Thoughtcrime in the heartland.

Here's the story, found via Moonbattery:

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa — An outstanding athlete and student at Marshalltown High School has been suspended from playing three football games in the fall because his parents say the school misinterpreted a symbol of school pride — as a symbol of white pride.

Now, the principal is accusing the student, Blair Van Staalduine, of being a racist. “We were appalled,” Blair’s mother, Cathy Van Staalduine, said, “We were appalled and so was he. Absolutely. Because the furthest thing from Blair is being racist”

Cathy Van Staalduine says her son was suspended after a picture of him was posted on social media making the letter “W” with his hands. The school apparently thought that was a racist symbol. But Mrs. Van Staalduine says the picture was taken during school spirit week when different grades had to wear different colors.

“The actual school chose the colors that each grade would be wearing. Juniors wore white. So Blair of course being active in the school dressed from head to toe in white,” she explains, “Somebody took a picture of him with his white doing a ‘W’ sign because they were wearing white. Blair says if they were wearing orange they would have done an ‘O’”.

Mrs. Van Staalduine says she tried to talk to the principal and he said she was racist too. No one from the school district would comment citing student confidentiality. The Van Staalduines say they want the suspension reversed and an apology, or they plan to sue the district.

So let me get this one straight, the kid was on a social website during his own time and not involved in any school sanctioned activity. He was just being a kid but that gets him busted for racism? By the way even if he was guilty of that, when did preference for one's own ethnic group become an offense meriting punishment by school authorities?

That school principal needs a change of career. I hear Burger King is hiring.

Tinfoil hat time?

So let me see if I understand some recent stories. The DOJ has decided that minority students can't be disciplined in the same manner as their white classmates. The IRS will insure employers don't fire their workers in order to more easily comply with the Affordable Care Act. The DOJ will now recognize all same sex weddings in every state (all 57?) regardless of what local law may proscribe. The head of that same DOJ is now pushing for ex felons to be given the right to vote. The DHS is currently in the market for 141,000 rounds of sniper quality ammo (and it's damn depressing when Alex Jones is accurately covering such a story). The Ohio National Guard recently conducted training under a scenario where right-wing terrorists were the designated foe. Let's not forget the DOD school for the military's EO program has been caught promulgating the notion that conservative Christians and their values are not to be tolerated.

Another way to see it is that the Feds are completely taking over our kids' education and morphing it into genuine propaganda (while all students will be equal some will be more equal than others). The private market place is coming under complete government control. The voter base for our current regime will be expanded by any means possible (I haven't even mentioned pandering to the illegal immigrants). Our government is conditioning the military into a mindset of unquestioning animosity towards traditional values at the same time their prepping for war against the civilian community at large (if you think G.I. Joe will conscientiously refer to the copy of the Constitution he carries in his backpack, think again. Our troops are just as ignorant as their civilian counterparts, after all they DID attend the same schools.).

Did I miss any big ticket items? Am I misstating anything here?

Tell me again how things will magically turn around in 2016 and I'll tell you how I doubt it. Tell me again how we can't possibly be seeing the groundwork laid for the declaration of martial law. Keep telling me and as God is my witness, I hope you'll be right.

Because right now I've a feeling we're all in for a taste of Hell on Earth.

God's will be done, may He have mercy upon us all.

Laugh all you want, folks like this are teaching our children.

Here's the link: http://www.examiner.com/article/portland-school-sees-racism-peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwiches

Oh Momma, please make the stupid people stop!

Transgender "rights" result in school promoting sexual harassment...

Here's the story: http://www.charismanews.com/us/41346-transgender-boy-harassing-girls-in-the-bathroom-gets-no-punishment

Gee, who couldn't see this one coming?

I'd always wondered about those who wouldn't shower after PE and wanted to clean up at home. It always seemed just a little "sissy" to me and that would include the girls who refused to publicly clean up. Modesty was never my strong suit I guess.

But I'll be encouraging my own kids to come home to freshen up, because the next thing we'll hear are stories of lockeroom rape that are discounted by various school administrations. If you think I'm wearing the tinfoil hat, just wait.

New York children taught to "go gay".

I've thought for some time that the current push for "tolerance" of gays will advance to the point that you're deemed a homophobe if you don't have at least one same sex encounter at some time in your life.

It appears they're grooming our children for that now: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130417/NEWS01/304160055/Anti-bullying-lesson-puts-parents-edge-Red-Hook?nclick_check=1

It's tied into the "anti-bullying" program, big surprise right?

The defenders of this garbage are casting it in the light of teaching students how to resist unwanted advances, I don't understand why a scenario involving homosexuality has to be included. Saying "no" is the same if you're straight, gay or not quite sure.

But by having the role playing involve a homosexual advance it seems to me that the implication of complete normalcy in the students sexual orientation is made. THAT would be contrary to what a lot of religiously devout parents would be teaching their kids. For that reason alone the parents deserved notice of what was planned.

However if you want to undermine that sort of parental guidance, notifying "Mom and Dad" would be counter productive.

Don't even think about super soakers....

"Put down the teddy bear, move away from the juice box and keep your hands where we can see them. YOU'RE BUSTED!! UP AGAINST THE WALL, YOU KNOW THE DRILL!"

http://educationviews.org/turning-our-schools-into-totalitarian-enclaves/

Well it isn't the "Mark of the Beast" but...

It's still damned intrusive: http://educationviews.org/student-expelled-for-refusing-location-tracking-rfid-badge/

Pardon me all over the place but I really DO NOT need Big Brother in any form keeping tabs on my kids, ESPECIALLY after school hours. I am the parent, the school administration works FOR ME and a number of other taxpayers. If my darling child decides to ditch class and head for parts unknown the school can notify me and I will take the appropriate action. End of story.

A tracking chip is another way to either remove or minimize parental influence in a child's life. It may not have been designed for that, but it's a part of the inevitable outcome. It falls right in line with a disregard for parental notification in getting an abotion, just to name one related area.

Things like this have me seriously consider homeschooling. The major drawback to that would be a lack of consistent socialization with outsiders, something the wife and I have determined our two autistic (but highly functioning) boys need. As it is I'm reconsidering that too. I'd be doing the majority of the schooling in that case and boy, would THAT be a challenge!

The linked story shows us the shape of the future, please note that the story isn't set in some liberal state of the northeast but in that oft cited prorotype of "red" states, Texas. Yep, we have our moonbats here too.

Student Energy Patrols?

Instead of brownshirts maybe they'll wear green ones? Here's the link: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-celebrates-children-health-month-encourages-recruiting-students-energy-patrols

I'm all for turning out the lights and adjusting a thermostat in a VACANT area, don't get me wrong. But this smacks just a bit of state indoctrination in politically correct behavior. Theres too much of that already, we know of one couple whose son was profoundly disturbed at the idea of his parents keeping a gun in the house. If you figure his discomfort was fueled by the local school he attended, give yourself a cookie. Yes, this happened in Texas.

I'm really starting to worry about the future of our youth. Even more so then in the past. At this rate they'll be mindless drones in another generation and nobody will be left alive to argue against it. Those few not touched by the nannystaters will find themselves ostracized and outlawed. This happens no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

Once again, I'll say that we all have to get involved and counter this shit in a proactive rather than reactive manner. God help us all and may His will be done.

They'll even know when Johnny wipes his little rear...

So today I came across an article detailing how tracking chips will be used in a Texas school district to better monitor the whereabouts of the little darlings who should be in class. Here it is: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/Students-will-be-tracked-via-chips-in-IDs-3584339.php#ixzz1vsssNfl7

Please note that this idea isn't exactly new. According to the article, two other districts have used this technology FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS!

In other news, theres evidently a school district in Florida mulling over the idea of installing video cameras on the cafeteria trash cans. That way they can be sure that little Johnny and Sally are eating their broccoli and not tossing it before finding their black market contact for some CheezWhiz and Doritos. Here's a link to that story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212959/Parents-fear-harsh-punishments-school-board-debates-trash-cameras-drive-force-children-eat-greens.html

Great God in Heaven, does it get any nuttier? Our tax dollars at work and yes, that means every one of us because of these districts accept a penny in Federal money for any damned thing then you and I are on the hook for paying for this crap.

Normally I honestly don't care how bizarre the school administrators in our country can get. Let's face it there are more pressing concerns in our lives and somewhere along the way you either have to set priorities or double wrap your head in explosion proof duct tape. Sometimes I'll even have some fun with the insanity, as when our daughter's Catholic preschool started sending notes home that our child needed a more balanced meal in her lunch box, specifically more fruits & veggies. I very cheerfully complied by packing some prunes into it. Our girl LIKES prunes, they'd take effect before she came home and somebody else got to deal with the problem.

Did I mention the apple of my eye is only recently potty trained?

But seriously, when EVERYBODY is so used to being monitored and coddled from preschool on up, what happens to a desire for privacy? When you've been taught to accept the most outlandish crap, how do you gain a healthy perspective on things?

From personal experience I know a bit about this. My old man was a control freak from Jump Street, I won't go into all the details because; a) some of it is hard to believe and b) I hate sounding like a victim.

Suffice to say, normal social interactions were beyond my grasp when I first enlisted (FWIW, I requested duty on the opposite coast so I couldn't have been completely brainwashed). I DID learn and it only took about five to ten years. But that was possible only because I was immersed in "normal" society. That option won't exist for our children and grandchildren if they're monitored in ways that the two linked articles only hint at.

It wouldn't stop there either, nor is it. Am I the only one who has read of tracking chips being routinely installed on some new cars? I also recall stories from a few years back regarding "smart thermostats" in homes that would be controlled from a central location. That way if some schlub in Austin felt my house should be at 75 degrees vice the 70 I prefer, he/she could make it happen. Then my favorite retired sub sailor gets to stew in his own juice. As I recall, those thermostats are only used in homes where the owner signs a waiver for their use. How long before they become mandatory?

No, I'm not proposing there is some grand conspiracy to monitor us ala Orwell's "1984". As a matter of fact, I'll give the idiots the benefit of the doubt and go with the idea their intentions are honorable. Nutty as a shit house rat, but honorable. Yet once the technology is in place and used for no matter how benign the original purpose, how long before it gets abused?

The bottom line is that I should be responsible for my kid's nutrition and proper school attendance. Lay it square on my shoulders, then get the Hell out of my way!

To wrap it up; these stories and others like them only emphasize the need for you, me and every other responsible citizen to get involved with our communities. Take nothing for granted, demand our money's worth from all government employees at ALL levels and remember the most important point; THOSE BASTARDS WORK FOR US! Otherwise the day will soon dawn when you and I will find ourselves and our families living in a controlled enviornment that  in terms of allowed behavior would make a Russian gulag look like a hippie artist community.

Porn mommies, gay marriage, politics and legislating morality.

Starting with the last item of the title, you can't legislate morality. You can't make people like one another via laws & regulations. There ARE items needing legal support (if rape weren't a crime would it be more prevalent?). Hey, lets take a look at that last one.

Rape is a crime throughout Western society. But how it's treated will depend in large part on the cultural back ground. I recall my time stationed in Italy. One of the things I heard was that teen girls would often refuse to date some guy without a chaperon or another couple going along for the ride. The reason was that if the man wanted some action and the girl said, "No" he could easily ruin her reputation by telling all and sundry what a little slut she really was and how she'd screwed him hog style, dog style, any old style (even YOUR style) while they were alone together. You can guess how that would hamper any legitimate complaints of date rape.

That problem isn't so prevalent in the USA, as a matter of fact many men might argue it's the reverse here (Duke lacrosse team, where are you now?). So in both countries you've got the idea that rape is a crime and should be harshly punished (when I was in Italy another thing we were all told was that Italians had no sense of humor regarding assault on women or children). But the whole idea of "burden of proof" is approached differently and it's because of the cultural mindset.

What put me in mind of this? Two recent stories; the first involved owners of an inn in Vermont who refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple. Here's that story: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120823/NEWS07/308230025/Couple-settles-discrimination-lawsuit-Vermont-resort

The second story involves "porn-star mommies" and heres the link for that one: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/23/stormy-daniels-on-being-a-porn-star-mom.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

With a one-two punch like that so early this morning my mind is running in circles.

On the first story, I don't see where "equality" takes precedence over religious freedom. Yet that is exactly what the results of the press for tolerance in our society has led to. This doesn't just pertain to the GLBT community, it's across the board. It shifted into high gear back in 1968 with the Fair Housing Law. FWIW, I recall a classroom discussion with my highly "progressive" teacher about this. As a sophomore in high school I was ill equipped to defend my position and showed it. Yet I stated what has since become too common a scenario, i.e. playing the race card whether it was warranted or not and having the defendant judged guilty until proven innocent.

Yet the Fair Housing Law was enacted with noble intentions. Suffering discrimination on the basis of race is repugnant. However my own feelings are that when bigotry is exhibited in the public marketplace it will eventually work towards the detriment of the bigot. If you're willing to stand up for your beliefs, fine. Go for the gusto. There will be plenty of people who only care if their client's your money is green. Let a prejudice that goes against the cultural norm exhibit itself long enough and it will run into a lot of negative consequences. No legislation needed.

The presence of legislation only complicates things and attempts to legally level the playing field, while commendable in intent, will always end badly.

The second story is a bit closer to my eventual point of this post. It repeatedly cites the negative stereotypes of  adult sex workers (that's a broad description that could include prostitutes, actors in fetish or bestiality oriented porn films, etc.). The underlying mantra seems to be "Porn stars are people and they've got feelings too!"

Ah, noted.

The readiness with which this article and it's implied plea for tolerance and acceptance is presented illustrates how a cultural mindset works. Ten or fifteen years ago this would have been almost unheard of. But now, as our mores and values change, it becomes completely legitimate.

For the record, I don't condemn prostitutes, porn stars, round heeled & easy women. Those I've met sooner or later show to the world how pitiful they really are.

But the "lifestyle" is definitely worthy of condemnation. It's loaded with health risks for starters. If you don't think our culture uses that as a criteria for behavior, when was the last time smoking a cigarette was readily acceptable behavior? Why is tobacco use no longer seen as not worthy of condemnation? It's the health risks, plain and simple. Lung cancer is an ugly thing to behold, not to mention emphysema, cancer of the trachea, mouth etc.

So our MSM and entertainment elites have swung into action over the years, vilifying and condemning what is certainly a matter of personal "choice" as much as abortion is viewed as a personal "choice". We can see the results.

Yet in a perfect example of doublethink, while the cultural elites scream of how the exposure of children to positive portrayals of cigarette smoking is immoral and evil, the same elites will passionately defend onscreen depictions of sexual license or violence as a legitimate exercise of the 1st Amendment.

Hey, if my kid is more likely to smoke a cigar after seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger light up isn't she just as likely to consider pole dancing as a career choice after seeing "Showgirls"?

If those of us espousing conservative values want to alter the path our nation is on, we have to walk the walk. We have to wholeheartedly support those entertainment outlets that reflect and endorse our values. We have to avoid those that don't.

Now that sounds fairly obvious but when was the last time you saw an action flick for reasons of the morals expressed and endorsed? The wife and I saw RED the other night, was there anything culturally uplifting or enlightening? No. Damned. Way. We saw it for the "blow-em-up-big" action.

So yeah, I'm a damned hypocrite. Putting this down on paper forces me to think more at length on that. Pray for my wife, she already thinks I'm a Puritan.

But how often do we censor what we see while the kids are around, only to let it all hang out once they go to bed?

If we want the culture to change we have to put our values first and foremost in our lives. That means frequenting those businesses that support our beliefs. Going for legislation won't work, if a particular practice or vice is widely accepted you'll never get John & Joan Q. Public to observe the law. As an example of that, look at how well Prohibition worked.

Legislation dictating morality is the cart before the horse. For an example on how it's properly done, look to the laws for seat belt use. They were enacted AFTER the general public was suitably horrified at the idea of a toddler shooting through the windshield of a car and getting peeled like a banana in the process.

For another example, look at the laws against drunk drivers. The public at large had personal experience with sots on the highway, all that was needed was MADD to articulate the revulsion and disgust. The laws followed.

So if we want to see a decrease in abortion, homosexual lifestyles, euthanasia, etc. we have to present our arguments to the public. If they've any real merit we'll prevail. If not, we'll go the way of the dinosaur. It's that simple.

If we're truly in possession of faith in the rightness of our beliefs the idea of losing won't provide the slightest bit of fear. I think it's called having the faith of your convictions. It's counter cultural but that's basically where we're at these days, trying to swim upstream against the popular cultural currents.

While we're doing this it pays to remember you get more flies with honey than vinegar. The recounting by the porno-mom of the child who was excluded from the treats provided to the rest the the elementary class is a good example. The mother who brought the cupcakes is an idiot, plain and simple. Instead of trying to FORCE her views onto her child's classmates (and isn't that exactly what excluding the one child from the celebration does?) she should lead by example.

Leading by example is tough. I mentioned the movie the wife and I saw, who doesn't want to see Bruce Willis kick ass and take names? But that's where it leads, if I truly believe viewing morally objectionable material is the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Principle in action then I shouldn't watch something I'd bar the kids from. "Do as I say, not as I do" is hypocrisy. End of story. It won't win any adherents to my beliefs.

Likewise relating to those who most emphatically DON'T share my beliefs. I should live my life in accordance with those beliefs BUT accept ALL people as being on the same moral level as myself. We're all sinners, some more blatantly than others. While I can condemn a sinful act or behavior I can't condemn the people involved.

So if I find myself making cupcakes for my daughter's class (don't laugh, I'm the stay-at-home dad and I do those things) I have to include ALL the children. When my little girl tells me that "Tommy's" mom showed up for Career Day and disclosed how she's a pole dancer I'll tell my daughter it's unfortunate and we should pray for that family. When asked why I should keep it focused on the behavior, not the individual.

Plus I have to make sure my own life is lived as close to my values as possible. Back to the  example of Prohibition, does anyone else recall one of the most prevalent arguments for the use of marijuana in the '60's? It was citing how our parents/grandparents completely ignored the law regarding the drug of alcohol.So the reasoning went that if Mom & Dad saw no problem with illegal drug use, why should we? Citing "Reefer Madness" didn't work, scare tactics rarely do.

Therefore if I believe sexual promiscuity is wrong I should practice what I preach and ditch the "men's" magazines, stop checking out the high school cheerleaders, etc. If I believe gratuitous violence is evil I should cease viewing "action" flicks.

Practice what I preach.

"Assessments" = recusant fees = religious persecution

Found at www.catholicworldreport.com :

Twenty-first Century Recusants

Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate evokes bitter memories of past persecution.

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
The Obama administration's recent decision to require Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives through their health care plans has been met with firm resistance from Catholic leaders, and incredulity even from the president’s own supporters, who warn that the administration is walking into a political minefield.

"One of Barack Obama’s great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers," writes the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law." The president "threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus," he adds.

The president's allies in the press, who share his socially liberal love of all things contraceptive, have good reason to be concerned about the administration's Quixotic jab at the Catholic Church. The president has managed to offend the religious sensibilities of the largest voting bloc in the United States, and is evoking bitter memories of historic persecution in the process.

Intentionally or not, the administration's policy smacks of the methods established by England's Queen Elizabeth against Catholic "recusants," who refused to participate in the worship services of the Anglican Church during the late 16th century. Although Elizabeth's regime, and those that followed for the next two hundred years, did not provide a penalty for Catholic belief as such, they found a simple and devastating way to coerce Catholics to violate their consciences: the recusancy fine, which was levied against those who absented themselves from Sunday Anglican worship or failed to receive communion once a year.

The fine, which began as a few shillings, was eventually raised to 20 pounds a month, a devastating penalty that few could afford. After being impoverished by such levies, family members would be thrown in jail for failing to pay, and sometimes expelled from the country. Only the wealthiest Catholic families, generally of the aristocracy, could avoid persecution by paying the fines and maintaining a Catholic existence in the privacy and secrecy of their estates.

Although it is far removed from the severity of Britain's old recusancy measures, Obama's policy bears an uncomfortable similarity to them. Catholics will not be directly forced to repudiate their moral principles, but some of their most important institutions will be fined handsomely for refusing to do so. For each employee not provided with contraceptive insurance coverage, a Catholic university, charity, or other institution will be required to pay the government $2,000 annually.

As under the old recusancy system, some larger and wealthier institutions might be able to sustain the financial burdens, but smaller ones will simply go bankrupt and be forced to fold, or will publicly violate their religious beliefs to remain in existence. The outcome will be painfully similar to that of other policies that impose morally offensive requirements on Catholics, such as requiring adoption agencies to give children to homosexuals. As a result of such measures, Catholic agencies in some states have been forced to close or have renounced their Catholic identity to continue operating.

However, the Obama administration's decision to impose the contraceptive mandate on Catholic institutions throughout the nation, takes the offense to a breathtaking new level. What is the president thinking?

Is he venting his fury over the Catholic bishops' opposition to his health care plan with a vengeful blow against a group that has historically voted Democrat in national elections? If so, he is likely to hurt himself in a cheap attempt at political payback. Is he counting on the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities USA to continue to support him in opposition to the bishops, as they did over abortion coverage? If that is his hope, it is being dashed before his eyes: both groups are balking, and the CHA says it feels “jolted.”

American Catholics are famous for their political divisions, but the Obama administration's decision to strike so directly and deeply at the moral conscience of the Church could mark 2012 as a turning point for the Catholic Church in electoral politics. If President Obama manages to unite American Catholics in defense of their Church, he will have achieved something that has so far eluded the efforts of Catholics themselves, and could have lasting implications for the future of the Democratic Party.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

The above article was copied and posted in order to fully explain just WHY the current Administration's efforts to coerce Catholic businesses & institutions is tantamount to religious persecution. Any questions? If so, fill the comm box.

Fritos and Twinkies on the black market...

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — The revamped school lunches at Los Angeles Unified School District have won awards, commending them for improving the menu at the second largest school district in the nation. Too bad the students don’t agree.

Rejecting healthful alternatives like vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles, students are throwing them in the trash by the thousands, bringing junk food from home and buying instant noodles and other decidedly unhealthy fare from the “black markets” that have begun to thrive at campuses across the district, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The wholesale rejection to its healthy menu comes about a year after a very public food fight with TV chef Jamie Oliver. Oliver filmed a few weeks of his ABC series “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution” at one LAUSD campus, but the permit was terminated abruptly.

The series’ first season featured Oliver trying to revolutionize the eating habits and food policies of Huntington, W. Va.

The district said they welcomed Oliver, but not his cameras, in an effort to avoid gimmicks, like filling a school bus with 57 tons of white sand to represent the amount of sugar LAUSD students consume weekly in flavored milk.

The kerfluffle led to LAUSD’s decision to change the menu in favor of healthier options. The district decided to do away with chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk.

Now, the Times reports cartons of plain milk are being thrown away en masse, unopened, along with uneaten entrees. Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands of students, who are ditching lunch and are suffering from hunger-related ailments.

The complaints have been heard and LAUSD is planning changes to the menu, the Times reports. Burgers and (healthy) pizza are coming back, and dishes like quinoa salads and brown rice cutlets are out.

L.A. Unified serves 650,000 meals daily.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Gee, who couldn't see this one coming? A black market for junk food? Who'd a thunk it?

Michael Voris, "RealCatholic TV" and Archbishop Vigneron.

I normally don't comment on volatile issues within the Church. Face it, if we're attacking one another just who benefits from the fighting? It isn't those trying to follow Christ. So I've not spoken out about (former) Father John Corapi, Father Pavone, Our Lady of Medjugorje, the 4th Secret of Fatima, Father Thomas Euteneuer or any other controversial items. The hate and discontent raised amongst the Faithful is already too much, why should I add to it?

The Voris/Arbp. Vigneron dust up is different because too many Catholics are ready to go to the mat for the wrong reasons. I'm talking specifically about the defenders of Michael Voris and his "RealCatholic TV" organization.

For those who aren't Catholic and really don't give a rip, this whole affair has been over the term "Catholic" in Voris' organization's title. The Archbishop has said Voris & Co. never received permission to use that word and they should cease immediately. That's where the fun begins.

Hey, Voris DOES put out a lot of thought provoking things via his webcasts on YouTube. Some of them are damned good, some of them are of completely Looney Tunes quality.

One thing he does is routinely claim many Church problems as having originated approx. 50 years ago (read "Fruits of Vatican II"). It's an almost reflexive statement on any given topic. He's as wrong as a football bat, Vatican II and it's changes HAVE been used to cover some abuses but many more of our problems are merely the fruits of long festering rot in the Body of Christ.

If you don't agree with me, fine. It's only my opinion, I'll stick by it until proven wrong. But you will notice that I don't cover my rants with the "Catholic" cloak of respectability, which is what Voris does.

The Archbishop was right in calling him to task on this, he needs to stop trying to pass his commentary off as almost Magisterial in origin.

Voris DOES have a lot of education in the Faith, he received a Sacred Theology Baccalaureate (STB) from Sacred Heart Major Seminary/Angelicum in Rome – Magna Cum Laude. That's a far cry from my own 8 years of attendance at Our Lady of Perpetual Payments Elementary School and the single year of schooling in a now defunct Catholic high school. But he, like myself, is a member of the laity. He is not a member of the clergy, he is not a part of the teaching Magisterium. He is expressing ONLY his own opinions as a Catholic (as I am here) and they should be more easily identified as such. They're not so identified and IMO can be readily mistaken as official Church positions.

So whatever other faults Arbp. Vigneron may have, he is right on the money in this instance. As the leader of the Archdiocese of Detroit he has the responsibility to protect his flock from possibly erroneous teaching. The fact that the teaching we're talking about has a worldwide reach is unimportant, it reaches into the AOD and so it needs to be addressed by the Archbishop there. End of story.

We march onward to the Brave New World...

The encroachment of the nannystate continues: http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/metro/education/parkway-s-use-of-fitness-monitors-raises-privacy-questions/article_af46b549-0f1e-5a41-8a26-7f77c91ced20.html#ixzz1iaLCRtpt

This is pure and utter bullcrap. End of story. What follows is an example of where I feel good intentions can lead.

As it now stands, when my kids visit a pediatrician we'll be asked if there are firearms in the house. My wife, the RN, initially saw nothing wrong with this. Then I gave a "what if" speech:

"What if Texas enacts gun control laws mandating that ammo and firearms in a home are to be kept separate. We both know that's baloney, when you need a gun you need it immediately and fully loaded. So we disregard the idiocy.

Our kids go to the doctor and in a discussion about the home it comes to light that Daddy emptied the .38 the other night before cleaning it. The doctor knows the law and also knows about potential liability for doing nothing. So CPS gets notified.

The next thing we know, theres a CPS worker at our front door with a local cop. Asking to be let inside and explaining just why gets a refusal from you and I. The CPS worker turns to the cop (just doing his job, the poor schmuck) and says theres a real potential the children are in imminent danger in the house. THAT is enough cause for the cop to demand entry with the CPS toady in tow.

Our firearms are produced, the presence of bullets in the cylinder is noted. The CPS worker demands our kids be taken away. It happens.

So now we begin trying to justify our case. Lottsa luck, in the history of Texas there has been only one couple who successfully fought CPS and won. Don't expect your status as an RN to help, as a matter of fact, since you knowingly broke a law designed to protect the children, you'll have to fight like hell not to lose your nursing certification. Tell me if I'm wrong on that one (silence ensued). We can also forget about my status as a retired military man, churchgoer and activist in the local prolife movement. As a matter of fact, those items might count against us.

Okay, now just for a moment realize that none of this really requires an avid anti-gun activist. All it is are a bunch of folks who do their job and don't want any future repercussions from it.

Do you now see why my panties are in a twist about telling the pediatrician anything regarding our home?"

End of my trip down Memory Lane. FWIW, the wife was convinced. I'm sure you see how it pertains to the linked article, the unintended consequences of seemingly beneficial policies can get good people really caught up in the gears of our society.

Now we see the possibility of 24/7 monitoring for health reasons. It currently speaks about activity levels, the article also notes the potential for expanding into the nutrition of a child. But why should it stop there?

"It's for the sake of the children" has become the greatest irrefutable position to take for any legislation. It is also a great tool for removing parental control of the little darlings.

So Billy and Mary are monitored for exercise levels at home. After that comes checking their caloric intake and filling out questionnaires about what gets served for dinner. What laws will be proposed/passed with the information gleaned from that?

What follows after that?

Momma; make the stupid people go away!

I had an email from "Cookie" about this. I just had to check it out. Serves me right!

Boy disciplined after waving gun-shaped pizza slice
Reported By Andy Cordan, Reporter (www.wkrn.com)

SMYRNA, Tenn. - For the rest of the semester, a Rutherford County elementary student has to eat lunch at the "silent table" for allegedly waving around a slice of pizza some say resembled a gun.

Nicholas Taylor attends David Youree Elementary School in Smyrna, about 30 miles southeast of Nashville.

School leaders say the 10-year-old threatened other students at his lunch table with a piece of pizza with bites out of it so it looked like a gun and when asked about it was initially not truthful.

Nicholas' mother LeAnn calls her son's punishment "absolutely ridiculous" saying he was just playing around and never said anything derogatory or anything about shooting anyone.

"The kid across the table from him said it looked like a gun so he picked it up and started shooting it in the air," she told Nashville's News 2 Investigates.

Taylor said she learned of the incident when the school sent her a note saying her son was threatening other students.

James Evans, spokesperson for the Rutherford County School District, said the boy isn't being punished because he had a piece of pizza shaped like a gun.

He's being punished because "some students reported he was making some threatening hand gestures, that he was shooting other kids at the table and they reported it to a teacher," according to Evans.

He continued, "The student didn't tell him the truth about it so he got silent lunch for six days."

Evans called the punishment minor but said the message is clear.

"I realize some might say we are going overboard but the principal is just trying to use an abundance of caution and send the message that we don't play about guns and it's not something we joke around about," he said.

To that, Taylor said her son knows he shouldn't play with guns.

"We don't have a gun in the house," she said. "He plays with light sabers. He's a big Star Wars fan."

In addition to lunch at the silent table, Nicholas has spent time with the school resource officer learning about gun safety.

Taylor said the school system has made it clear that if her son eats his pizza into the shape of a gun again and there is a similar occurrence, he will be suspended.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Just how much more ridiculous does it get? Maybe I don't want an answer to that one.

Believe "gay is okay" or work in another field...

WASHINGTON, December 1, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After losing at a lower court, a counseling student at a public university in Georgia who was threatened with expulsion because she express discomfort with counseling homosexuals, is pleading her case before an Appeals Court this week.

A legal complaint filed on behalf of Jennifer Keeton accuses Augusta State University of placing Keeton on academic probation after she refused to comply with faculty instructions that she must, in their words, “alter her beliefs” on homosexuality and “gender identity.”

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is representing her. The ADF’s media office told LifeSiteNews.com the court had placed a gag order on the case, forbidding either side to discuss the proceedings.

However, many of the case’s details are known from the original lawsuit.

Keeton was pursuing a master’s degree in hopes of becoming a school counselor when she told faculty and students she would have a difficult time counseling a homosexual, because of her deeply held religious beliefs. According to affidavits produced by the university, Keeton had told other students “she would refer gay people to other counselors,” reported Inside Higher Ed.

However, ASU officials said Keeton’s beliefs violate the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics, which states counselors must “avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals.” It adds, “Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination” based on a variety of criteria, including “gender identity” and “sexual orientation…in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons.”

The school drew up a re-education plan that forced Keeton to attend “diversity sensitivity training,” go to homosexual celebrations such as the Augusta Gay Pride Parade, and complete essays discussing how remedial reading assignments about counseling homosexuals have impacted her beliefs.

Her attorney, Jeff Shafer, said on Tuesday that university officials instructed Keeton, “You don’t have to believe it. You just have to say you do.”

When she refused to comply on religious grounds, she was suspended from ASU’s Counselor Education Program. She then sued the state university for religious discrimination. Last August, federal judge James Randal Hall denied her case.

Keeton is not the only Christian to face disciplinary action for refusing to recant her strong Biblical beliefs. Julea Ward was kicked out of Eastern Michigan University’s graduate counseling program in March 2009 after she referred a homosexual client to another counselor.

The Michigan state legislature is currently considering the Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act, which establishes that colleges and universities in that state “shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.”

(End of story, my comments follow.)

According to another article I read on this case, Keeton was interested in becoming affiliated with reparative therapy. So since such a therapy exists, it's safe to assume it employs licensed, degreed professionals. Professionals on the same level as this student was studying for.

Following that line of thought, why would a state university (i.e. funded by taxpayers) take it upon themselves to conduct this persecution of someone not comfortable with the homosexual life style who was aiming to get into an officially recognized field of therapy where her aversions wouldn't be an issue?

I wonder if the same line of reasoning would be followed for a Muslim man who expressed an aversion to treating women, a man who would refer females to other counselors. Would he be going to sensitivity training also? Maybe he'd be required to attend Tupperware parties or join a bunch of hens at the local Chippendales.

How about some chick who had been raped at some point in her life and refused to counsel men? Would she be told her aversion was unacceptable?

As always, some animals are more equal than others.

Gay kiss during a high school musical causes walkout.

HARTFORD, Conn. (CBS Connecticut) — A Connecticut high school musical causes a public walkout after two men in the cast kissed during the performance.

It happened during the “Zanna Don’t!” musical at Hartford Public High School last Friday.

“There are always circumstances (in organizing these programs) under which the values of the student or their family come into play,” said Adam Johnson, principal of the Government and Law Academy at the high school, told CBS Connecticut.

He added that many students expressed a desire to skip the show due to the subject matter.

“It’s a balancing act of individual values and the expectations of the school … (and) it was interesting, actually, seeing the apprehension,” Johnson explained.

“Zanna Don’t!” depicts life at the fictitious Heartsville High, where students with academically-charged interests sit atop the popularity echelon while football players are the outcasts, and heterosexuals must conceal their sexual preference to avoid public scrutiny.

During the show, two men in the cast share a brief kiss — a lip lock that became a great point of contention.

“There was a public walkout by a bunch of students (when the kiss happened) … mostly male,” Johnson said. “It was visually evident (due to the jerseys the team was wearing) that a lot of football players got up and walked out. It was almost a symbolic kind of thing.”

Reportedly, the school began receiving a great number of phone calls. The dean of students was even allegedly paid a visit by a Bible-wielding parent that spoke about homosexuals in an unflattering manner.

“In the weeks prior … we were told by those organizing the play that there was going to be a boy-boy kiss,” said Johnson, noting the importance of accepting homosexual intimacy as society accepts heterosexual intimacy. “When one teacher asked if I wanted to remove it, I said absolutely not.”

The production was produced by a joint effort between a task force created by Leadership Greater Hartford’s Quest program and True Colors. It was one of 16 projects available for the taking by task forces involved in Quest, participant Louise Provenzano explained.

“Our specific task force voted for this project because we believe in it, especially in light of national and local stories about LGBTQ issues and bullying,” Provenzano, who worked on the marketing committee for the project, told CBS Connecticut. “It’s not a comfortable topic for many folks … but our group is very passionate about bringing the message of inclusiveness and … compassion to the community.”

And with Spirit Day – a holiday during which celebrants promote awareness and widespread acceptance of the LGBTQ community – coming up on Oct. 20, the timing seemed perfect.

“Through humor … and music, we’re able to address uncomfortable topics and very serious issues for many,” Provenzano said.

“Most change that comes about does require a certain amount of movement through the uncomfortable – the change process can be a bit messy and disruptive,” Ted Carroll, president of Leadership Greater Hartford, told CBS Connecticut.

After the performance, a talk back session was held to promote a dialog between students, administrators and moderators, and materials were handed out for those seeking more information about issues that affect the LGBTQ community.

Though there were members of the community put off by the show’s content, many also received it positively, Johnson said.

Its message of acceptance is especially important to proponents of “Zanna Don’t!” – which is why two more productions of the show will be performed at Hartford Public High School on Oct. 21. One performance will be for the school’s two remaining academies, and the other will be for the general public.

“I think that we’re at a time in history where there is tremendous focus on bullying and the way students are treating each other, and how they are treated, in school,” Johnson said. “We have to teach students how to respect and honor each other. (The students) need to learn about the diversity of the world and respecting the rights of all people. (I’m) really glad that we did this program.”

(End of story, my comments follow.)

And so the brainwashing/indoctrination of our children continues. I'm almost surprised that those students walking out weren't threatened with some form of retribution such as suspension. But in a few years, after the pro gay groups feel more sure of themselves I'll bet we'll see such measures. At the very least, double secret probation.

Just how much further does the rotting of our society go before we see a point of no return? Maybe we're already there.

I don't see why public funds should be used for this sort of propaganda. Even if it only involves turning on the lights of the auditorium, public funds are involved.

This is the sort of issue where organizations such as the Knights of Columbus and their non Catholic counterparts need to get involved. This is where the local Pentecostal churches need to voice their displeasure. It's time for those who believe they're doing the will of God to stand up and be counted.

Because a direct lack of that attitude and it's associated actions is whats brought us to this.

Only one kid and her parent objected?

Did you ever feel so pissed off your jaws seized up and you were speechless? It happened to me after reading this: TX High School Students Made to Recite Mexican National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance

Gee Ma, why not have the kids recite OUR Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish? How about something from the Cristero War? THAT last is a part of Mexican history and their culture, why not go with that?

This is just so fubar that words to describe it fail me.

Teaching our kids to be good little muslims...

Found this via Jihad Watch at http://www.wsbtv.com/:

COBB COUNTY, Ga. -- A father's complaint that his daughter's homework promotes the Muslim faith could lead to a lesson change in Cobb County.

Channel 2's Tom Regan talked to the father who showed him where his daughter’s homework which said there's nothing wrong with having multiple wives.

The assignment went home with seventh-graders at Campbell Middle School.

The school told Regan the assignment was used to compare the pros and cons of the school's dress policy.

But one parent said he thinks the material shows bias toward Islam and is completely inappropriate for the kids.

"Trying to relate this to school uniforms, the context they put it into, doesn't make much sense to me," parent Hal Medlin said.

Medlin showed Regan the assignment brought home by his 13-year-old daughter. The assignment consisted of a letter from Ahlima, a 20-year-old Muslim woman, and touts the advantage of a wearing a Burqa and finds the way western women dress to be "horribly immodest," according to the assignment.

The assignment shows Ahlima saying she doesn't mind if her future husband takes more wives. "I understand that some Westerners condemn our practice of polygamy, but I also know they are wrong," the assignment said.

"It's promoting or positively depicting their belief that polygamy is fine, if that’s what they believe. But I don't know how you could possibly state that and not have any kind of disclaimer that this is what these people think, but not necessarily what all of us believe," Medlin said.

Another page of the assignment lists the seven conditions for women's dress in Islam, including:

-It cannot resemble the clothing of nonbelieving women -It must protect women from the lustful gaze of men

It also states, "Islam liberated woman over 1,400 years ago. Is it better to dress according to man or God?”

"It represents Islam in a positive manner. That doesn't offend me as much as the fact that it represents no other religions," Medlin said. "To me, this material is being used the way it's used is like tearing a page out of text book and saying here's the whole story."

On Friday afternoon, Regan got an email statement from a Cobb Schools saying the school district didn't create the materials, they were provided by the state. The representative went on to say, “The district will review the material in question and determine if it can be taught in a more balance way or if it should no longer be used."

(End of story, my comments follow.)

So, where is the ACLU screaming about a separation of church (er, mosque) and state? Is there a double standard for followers of the Pedophile Prophet vice the rest of us?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the district to change the lesson. Their statement sounds too much like, "Trust me."

Evidently "gay" is always okay...

I found this via Pewsitter at http://www.pacificjustice.org/:

Ridgecrest, CA--A parent of two young girls was caught off guard recently when her daughters came home from school with questions about a man dressed like a woman on duty in the school cafeteria. The parent was further chagrined when officials in the Sierra Sands Unified School District confirmed the story but insisted their hands were tied.

What continues to floor the parent, Phyllis Fernandez, whose daughters attend kindergarten and third grade at Faller Elementary School, is that the employee’s attire would not be permissible for students. The employee, a substitute lunch duty worker, was wearing makeup and a spaghetti strap shirt, with his bra straps visible to students. District dress code policies for students ban both spaghetti straps and visible undergarments.

“I shouldn’t have to be explaining to my five and eight year old girls why a man at their school is wearing a bra,” said Mrs. Fernandez. “The school believes they have to give special treatment to this individual because of his chosen gender expression, but the learning environment is suffering.”

Attorneys at the Pacific Justice Institute, who are advising Mrs. Fernandez, noted that these types of frustrations are fueling a groundswell of support to repeal SB 48, which would require California schools to promote transgender, bisexual and homosexual historical figures. “Parents are fed up with schools being manipulated by politicians and special interest groups to push an extreme social agenda,” said PJI President Brad Dacus. He added, “Behavior like cross-dressing disrupts the educational environment, and parents have a right to be concerned for their children.”

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Okay, no putting lipstick on this pig and I'm tired of euphemisms and pulling punches.

We're now at a point where anything goes if you're queer. Here's a blatantly open fag allowed to be in the presence of small children. The school district claims they're powerless to do anything. Scared to do anything is probably more like it.

This is where our country has come to. It's wrong. It condones an aberrant mode of thought and behavior. Young children shouldn't have to learn why "Steve" dresses like "Eve". They shouldn't have to be subjected to public displays of homosexual behavior. It's an abomination. The freak show belongs behind closed doors between consenting adults with no children allowed.

We'll pay for this, both those of us who actively promote it and those of us whose silence implies acceptance. God have mercy on us all, but we WILL pay for this and other abominations.