Death to Nidal Hasan and the better food in schools movement?

On November 5, 2009, US Army Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim and psychiatrist at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, opened fire on his fellow soldiers inside the center, screaming “Allahu Akbar,” and killing 13 soldiers and an unborn child in her mother’s womb, and wounding 30 others.

While the victims were military personnel trained in the use of weapons, they were unarmed, forbidden from carrying on base the weapons many would use when deployed. Fortunately, Sgt. Kimberley Munley, a civilian police officer, arrived and wounded the jihadist doctor, interrupting his murderous rampage, but he shot Sgt. Munley three times, and just as the terrorist was about to finish her off, another civilian officer, Sgt. Mark Todd, shot him, and ended the killing spree.

This murderous attack left 13 dead, eight widows, one widower, 12 minor children without a father, 18 parents who lost children, 30 soldiers and one civilian police officer wounded.

There’s little positive from that event, other than that Nidal Hasan is now paralyzed from the waist down, and will likely never walk again.

Despite concerns about Hasan’s radical Islamist leanings, revealed when he was an intern at Walter Reed Medical Center, later as a physician in a PowerPoint presentation to other Army doctors, and Islamic abbreviations and phrases on his business card, the Army did not see fit to remove him from duty, or give him the punishment he so rightly deserved. In fact, an email from an Army investigator reveals the ugly politically correct nature of military service today: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."

Inexplicably, the charges the Department of Defense filed against Maj. Hasan ignored his Islam-based terrorist attack, but was instead labeled “workplace violence,” as if he had merely started a fight with a co-worker or thrown a chair at his boss. Such a designation deprives those soldiers killed and injured in this terrorist attack the benefits they are entitled to and would receive had accurate charges been filed.

During his opening statement at trial, in which he was convicted on all charges, Maj. Hasan apologized, not to the victims and their families, the nation or the Army, but to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life, and admitted shooting the 13 soldiers, and said he wanted the death penalty. Last week the jury sentenced him to death.

As one who believes in the death penalty for certain vicious crimes when guilt is not in question, in this case I hope that the death penalty for Nidal Hasan, a painless lethal injection, is set aside, as it has been for those in the military since 1961.

He deserves to live out his miserable life in abject misery, not in the glory of Islamic jihadist martyrdom for which he so badly hungers. Too bad that murderers, rapists, and others among the worst scum of humanity are treated so well when they are condemned to an American prison for their vicious crimes.

* * * * *

America’s First Ladies have always been advocates for important issues in our country. Rosalyn Carter championed mental health, Nancy Reagan fought against drug abuse, Barbara Bush worked to increase literacy, Hillary Clinton pushed for health reform, Laura Bush advocated for improvements in education, and Michelle Obama has worked to have a positive effect on childhood obesity.

Given the overweight nature of the US population generally, and that of the younger generation specifically, who can logically argue that a better menu in the nation’s public schools is a bad thing?

However, this particular effort has been met with resistance, and even outright rebellion, with school kids refusing to eat the better food being served in cafeterias, and school systems losing money on the deal as a result, and bailing out of the program.

One example of the growing national rebellion against the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which set new nutrition standards for school cafeterias and changed the way children are qualified for school meal programs, occurred recently at a contentious meeting of the Harlan County, Kentucky school board.

Board members were treated to a raft of complaints about school meals, which were called crappy and served in portions that critics say are too small. Someone said the meals tasted like “vomit,” and one parent said, “kids can’t learn when they’re hungry.”

Parents criticized the brown wheat bread, the skim or one-percent-fat milk, and the nonfat chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk.

Where this effort has gone wrong is that it attempts to mandate through law the way kids eat, and even though the standards set by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act are nutritionally superior to previous standards, school kids liked the old food and they don’t like the new food, and therefore don’t eat it.

In it’s own way this is a citizen rebellion against an over-reaching state: the people are against the government trying to tell them how to eat, among other things.

Our government has no business doing this. Perhaps this mild revolution will get the point across. But probably not.

Read More

Remembering Oklahoma City

On April 19, 1995 Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols used a bomb made with fertilizer and diesel fuel in a rented Ryder truck they parked in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City to blow up the Murrah Building. The explosion claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.

This was the worst terrorist attack on the United States until September 11, 2001.

WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

Read More

Continuing our head-long slide down the slippery slope of abortion

When people challenge and attempt to liberalize valued traditions, there is usually great concern that doing so is the first step down the "slippery slope," which ultimately leads to bad results. The “slippery slope” is considered a logical fallacy, but in the case of abortion, evidence supports that it is an apt argument.  

We started down this slope when abortion was legalized 40 years ago. If it was not the original intention, abortion certainly has become a thinly disguised mechanism for after-the-fact birth control. Pregnancy is not a mystery; we know what causes it. There are numerous ways to prevent pregnancy whenever people decide to forego the one certain way to prevent pregnancy: abstinence.

Birth control devices, while not perfect, are very dependable when used properly. However, somewhere along the way it was recognized that there were a lot of people facing the eventual birth of an unwanted child, and some thought that society was obligated to find a way to relieve these folks of having to bear responsibility for their actions. Abortion became the solution for unwanted pregnancy, under the curious label, "a woman's right to choose."

Each now-pregnant woman and her male partner had the right to choose to abstain from sexual intercourse and chose not to. They had the right to choose to use birth control, and either chose not to, or chose not to use it consistently or correctly, or it just didn't work one time. In the great majority of cases, birth control measures do work when used properly, and that means that in the majority of cases the right to use birth control actually was not chosen.

The "right to choose" is little more than a mechanism for prospective parents to avoid creating a child at an inconvenient time: In 2004 fully 74 percent of women getting an abortion said a child would "dramatically change their life."

Since Roe v Wade imposed legalized abortion on the nation in 1973, 55 million abortions have been performed, and approximately 1.2 million future Americans were aborted in each of the last several years. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and nearly half of those are aborted.

Planned Parenthood is the nation's most prolific provider of abortions, performing about 1-in-4 total U.S. abortions each year, chalking up 334,000 in 2011. It received $542 million from taxpayers that year, about 40 percent of its total revenues.

And since 1973 we have witnessed the slide down that slippery slope. It has been considered acceptable by a significant number of Americans to end a pregnancy anywhere from the morning after to the day when the baby should be born healthy and ready for life.

We have been treated to horrors such as partial birth abortion where the baby is allowed to be born, but not completely, with part of the child still in the birth canal so that a butcher with MD or DO after their name can kill the child before it is "born." This nefarious procedure takes hair-splitting to a new level.

A year ago a giant slide down the slippery slope occurred when two Australian ethicists – Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne – provided an answer to the question, "When does a fetus become a person?" Their answer: it doesn’t matter. They argued in the online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so, too, should be the “termination” of a newborn.

This cold-blooded idea has now infected the United States. That same concept appeared in testimony at a Florida legislative committee that was considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion and is moving on the table and struggling for life. A Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates lobbyist endorsed the right to "post-birth abortion." The lobbyist, Alisa LaPolt Snow, stunned legislators when she said that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion "should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."

This is nothing more than pre-meditated murder, and is not so different from first responders executing a seriously injured accident victim. And just how far does this "right" to post-birth abortion extend? The first birthday? The difficult years of adolescence? Or perhaps it will extend many years after the botched abortion when under as-yet-unknown elements of the Affordable Care Act bureaucrats may be in the position to determine that it will cost too much to keep an elderly patient alive.

Fortunately, the tide appears to be turning against the grizzly practice of abortion. Last June a Gallop poll showed that 50 percent identified themselves as "pro-life" compared to 41 percent who said they were "pro-choice." And, 51 percent said abortion is morally wrong, compared to 38 percent who said it is morally acceptable. And some state legislatures have passed tighter restrictions on the procedure.

This attitude favoring preserving life and restoring personal responsibility is one small ray of light in America's otherwise darkening culture.

Read More

Accepting Pedophiles And All Varied Paraphilia: Hebe And Epheb

Stolen from Maggie's Notebook with permission by Findalis

In August 2011 I posted an article titled Academia Normalizing Pedophiles With Minor-Attracted Persons: Hebephile, Ephebophiles and Pedophiles. The Hebes and the Ephebs were new to me. “Hebe” was the goddess of youth and cupbearer for the gods; Epheb, also from Greek mythology, and generally referring to an adolescent, but who knew this ancient mythololgy could legitimize the abuse of our children in the 21st Century. I missed most talk radio this week, but a reader emailed and told me Rush Limbaugh was talking about Academia and Pedophilia and their attempts to drag it into accepted mainstream thinking, and the reader kindly mentioned my 2011 article. You see, if your are one of these three “philes,” Ped, Epheb or Hebe, it is simply your sexual orientation, (certainly not a crime except in the eyes of the unreasonable). (See and Update below)

Normalizing Pedophilia, Hebephilia, Ephebophilia

Stacey McCain responded to Rush’s conversation this week by quoting his own article in The Washington Times in April 2002:

Promoting pedophilia
Attempts to legitimize adult-child sex on rise
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A new book that says child molesters are not a major peril to children is part of a larger movement within academia to promote “free sexual expression of children.”

The movement to legitimize sex between adults and children is “gathering steam,” warns Stephanie Dallam, researcher for the Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice and the Media in Philadelphia, an organization that deals with prevention and treatment of child abuse.

“Some people view children as the next sexual frontier,” Ms. Dallam says.

Feminist writer Judith Levine’s book “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids from Sex” has been condemned by those who say she excuses sexual abuse of children – a charge she strongly denies.

Ms. Levine says she was “misunderstood” after a news article last month quoted her saying a boy’s sexual experience with a priest “conceivably” could be positive.

From McCain’s article dated January 11, 2013, referring to Judith Levine’s book referenced above:

[Levine] said, “The research shows us that in some minority of cases, young – even quite young – people can have a positive sexual experience with an adult. That’s what the research shows.”

Featuring a foreword by Clinton administration Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Ms. Levine’s book endorses a Dutch law, passed in 1990, that effectively lowered the age of consent to 12. Ms. Levine cites research about “happy consensual sex among kids under 12,” and writes: “America’s drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them.” Read more…

Hebephilias are those who have a sexual preference for children in the early years of puberty, ages 10-14.  Ephebophilias prefer children in the later years of adolescence. Pedophiles prefer prepubescent children. At this conference, there will be an effort to establish whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder.  Put them all together and this group is known as paraphilias.

My 2011 article centered around an August 2011 conference to exchange ideas WITH “minor-attracted persons,” sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of paraphilia activists. The American Psychiatric Association stated that it is important to have “accurate and complete scientific information” on the Ped, the Hebes and the Ephebs. Are the three a mental disorder, or are they not (note that Ephebophilia, attraction to older adolescents, is not considered a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association).

At the 2011 conference, Dr John Z. Sadler, a professo of Medical Ethics and Psychiatry, spoke on “Decriminalizing Mental Disorder Concepts – Pedophilia as an Example.” His time at the podium examined this:

(2) If Pedophilia and related categories are to be preserved as legitimate,&nbsp nonmorally value-laden disorders, then they require a preponderance of nonmorally-value-laden diagnostic descriptors in their diagnostic criteria.

B4U-ACT makes it clear that being sexually attracted to minors is an attraction the adult does not choose to have. It just happens. We don’t know why diagnostically, and/or the person is a victim of a mental disorder, but Dr. Fred Berlin, quoted on the B4U-ACT website, clearly normalizes child predators:

Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults. A recent Journal article documented that the vast majority of individuals with pedophilia showed no evidence of either antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder. It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so.

Fred Berlin, M.D.
National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of Sexual Trauma

The key here is Dr. John Sadler’s quest to put paraphilias into a “nonmorally value-laden disorder,” and to achieve that goal, we need “nonmorally-value-laden diagnostic descriptors” to properly put the paraphilia into a normal sexual orientation.

Rush Limbaugh explains a Guardian (UK) article:

The argument being made in the piece is that the desire for sex with children is a natural part of the human condition.  And, in fact, if we acknowledge it, and encourage it, we can actually somehow better protect children.  That’s in the story, too.  It’s the same thinking, if you remember back in the nineties, when we were told that kids are going to have sex, you can’t stop them.  And that’s why we needed to give away condoms in the schools.

Remember we had stories from Long Island about parents who said that they willingly let their daughters’ boyfriends spend the night because it was better if their daughter was gonna have sex in a clean bedroom rather than the backseat of a car.  Well, same thing here.  We can better protect children if we know that they’re having sex with adults rather than it being done on the sly…

In fact, the article in the Guardian actually quotes some academics. (For those of you in Rio Linda, that’s college professor types.  These are the people you see that have leather arm patches on their sport coats.)  Academics are quoted in the Guardian piece saying that sex with adults does not hurt children.  Normalization.  So Jon Henley decided he’d write a whole piece on this, normalizing pedophilia, where he quotes extensively and looks into it and finds out what this is all about.  Read more at Rush Limbaugh 

“Normalization” has to be great news, offering hope to pedophile priests and pastors across the globe, fathers who have abused their own children in this heinous way, female teachers who rape their young adolescent male students, and as Rush says, Jerry Sandusky. Once “nonmorally value-laden descriptors” are decided upon, published and sanctioned with the help of the American Psychiatric Association, The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) can crawl back out of their dark hole…oh but wait, maybe they didn’t make it all the way underground. The NAMBLA website, with childish colors and a sweet print of two young boys smeared with mud from playtime, lounging on a log near a seaport, greets visitors.
From Boston Magazine May 2001:

Boys flocked to the three-story, wood-shingled house on Mountain Avenue in Revere for the teenage version of the Holy Grail: an endless supply of beer and weed. Being drunk and stoned made everything-from the air hockey to the movie watching-significantly more enjoyable. There was also money to be had. The pocket cash came from the local men, who especially liked it when the local boys (hustlers, gay teens, straight teens) lounged around the house with their shirts off.

Then there were smiles all around.

There was also sex. The boys had sex with each other. The boys had sex with the men. All of this was done quietly, because neighbors would later say that they didn’t see or hear anything unusual coming from the house. There were no naked boys loitering in the doorway, no drunken men stumbling in the back yard, no obvious signs of depravity. It was a normal house, the neighbors thought, until they learned that it wasn’t.

In June 1977, police arrested the house’s owner and announced that it was the national headquarters of a sordid, pornographic sex ring. It was a stretch to call it a “ring,” but Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne declared that the arrests were just “the tip of the iceberg.” There had to be other perverted people in other wood-shingled houses. And Byrne had a way to catch them: A hotline people could call with anonymous tips about molesters…

Everybody was talking about the case, which led to the indictments of 24 men. During an interview on a Boston television station, poet and outspoken boy-lover Allen Ginsberg joked about the scandal. “I had sex when I was 8 with a man in the back of my grandfather’s candy store in Revere, and I turned out okay,” Ginsberg declared before being hurried off-stage as the station cut to a commercial…

The story wraps up what you need to know:

Could NAMBLA’s founders have had any idea that they would become America’s symbol of organized depravity? That a group founded mostly by eccentric, boy-loving leftists would come to be considered Public Enemy Number One in the nation’s battle against child sexual abuse?

NAMBLA for Obama

UPDATE 10:36 pm: The photo above is unattributed. A reader found it some time ago but cannot remember where.

Brings back rude memories of Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe School Czar, doesn’t it? Or ACLU President for 16 years, Nadine Strossen who kept convicted felon Steven C. Cunningham by her side, as as her Chief Aide (Strossen left the ACLU in 2008):

Steven C. Cunningham was convicted of the murky charge of Child Endangerment in the State of New Jersey. What is child endangerment? Did he fail to buckle a child’s seatbelt? Did he leave a small child at home, unattended? Did he go shopping with a child and let the child wander away? Did he allow a child to assault another child – endangering the assaulted? Did he let a child play with a medicine bottle?

No, that’s not what he did. He had three online chats with a boy that he believed was 12 years old, but was actually a police officer. According to charges filed, the phone calls were lewdly graphic and he attempted to meet “the child” somewhere. Cunningham was permanently disbarred in the State of New Jersey, but it appears that he is still licensed to practice in the State of New York and continues in the position of Chief Aide to ACLU President Nadine Strossen.

Since Strossen’s office will not confirm or deny Cunningham’s important position as her Chief Aide, why do I think he is still, indeed, with the ACLU? Here’s why: A search of New York State Unified Court System eCourts site confirms that Steven Christie Cunningham is licensed to practice in New York. Is Steven Christie Cunningham the same convicted Steven C. Cunningham? I think so. After this morning’s “no comment” from Strossen’s office, I called the phone number for Steven Christie Cunningham given on eCourts website. That call was answered by the New York Law School voicemail. When I selected Cunningham’s name from the list offered, the call was answered by Nadine Strossen’s office – the same young man who took my first call this a.m. and refused comment.

So much for the ACLU’s interest in your civil liberties or mine…our right to know if a man convicted of child endangerment is an integral part of the ACLU daily operations.

The New York State Unified Court System page today says Steven Christie Cunningham “resigned from bar – disciplinary reason” but fails to give a date. The ACLU, at the highest level, ‘normalized’ pedophilia.

As Rush said: Don’t pooh-pooh the Left’s push to normalize Pedophilia. Graphic courtesy of Wizbang

********************************************************************

The agenda of the Left is to destroy the morals of the people of the United States.  First destroy marriage and chastity.  Then accept Infanticide (aka Abortion) as a normal alternative to birth control.  Then accept homosexuality as just "Another lifestyle choice".  And now to accept the raping of our children.

In the Netherlands this is already acceptable.  The age of consent is 12.  A former Surgeon General and leading Doctors in this country endorse the idea.  They cry we should allow children to be raped indoctrinated into the "joys" of sex at a young age.  And the ACLU is gearing up to destroy our children in the name of "Civil Rights".

What justice will there be for our children when this becomes legal and we are forced to turn our precious children over to the local molester for indoctrination?

Read More

My Confession

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in G-d are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship G-d? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her: “How could G-d let something like this happen?” (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said: “I believe G-d is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect G-d to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?”

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash G-d and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the L-rd, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of G-d is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what G-d thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

Merry Christmas!

Read More