liberal hold it has on America’s youth.  Why?

Two young Washington State girls were forced to endure five hours of agonizing hell outside under the sun for their school field day.  The result?  Each came home very badly sunburned because they – by state law – were prohibited from applying sun screen without a doctor’s note giving them permission to do so.  Pure, liberal-based, hyperbolic overreaction which continues to infiltrate the public education system and take control over every single aspect of a child’s life during the hours they are in attendance at any given public school.

When will parents have the courage to stand up and challenge these heartless, thoughtless, unsympathetic thugs and rogues who have long ago usurped power, stolen it away from parents and community, and continue to wield that power to make incredibly devastating, irrational and permanently disfiguring decisions that only benefit them, but do absolutely nothing to educate and to prepare children for their future when they become adults?

More children will continue to suffer needlessly at the hands of public schools so long as they are run by government and not the parents and community at large.  It is entirely inappropriate and un-American for parents not to have more of a direct say, more of a direct control and influence with regards to their own children.  In other words – more government involvement is not the solution to a child’s well-rounded education, more government is the problem to a child’s well-rounded education.

Liberalism is also guilty of crimes against school children.  What conservative, or conservative idealism, provides for such nonsensical, and criminal, rules and stipulations as preventing a child from applying sunscreen to their skin to prevent being burned?  It is liberalism, and liberal ideology, that is the root of this ever-growing, and ever-growing out of control, problem.  Kids can’t play dodge-ball or tag, or anything of a competitive nature in public schools any longer for fear of hurting the feelings of other children who might lose.

Liberalism has outlawed the entire concept of winning altogether over the issue of “hurt feelings”.  And it is liberalism which – although it would seek to allow public schools to take your child to an abortion clinic to have an abortion against your will and without your knowledge; would seek to provide your children with condoms so they might engage is “safe sex” rather than abstain from sex; would teach your children that America  was founded by, and continues to be, a hateful, racist, bigoted, misogynist nation – that same liberalism would prevent your children from taking an aspirin to reduce or end pain; to apply sunscreen protection to their skin to prevent being burnt alive by the intense heat of the sun; or otherwise have a zero tolerance policy towards anything they deem to be a threat to their overall control and manipulation over the students, without exception, regardless of reason or consequence to the students affected.

Don’t misunderstand – public schools are noble and worthy institutions, and they ought to persevere.  However, so long as they are being run, and controlled by, outside influences with ignoble agendas; so long as parents have little or no say, or knowledge about what or how their children are being taught; so long as children are being intentionally inundated with harmful misinformation, that education – that purposeful lack of a quality education – will only prepare them for a life of indentured servitude, enslavement and complete dependence to government and government agencies.

The real reason why sunscreen is needlessly and heedlessly banned from public schools, like so much else, is not to protect your children from harm, but to protect the control public schools want, and need to have, over your children.  The sunscreen ban is a smokescreen.  In other words – public schools need to have complete dominance over your children without you influencing them.  The only way for schools to do that is to enact inane, head-scratching policies like the banning of aspirin and sunscreen, and the banning of tag and competitive sports, and enacting a zero-tolerance policy that makes absolutely no sense – and that also now includes, and extends to, the feeding of your children in public schools, all of which is engineered and designed to take more control over your children away from you and place that responsibility upon the public school system.  Public schools do not want you to have any say in how your children are educated, or what goes in public schools.  In increments, and over decades, the public school system has managed to become your children’s real parents, mostly due to our own apathy.

Until we become less apathetic, and more hostile (in a constructive manner) with regards to how our children are taught and educated in public schools, and what they are taught, more and more children will continue to be burned (pun intended) by those very public schools.  Either take back control of your public schools, or continue to watch the overall decline of your children’s education and, thus, their lives as they move into adulthood.  Which will it be?  And remember – your decision affects not only your children, but America at large, all of us.  Because children really are the future.

What future will America have, what future does America have, if its youth continues to be brainwashed and manipulated by a liberal-based agenda that ever seeks to dummy down their education rather than build them up and strengthen them, their perspectives, and prepare them for adulthood?  How can any child grow up to be independent when all they know is complete dependence and reliance on government to take care of them?

Why The American Left Will Lose Every Battle It Wages Against Conservatives

The American Left is imploding on itself, which is a good thing not merely because this implosion helps conservatism, but because an implosion, as opposed to an explosion, only harms the Left themselves, and has no negative affects on anyone else. We saw the Left begin to implode during its Operation Occupy Wall Street, and all the subsequent “Occupy” protests that followed throughout America.  We saw the Left implode in Seattle, where it resorted to vandalism and property destruction; we saw the Left implode in Chicago during the NATO conference; and now we are seeing the Left implode in Portland, where a group of them, their mouths taped shut, sat in on a speech given by Erik Stakelbeck.  What was their reason for sitting in, and why did they think their strategy of taping their mouths shut would accomplish anything?

When an avowedly Christian, pro-Israeli anti-terrorism expert comes to speak at a university that’s located in Portland, fireworks should be expected. Unfortunately for a group of protesters who decided to stage a walkout against terrorism expert Erick Stakelbeck, those fireworks blew up in their face.”

Watch the video:

Giving someone the “silent treatment”, as a form of protest, is a sheer act of cowardice.  What that does is prove that the Left neither has anything valid to say, nor can it adequately defend its position, which, because they are liberals, is based purely on unstable and irrational emotions rather than build upon a foundation of substantive facts.  The Left would not debate conservatives because they know they cannot, and they know they if they did, they would not be successful.  In other words, how does the taping of mouths help demonstrate the quality of their argument against conservative principles, the proof of their argument against conservative principles, without ever uttering a word against conservative principles?  How does anyone win a debate without ever uttering a single word?

Of course, they fully believe they did win, or at least, drove home their point.  Watch and listen to their discussion:

The sheer lack of anything intelligent, anything provocative, anything other than juvenile (and less than amateur)  in their remarks shows that they could not have held their own in a debate against Stakelbeck or in any debate against any conservative.  This is why and how the Left implodes on itself.  Now – these students obviously did not come to all these conclusions themselves.  They were taught to think this way by other Leftist educators and instructors in the schools and universities they attend.  Portland is, after-all, one of the most Leftist/liberal leaning cities in America.

What is fascinating, from a conservative outlook, is that while it is easy for a Leftist/liberal educator to brainwash a young person’s mind with lies, gross misinformation and nonsense, these same Leftist/liberals educators cannot seem to remove the emotional aspects from their rhetoric and replace that (emotions) with anything of a factual nature.  Why would that be?  And – although we know that, in the short-term, emotion-based propaganda can sway the masses to the Leftist side, how does it help the Leftist cause in the long run not to use facts?

Facts are what trip up Leftists, leave them tongue-tied, and the reason why they cover their mouths with tape instead of debating why think Stakelbeck is, and conservatives in general are, “racist”.  We’ve long known Leftists have infiltrated the American educational system, and have been inculcated within the system for decades.  They are banking on their majority influence in education as the means to further their Leftist agenda.  The problem with this  is – eventually these brainwashed kids leave those institutions and embark out into the real world, where they discover all they have been taught is in direct conflict and opposition to what is actually occurring outside those Leftist walls of higher learning.

While Leftists can “coddle” their young within the safety of the educational system, they cannot protect them after they have left the Leftist nest.  On their own, they easily crumble and fall apart.  And, as evidenced by these two videos, some of them, at least, easily crumble and fall apart even while still remaining within the safety of their Leftist nest.

Where does anyone see conservatives and conservative principles, ideals and values crumbling anywhere?  Where does anyone see conservatives taping their mouths shut, afraid to debate with Leftists?  Where does anyone see conservatives and conservatism imploding anywhere, and to the extent that Leftism and liberalism is in America?

When all a cause has is a mountain of lies to stand on, and atop of, and those lies begin to crumble and break apart, where else can that cause go, and the people who supported that cause but down into that open crater, that deep emptiness, left by those lies?

Need Another Reason To Flip The Finger To Public Education And Home School Your Kids?

Watch this video and then decide on the state of public education and the “value”, the necessity of public schools over private or home schooling.

Not a day goes by, it seems, when some public school somewhere does something so incredibly stupid, and gets away with it.  How many more reasons do we need before we start to demand more accountability for the public schools we pay for?

Getting Paid To Rape Your Children – Liberals Support it; Public Schools Encourage It…

How “safe” are your children, really, once they are under the watchful eye and influence of the public education system?  Are you even aware the public school you send your children to is working behind closed doors, and with extreme, radical left-wing and liberal organizations, to draw up curriculum which encourages your children, and their peers, to engage in sex with one another?

Every public school in America that is teaching children “safe sex” is engaged in a vicious canard with long-lasting repercussions including emotional and psychological damage, the scars of which never heal.  Once you relinquish your virginity, that’s it.  Whatever the reason, public education cannot wait for your children to “do it”.  They are eager and salivating for the opportunity to indoctrinate your children in sexual activity with verbal descriptions and “artistic” imagery and illustrations, provide them with every reason why abstaining is abnormal and unrealistic, and even accommodate them with “protection” such as condoms and birth control.  And they are damned incensed when conservatives attempt to interfere.

So it ought to come as no surprise that the Tennessee Bill 3310, which promotes abstinence only and specifically “warns against gateway sexual activity” is being met with scurrilous derision and venomous outrage by liberals, Planned Parenthood in particular.

Planned Parenthood Director of Education Elokin CaPese told WMC-TV that the bill is broad and unrealistic. Its prohibition of “gateway sexual activity” demonstrations would include health education models, she said.

Such as?

Holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex.  Planned Parenthood said that allowing state government to define local sex education curriculum could backfire.

But somehow allowing Planned Parenthood to “define local sex education curriculum” hits it out of the ballpark?  Somehow kids who engage in sex, however “safe”, are more healthy, are less at risk of becoming pregnant, or getting VD, STD”s or AIDS than kids who abstain from sex?  Planned Parenthood is worried that this bill will “backfire” because it might lead to kids not being able to hold hands in school?

Here is what the bill states:

(1) Exclusively and emphatically promote sexual risk avoidance through abstinence, regardless of a student’s current or prior sexual experience;
(2) Encourage sexual health by helping students understand how sexual activity affects the whole person including the physical, social, emotional, psychological, economic and educational consequences of non-marital sexual activity;
(3) Provide factually and medically-accurate information;
(4) Encourage students to communicate with a parent, guardian, or other trusted adult about sex or other risk behaviors;
(5) Address the benefits of raising children within the context of a marital relationship and the unique challenges that single teen parents encounter in relation to educational, psychological, physical, social, legal, and financial factors;
(6) Discuss the interrelationship between teen sexual activity and exposure to other risk behaviors such as smoking, underage drinking, drug use, criminal activity, dating violence, and sexual aggression; and
(7) Educate students on the age of consent, puberty, pregnancy, childbirth, sexually transmitted diseases, and the financial and emotional responsibility of raising a child.

Where in the hell does it say anything about not holding hands, or punishing students who do?  And even if a public school prohibited its students from holding hands while in school, or on school property, during school hours, there is nothing unconstitutional about that.  It might be, to a degree, going overboard.  On the other hand, it is hardly as offensive as encouraging kids to “go all the way” with one another, which is what so-called “safe sex” education promotes, and what teachers encourage as they instruct their students in this type of curriculum.

Planned Parenthood, of course, is not the only organization that supports raping children in this manner.  The Democrat Party supports this form of rape, as do all liberal organizations.  This is one of the myriad differences between conservatives, who support abstinence-only education and liberals.  What exactly is the benefit of intentionally putting children in harms way by promoting such risky, dangerous and irrational behavior?  To say liberals just want kids to be “safe” when/if they do engage in sex is another canard. Liberals want kids to engage in sex at such a young age, and they want kids to be as “prepared” as possible for when that times comes.  If they didn’t, they would support “abstinence-only”.  That we all know some teenagers will engage in sex is still no reason to encourage all teens to engage in it – and teaching “safe sex” education, and instilling them with ideas of “normalcy” and making the experience as “comfortable” for them as possible only entices young teens with impressionable minds to let down their guard and give into temptations they are better off waiting to indulge in.

Conversely, abstinence-only teaches kids that sex, while it is a normal part of the human experience with ample rewards, holds risks and consequences for those who engage in it at young ages, who do it not out of an actual love for one another, but out of a lust caused by an imbalance in their hormones.  (And it is appropriate to refer to this type of behavior as lust rather than love because their hormones are “raging” and puberty is sending all kinds of messages to their brains that kids cannot fully process or understand.)  It is imperative teachers not betray the teacher/student confidence and relationship by instructing kids that it is “normal” for them to partake in sex.

Most kids do abstain from sex during their teens.  If a majority of kids can find within themselves the willpower and the courage to remain virgins through high school and even college – why do we want Planned Parenthood trying to undermine and exploit, and expose, our children to risks and dangers they need not have to worry about, on the basis that because only a small percentage of teens ever do give into temptation and peer pressure, therefore every child ought to be instructed in “safe-sex” education, and ought not be discouraged from engaging in it as long as it is “safe” sex?

Preschool Is An Over Rated, Over Glorified Baby Sitting Service – Abolish It!

Liberals are up in arms with the The Ryan plan, which passed the House yesterday, but will probably die in the Senate.  One of the provisions in the plan that so irks liberals is, in attempting to reduce overall spending by eliminating unnecessary budget items and government programs, it appears that preschool funding is, in part, on the “hit list”.

The House is preparing to pass a Republican budget that would slash funding for Head Start, a federally funded program that provides a wide range of services to a million young children living in poverty and their families.  The House Budget Committee, would eliminate slots for about 200,000 children in 2014, according to an analysis by the National Education Association. Over the next decade, the NEA estimates, more than two million children would lose opportunities to attend Head Start centers as a result of the cuts.

Regardless of ones income, preschool teaches children absolutely nothing that they can’t learn at home from their parents.  All preschool is, is a babysitting service which taxpayers, through government takeover of education, flip the bill for.   There are no complex learning skills being taught to three and four-year olds.  Only the alphabet, reading and writing skills, coloring, playtime, nap time, potty training skills, the “love your neighbor” concept without the religious additive, etc.  Nothing these small children learn in preschool cannot also be learned at home, where, if preschool is not mandated by local or state law already, parents can save a lot of money that goes into preschool funding and school their own children so they are ready for grade school.

But that is the point of preschool, and why states take a keen interest in getting their political arms around it.  It’s all about the extra money they get from forcing parents to enroll their children in unnecessary schooling, like preschool.  Now, in an effort to defeat the Ryan budget, and to boost more federal spending for preschool, the MSM, is pushing the idea that low-income families will be harmed if the Ryan plan passes because the cuts made will eliminate “slots” the federal government creates for children of low-income families to enroll in preschool through Head Start and other taxpayer subsidized programs.

Of Head Start, Yasmina Vinci, who heads the National Head Start Association says:

“It’s good not just for kids, it’s good for the whole community.”

Not only do we know this to be absolute nonsense and BS, but the article goes on to prove our case in the next paragraph.

But despite the enthusiasm for Head Start, recent audits have shown the system is far from flawless. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that half of all workers in the field of children’s services and a fifth of preschool teachers lacked high-school diplomas, for example. The survey counted workers for Head Start programs.

So not only is this another worthless government mandated program, but parents who send their children off to preschool to be taught their “ABC’s” and how to color and stay within the lines, but there is more than a fifty percent chance your children are being taught by someone who never graduated high school and probably not only has a hard time reciting their own “ABC’s” but probably cannot color within the lines themselves.

Whether or not parents wants to send their children off to preschool ought to be the parents decision, not government’s.  If parents find “value” in preschool – and the only real value preschool has is that it takes the kids off the hands of the parents for a few hours – if that is indeed your idea of “value”, that ought to be up to parents not government.  Maybe it’s good for families where both parents must work, but not so good for the children who are now being raised by teachers instead of their parents, which might just be the effect liberals in government had in mind from the beginning.

But unless these kids are learning trigonometry, Constitutional law, or something of a complex nature their own parents could not teach them, that only well-trained and professional educators could teach them (which takes more than the high school diploma more than half of these preschool teachers lack), it is a complete and absolute waste of tax dollars to be sending three and four-year old children to school where they learn nothing of any particular beneficial value, but do learn how bad and how evil our holidays are, like Valentine’s Day – which in some schools is known as “Caring and Kindness Day”, and St. Patrick’s Day, which in some schools is now known as “O’ Green Day”, (this is become of the religious nature of “saint” in both holidays) and other politically correct garbage as they are being baby-sat by people who haven’t a wit’s idea as to what they are doing.  Is it any wonder why nap time is such an integral part of preschool.  It’s not for the kids – it’s for the teachers.

No child ought to grow up in poverty.  But sending kids from low-income families off to preschool, instead of staying with their parents is the wrong approach.  It’s the wrong approach regardless of income.  Kids will do much better in grade school, and throughout their educational lives, and the rest of their lives, the more interaction they have with their parents early on in their lives, rather than being dumped into a government baby sitting program.

And if preschool was a private endeavor, instead of a public on, if government wasn’t seeing  penny of the money being made off these baby sitting services, is there any doubt they would find as many ways as they could to condemn them and shut them down?

Another Reason To Bust The Unions And Flip The Finger To Public Education

If anyone in America still thinks of unions as gallant, chivalrous knights fighting for workers rights against evil employers, will you please stop with such thoughts?  Unions now-a-days, as we all ought to know, are themselves the evil, corrupt, self-serving, arrogant thugs who do not like, do not accept, do not condone, do not work well with – competition!

In Culver City California unions are going after parents who volunteer at schools, it is assumed, to help students with their overall education.  The fact that they are doing this, and the unions are not getting any kind of cut has irked and annoyed these worthless thugs.  Now they are attempting to get their revenge on these parents by forcing them into a union where they will be forced to pay dues, but will not be allowed to have any kid of a voice or opinion in any matters.

Parents are cutting into the territory dominated by these unions and they feel very threatened.  These unions will not have anyone, including parents, break up the monopoly they have on public education.  But – who are the unions really looking out for here?

What the unions are doing, what the obvious outcome of this insanity will amount to, is that all the many children who now benefit from the tutoring they enjoy (and the student’s own parents must be pleased with) by local volunteers will disappear, and that option for those students will no longer be available.  What does that solve?

A wonderful gesture by the parents of Culver City, and all those who have volunteered, is being met with a gesture of another kind by unscrupulous, malevolent unions who loathe the idea that students are in essence receiving a free education.  Thus, the unions are doing what they do best – terrorizing the enemy.

Parents have rights in their communities which are being trampled on by the unions that also dwell within.  For all those volunteers who give of themselves, freely; for all those students who are grateful for the extra help; for all those teachers who also welcome the volunteers into the schools to take some of the pressure off of them; for every American who is sick and tired of these damned unions coming in and destroying communities and the rights of those communities, and then having the audacity to rip off those same communities through union dues and through the millions of dollars they receive via government from the taxes these communities pay to keep their communities running smoothly – it is time to bust these unions!  They are nothing more than con-artists on the city payroll.

Parents in Culver City are outraged over what the unions are trying to do to them, their schools and their children.  If the unions get away with it there, isn’t it safe to expect they will move into your community, where parents volunteer to help students with their studies?  And once the unions can get away with what they are doing in Culver City, does anyone expect they won’t find something else they can go after they feel is threatening their little “game”?  Their little “game” being to monopolize everything they can get their hands on, and then make you, the taxpayer pay for it, and pay into it.

Isn’t about time we finally busted these damned unions wide open?  Don’t we owe it to our children to do this before they, unions, bust our children’s hopes for a quality education?  Or is the only quality education the one unions decide for them, based on how much money they can scam off of these local communities?  When is going too far ever going to register with these thugs?  And how far are we willing to let them go before we do take action?

Pro-Abortion Women Acting Stupidly

Pro-abortion women are always putting their stupidity, their arrogance and their idiotic and nonsensical push for why they need, and must retain, their right to kill unborn children on full display.  Here is another example of pro-abortion women acting stupidly.  Georgia Democrats, comprised of women, are using vasectomy to showcase the “double standard” between men choosing not to have children, by preventing a child from being created in the first place, and women choosing not to have children by aborting them after they have been created – or, killing them, as that is what abortion is.  Does anyone with a rational mind really believe the two are not so fundamentally different from one another?

Says Yasmin Neal, the bill’s author:

“Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies.  It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”

This type of ridiculous BS  is how liberal politicians waste their time, and ours.  A man who has a vasectomy is indeed preventing a future child from being creating when he engages in sex with a woman.  But, in having that vasectomy, is he really killing a child in the womb who has not yet been created?  Pro-abortion women, acting stupidly, are under that impression, and they believe the two, having a vasectomy and having an abortion are comparable.

This stunt, which is all that it is, is in response to…

HB 954, a bill sponsored by Republican Doug McKillips that seeks to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

In order to counter the bill, pro-abortion women, acting stupidly (as they are generally prone to do) think they can draw support in opposing the bill by hyping a man’s prerogative in having a vasectomy and why they, pro-abortion women, acting stupidly, ought to exercise their own prerogative to kill an unborn child in the womb.  Well…

vasectomy = preventing a pregnancy and the creation of a child in the womb

abortion = killing an unborn child in the womb after it has been created.

Where are the similarities?

Respect for Women Means Being Abstinent And Pro-Life

We can blame women directly for men’s ill-behavior toward them.  If women don’t want men acting like “animals”, women ought not to encourage them to give into “animalism” and the behavior for which women decry as being sexist, degrading and anti-woman.  It is the fault of women – those women who themselves have no respect for themselves, their own bodies and that of life itself.  And it is also the fault of men – those men who enjoy having sex with women, but do not want to marry them first.

If a woman is an advocate of “free” sex, sex before marriage and sex with multiple partners, what kind of a man is she going to attract other than a man who himself only sees women as sex objects, someone to delight in for a few minutes and whom he never has to see again?  What does any woman expect, the lower she lets slip her moral standards, the reaction to a man is going to be who is literally being invited to partake in her, ravage her body and then walk away without having to worry about the consequences?

In other words, men who truly respect women do not have sex with women outside of marriage, and women who want men to respect them don’t flaunt themselves in front of men, for men and to attract men for the sole purpose of sex.  Having sex, wanting sex and engaging in sex is human nature.  But humans are not the animals they once were, long, long, long ago.  Either women need to start respecting themselves, and their own bodies, by keeping their bodies closed until they are married, or women need to shut up and stop whining about how men are “sexist pigs”.   Either women want to be degraded, taken advantage of, used, treated like a piece of meat, chewed up and then spit out – or they want to be shown more respect.  Men don’t respect “loose” women any more than women respect “loose” men.

Women can’t expect men to be both respectful of them, but also lustful towards them.  Women can’t expect men to behave cordially around them, if women themselves are saying “come here” with their eyes and fingers.  Women can’t expect men to look away from women the more of themselves they put on full display.

So, how does any man – how is it expected any man will – as a boy who learns in school that having, and experimenting with, sex with girls is a normal part of adolescence and growing up, then grow up to respect women after he has spent his teen years “making friends with” as many teen girls as he could?  And girls are being taught the same thing as well, with regards to boys and their bodies.   Here, on the one hand, there is a demand from liberal feminists that kids know all about “safe” sex and how to have “safe” sex with one another (because they are going to do it anyway, and public school teachers, rather than take up a position of responsibility reverse course and instill irresponsibility) and on the other hand, liberal feminists are outraged, horrified and “shocked” with the amount of “gambling” going on in a girl’s or woman’s “back room”.  It’s a dangerous double standard being played by women.

Teaching kids sex at their age, and sex before marriage is normal, does not instill respect in one another.  Whether boys and girls abstain from sex before marriage or not, the longer they hold off into their adulthood, until they are married, the more respect they will have for one another and the fewer unwanted pregnancies and STD’s that will result..

Yet, the same worthless liberal feminists that demand a very thorough teaching of sex education be taught in public schools, where impressionable young boys and girls are being told that having sex at their age is perfectly normal (and won’t be prohibited, interfered with or frowned upon by their teaching staff) are the same hypocritical women that call men “sexist pigs” and decry being degrading by the very men who, as boys, learned in public school – from the dogma of liberal feminism – that it’s perfectly normal for them to view girls and women as sex objects, and to give into their carnal desires.

Ladies and gentlemen – how does taking away the truly greatest power a woman has over a man, namely her virginity, create a respect for women?  Liberal feminists are the “Frankenstein” which created the monster in the first place.  And now they cannot control their creation.  Is anyone surprised?

Liberal feminists, “worried” about the rise, or the prevalence, of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in young girls and women, rather than teach girls and young women to respect their bodies by abstaining from sex, encourage them to “just do it”.  But liberal feminists never tell impressionable young girls that so-called “safe” sex can still result in both pregnancy and STD’s.  Is it any wonder, then, why these same liberal feminists demand there be free contraception available, and abortions?  If young girls and women “loved their bodies” enough to abstain from sex until married Planned Parenthood would be out of business.  So would liberal feminism.  Both are certainly morally bankrupt.

There is absolutely nothing “prudish” or “backward” about boys and girls, young men and women, waiting to have sex until they are married.  Women can’t demand all men stop looking upon them as mere objects if they themselves are the ones giving men the green light to “go”.  Women can’t demand men stop their “sexist” attitude towards them if they themselves have the attitude that sex in an unmarried relationship is normal and acceptable.  Women can’t blame men for degrading them if they are degrading themselves by being so sexually open with their bodies.

If respect is a “two-way street”, why do so many women allow themselves to travel down that street in the wrong direction?  Isn’t it obvious, sooner or later, there will be a collision of a consequential magnitude?

Why HIV-AIDS Is Neither A Pandemic Nor A Serious Threat To Anyone (Except the Ignorant And Arrogant)

Pandemic – from Greek and meaning “all people”. (pan – “all”, demic/demos – “people”)

A story about the “origins” of AIDS from HuffPost/AOL, and interestingly in its “Gay Voices” section looks at a new book which claims to have traced the virus back to an African hunter (more than likely not gay) circa 1921.  Why HuffPost chose to incorporate what is essentially a non-gay story into its “Gay Voices” section is telling, and clearly shows that even Arianna Huffington herself sees AIDS as either a “gay disease” or most likely to strike gays than any other group.  Otherwise, why put it in her “Gay Voices” section?

That tens of millions of people have acquired HIV-AIDS, and millions have perished from it, while being tragic, does not constitute a pandemic, unless we are willing to cheapen what the definition of a real pandemic is.  For something to be a pandemic, it must include at least these following requirements:

1.  Spread quickly

2.  Infect anyone and everyone, indiscriminately, it comes in contact with

3.  Kill its victim quickly

4.  Kill en masse (many millions in a short time) Or -

5. Not have any known, immediate, cure so that it kills millions over a longer period of time.

So why does AIDS fail the test of being a true pandemic when it certainly meets all these requirements?  Remember what Pandemic actually means – “all people”.  And while “all people”, that is, anyone, can be infected with HIV-AIDS, it only strikes certain, select people.  In other words – AIDS both discriminates and can be blocked.  A true pandemic neither discriminates nor can it be blocked.

Unlike other pandemics, AIDS, and the way in which AIDS is spread is virtually and nearly absolutely impossible to acquire, (and this has held true from the very beginnings of the virus) except and unless one is a drug user and shares a tainted needle with someone who does have the virus, or engages in unsafe and/or unprotected sex whether they are gay or straight and where each others blood interacts.  One cannot get AIDS simply by being in close contact with someone who has the virus.

Talking, shaking hands, holding hands for a long period of time,  mouth to mouth kissing, coughing, sneezing, sharing a toilet with someone who has AIDS will not infect you with the virus.  Using drugs and engaging in unsafe, unprotected sex can infect you, which is how the vast majority of people who have HIV-AIDS acquired it in the first place.  Being stupid, ignorant and arrogant, and intentionally untruthful, is what has caused this virus to spread to as many people as it has since we, the general public, first learned of it in the early 1980’s.

With nearly 7 billion people on the planet, those who have HIV-AIDS, both known and unknown cases, constitutes roughly only 1% of the entire population (and probably less).  Even at 2%, which is being generous and over cautionary, it still does not make AIDS a pandemic.  So why call it a pandemic at all, especially considering it only really affects drug users and people engaging in unsafe/unprotected sex?

Political, obviously.  And political correctness as well.

AIDS was genuinely, though mistakenly, thought to be a “gay” disease 30 years ago.  Many religious leaders seized upon what they hoped was a golden opportunity to further condemn homosexuality as a sin, from one pulpit to another across America, denouncing it and using AIDS as some sort of punishment from God.  Indeed AIDS decimated the gay community, particularly out on the Western coast of America.  However, it was the drug use and unprotected sex they were engaging in, not the fact that they were gay.  To this day, a few religious leaders still pronounce AIDS a “punishment from God”, and it is one of the many reasons why there yet remains a strong rift within the religious community; why many have abandoned religion or found alternatives to fill the void their former church left; why the liberal media and Hollywood continues to sneers religion.

It was not until a young, non gay boy, Ryan White, contracted AIDS that suddenly the virus was thrown into a new light.  Ryan was infected through a blood treatment where a needle containing the virus was mistakenly reused rather than discarded.  Since then, a concerted effort has been made to ensure all used needles are quickly discarded and not accidentally reused.  Which has made the spread of AIDS through blood transfusions, at least in American hospitals, virtually impossible.

Also, AIDS affects more blacks than whites, (even though race is not a factor for acquiring AIDS) especially in Sub-Sahara Africa where blacks are the majority, and where the virus is still spreading.  Another long held myth is that blacks (and perhaps even gays) were intentionally given the virus by whites to decrease their overall population.  Whereas the real reason why AIDS persists in Sub-Sahara Africa is due to a lack of education.

Billions and billions of dollars have been spent to combat AIDS in Africa with little effect.  The reason?  Very little of that money is actually going into educating Africans about how AIDS is spread.  Either that, or the African people are just as ignorant and arrogant as Americans and Europeans, and everyone else in the world who supports drug use and unsafe/unprotected sex outside of marriage.

If they were being taught not to use tainted needles, that by abstaining from drugs entirely and abstaining from sex until they are married would dramatically decrease and slow the spread of AIDS, that antiquated religious beliefs about people with AIDS having sex with young girls and other such nonsense will not eliminate AIDS from their bodies, why then does AIDS continue its deadly march?  It can’t just be tainted needles.  But if it was – how much does it cost a hospital or medical center in Africa to replace a used needle, compared to what it costs to provide drugs and healthcare to one person who is infected with HIV-AIDS?

As more drugs have been, and are being, developed to prolong life with AIDS, and allow those with AIDS to remain healthy longer, an erroneous, misguided and arrogant attitude among the youth, the younger generations around the world, including in Africa, has given rise to the belief that even if a cure for AIDS is not just around the corner, cheap and inexpensive drugs to make living with AIDS more bearable are.

While this is true, to an extent, providing billions of dollars to combat AIDS in America and around the world is not the best use of that money if it allows people to continue engaging in a behavior that comes with a high risk of acquiring HIV-AIDS.  In other words – why should American taxpayers have to subsidize stupid, arrogant and destructive behavior?  It’s a waste of money.  Especially when a little bit of knowledge really does go a long way.  And if someone wants to practice unsafe sex or use drugs, they, not us, ought to be held responsible for their own actions, and they ought to pay for their own healthcare.

The only exceptions to that include women and girls, and even men and boys (because it happens) who are raped by someone with AIDS, and are infected that way; babies born to mothers who have AIDS, and therefore have acquired it; people who have gone into a hospital for a blood treatment/transfusion and through no fault of their own been injected with a tainted needle.  The latter, more so in industrialized nations, has been effectively, but not absolutely100%, eliminated, meaning the risk is near zero.

Because we know how AIDS is spread, we can literally stop the spread of AIDS right now.  It’s that easy.  Because so many people remain ignorant and arrogant constitutes the reasons why AIDS will continue to spread.  However, the good news for those of us who do abstain from drugs and unsafe, unprotected sex outside of marriage, we really have nothing to worry about.  For us, cancer is a bigger and more serious threat.  Getting AIDS, becoming HIV positive is as close to impossible as it gets.  We are more likely to get a cavity in one of our teeth.

For those of you that do use drugs; that do engage in unsafe, unprotected sex outside marriage; that do snub your nose at common sense and reality; that refuse to listen to reason?

Well…

Of Abstinence, Sex Ed – And Why Gene Simmons Is Nobody’s Role Model

Gene Simmons of the rock band KISS is publicly and unabashedly celebrating being a sex addict and all the many “romps” he has had with women over the past 30 odd years.  He’s not the only “celebrity” to have expressed their delight in the opposite sex so openly and brag about it.  Remember the late, not so great role model, Wilt Chamberlain?  Chances are Simmons will not be the last, at least not until our society and our culture begins to demand guttersnipes like Gene Simmons and Wilt Chamberlain keep it in the hanger and just “shut up and sing”, or entertain.

Gene Simmons is a large part of the reason why so many young teenagers give in to peer pressure and engage in sex.  They see their favorite singers, actors, entertainers, etc. openly talking about their own experiences, as if it was the greatest thing to happen to them, and young kids naturally want to emulate and imitate them.  And although the percentage of teens having sex is declining, Simmons, and others, (and their nonchalant attitude toward sex) remain part of the problem why more children will not abstain from sex.

Sadly, those entertainers who promote the “abstinence until marriage” message are routinely mocked and criticized for not being “realistic”.  Abstinence pledges and the rings teens wear to show their solidarity for abstinence are frowned upon more than they are accepted, which puts added pressure on these kids to renounce their abstinence pledge and give into their carnal, hormonal lust.

It’s not only entertainers that are leading kids into having sex way too early.  Shockingly, ladies and gentleman, it is their own teachers.

It is altogether fitting and proper to call it an outrage for school districts to allow their teachers to promote this type of indoctrination.  And parents not only have a right to know what their children are being taught, they have a right to complain and have it removed from the curriculum.  Indeed, all taxpayers, including those who don’t have children in these schools, have a right to voice their displeasure.  Teaching anything but abstinence constitutes an absolute betrayal of the teacher-pupil relationship.  And for an adult, and a teacher, to instill in a child the attitude of  “well, kids are going to have sex anyway, so we might as well teach them how to safely do it” is, without question, absolutely irresponsible.  An act of extreme cowardice and depravity by an adult-teacher; a capitulation and surrender in common sense and sensibility; and borderline criminal.

When a teacher, an adult (and that cannot be stressed enough) instructs a child in the “finer arts” of “safe sex” that teacher, that adult, has effectively turned their back on the child and on childhood itself.  That some children are bound to engage in sex is all the more reason to teach abstinence, not to give in, not to give up.  Children need to be told there is no such thing as safe sex; that safe sex is still harmful, psychologically, emotionally and especially heath wise.  Children need to be taught that childhood, including their teen years, is a time for education and learning, not for engaging in adult behavior that is best left until after marriage.

For whatever reason teaching abstinence only seems to be more controversial today than teaching the so called safe sex curriculum despite the fact that teaching safe sex actually encourages kids to have sex, not abstain from it.  When an adult, and one in a teaching capacity, is telling a child it is alright to engage in sex at their young age, so long as it is “safe” sex, and coupled with their favorite entertainers reiterating the same disturbing message, is it not more likely a child will ultimately engage in sex, whether it is safe or not, than have the courage and fortitude to abstain from it?

Abstinence works every time it is tried.  Not one single pregnancy has ever occurred when abstinence has been practiced.  Not one case of STD’s or HIV-AIDS has resulted from abstinence.  Why is that?

For Simmons to brag about how many women he has had sex with shows his has a lot of growing up to do.  That some teachers would promote the “safe-sex” curriculum shows they have a lot of explaining to do (and ideally they can explain that to the unemployment agency where they go to collect their unemployment insurance).  That we as a society allow teachers to promote this garbage to our children and allow our children to be influenced by entertainers like Simmons shows we have a lot of work ahead of us to push back the tide of liberal corruption that has washed into our public school system and is drowning out the quality education our children both need and deserve in order to become productive, responsible adults.

As a parent, or even as an adult, we want role models who will instill in our children common sense values that will help shape and mold their lives in positive ways.  Children, after-all, are our future.  And they always will be.  Gene Simmons deserves the respect of no one.  He demands our universal condemnation.  Teachers, like-wise, who insist that children be taught safe sex curriculum instead of abstinence only deserve more than our scorn; more than a reprimand or suspension.  They deserve to be fired.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: