Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist


My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Declare Your Allegiance – Heretics Crusade Gear in Time for Christmas

How to Viciously Put Down Those Haters on the Right!


Over and over I see reports, opinion columns and commentary from the Left about the hatred, stupidity and racism of anyone associated with the Tea Parties.  I myself have never been to a TP demonstration, but I do look at all the information I can.  The actual videos I have seen show a calm and happy bunch of people, a strong contrast to the usual emotion of a Left-wing gathering.  I have also never seen any sign of the blatant racism that is supposed to prevail, especially in their signage…  Well, today Virginia we will be answering the folks with spittle flying from their red faces on their charge that Obama has inspired more hatred, venom and murderous/racist rhetoric in his racist opponents than the Great Satan George Bush II ever had to suffer. Oh, let it be known, I think Bush was/is a fool and, until a certain Chicago gentleman put his heiny in the hot seat, the WORST president in living memory! I mean really Virginia, how bloody embarrassing is it to follow someone like G.W., and in only one year have billboards asking “Miss Me Yet?” with G.W.’s beaming smirk; and in two years be TIED with him for the worst president in MSM polls?

The first claim we will demolish is that the anti-Obama signs are over-the-top and rabidly partisan compared to the Bush-era signs:


youworkforus912photo 6a00d8341c60bf53ef0133ecf23c64970b-500wi 912racecard antioslaves aprilteaparty arrogantmuslimalien assimilation912photo blackdevil912photo blackdevil2912photo drugsapjlmagana nazi6tonyramao1 racisthomophobicweirdness slavery912photo slide_1391_20046_large tpentitlement tpsandiego txtpperv

Now, if you call that over the top and hateful let us enter the Wayback Machine and see how things were in the Bush years:


wanted _44102171_afp416butt 090317-CalgaryBushProtest-13 1544055 59252901_d1a4b3ea19 76512324 Bush_Protest bush_protest_fu bush_raymondjames_p03 bushido bush-protest-shoe-052909  evil_bush_demon immokalee_photo_medium_01 jenin_tikkun_tikal MelissaAtSteeleBushProtest051130 n28_warpigs03 randydandy-PROTEST slide_1391_20046_large

okay… so it seems that the Lefties spewed at least as much venom at Bush… more from what I see.

Now, let us look at the signs that “imply violence” or “contain an implicit threat” directed at Obama lately…

unarmedthistime 912lynchmob 3917804382_4e1eaba387 gun gunman guns912photo guns3912photo keep_my_guns_large teapartyracism14 threat912photo

I do not see a lot of implied violence there, the closest is the one with his Pants On Fire… a phrase that seems to escape the Leftie who posted it under threats… he claimed it must be about “burning blacks out of their towns” (note the broken promises/lies littering the ground)

Now, once again we will compare to the above heinous examples of “Right-Wing bigotry and hatred” the mild and loving expressions of polite dissent with which the warm and caring Left-wingers showered Bush II:


save-mother-earth-kill-bush 1434350img 26450411-M BushWhackerElMarco cd6a881d86730419d2ca3fa9c0067613 Codepink Demonstrates Support Journalist Threw ia3z1tOhqX3l img9676b imheretokillbushsmall kill-all-losers kill-bush-protest-sign-zombietime paws_for_peace_fnb

Is it just me, or did those seem just a trifle more nasty, hateful and downright scary? Especially when they are coming from the political group that claims the “moral high ground” on so many issues of !!!

Ethics? WE don’t need Ethics! WE are The Good Guys(tm)!

Well then, how about the claims that labels of Nazi and comparisons with Hitler are something new to the political landscape; something heinous and in need to stamping out?

First, The anti-Obama signs that ring in the Hitler/Nazi theme…

nazi5 constitutionapjoseluismagans hitler nazi3

Hmm, not a lot there.. let us now look at the scant evidence of anti-Bush protestors using such hateful rhetoric

bush_protest_latam BushSS hitbush Stop_Bush_protest SubtleAntiBushSign _44431920_bush_protest_416ap anti-bush-protest-march-new-york-city

Wow Virginia, not much there is there? NOT!

So, now to the racism accusation… this one has a bit of truth to it, but note how an after-protest handbill left by an anonymous person and a handwritten sign by a young teen are the worst of the lot!!!

These first ones are pretty borderline, but still not bigoted, mostly just putting Obama in an uncomfortable comparison with racists of the past; in the “theft” one the victim is black and in the Uncle Sam poster Obama is NOT depicted as a gangster or thug, just a bastard… and that is certainly a legitimate political opinion…


Now we finally get to the ones that actually have something to them;


This one was just included in the list because it is so blatant… but, it was left AFTER a protest, no attribution, no claimant, could be by anyone, even a provocateur…

Here is one that Finally is no-doubt-allowed racist and stupid! But, note that it is the sign of a child just old enough to be off the leash; also, not a printed sign from any organized group…


Which brings us to the ONE sign I could find that is racist, un-supportable and simply hateful…


So, how did Bush II fair?

 120-2044_IMG  BlackProtestRepublicanNationalConveIMG_4544

Well, it seems that when it comes to hateful rhetoric, nasty slogans and just plain violent fantasies the Left edges out the Right by a nose…

  155-5568_IMGimagesCAI0AJ0L  ringobushitler15 ringobushitler17 IMG_0101 hillary_protest_photo_08

Methinks the Muslims Are Starting To Annoy Narcissist-in-Chief Obama


Here we have an interesting video of Obama speaking with Netanyahu I found on Al-JazeeraEnglish at YouTube.

I am not sure Obama is happy about the response from the Muslim world on his attempts to appease them.  Maybe reality is setting in and, wonder of wonder, miracles of miracles, Obama is waking up to reality.  I doubt his Marxist-friendly version of Islam is quite what the global Muslim community is aiming for.

I think our dear President may have realized that if he allows Iran to nuke Israel only a lightening fast impeachment could save him from the angry mobs; did someone point out that the Obama name could end up being lower down in esteem of historians than the bigoted, and not-so-bright, (last in his class at West Point) Gen. Custer? IS he aware that the stain on his name could exceed that on Jackson’s for his "Trail of Tears" inflicted on the Cherokee nation?

How else can we explain his slow, but steady reversal of attitude on Israel? (If that is really what is happening, instead of simply a more effective "plausible deniability."

Here is a transcript of a recent interview with Israeli TV by Obama; other than his usual racism and self-absorption this is the most open and honest view of Israel I have seen out of the White House since the Election:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

July 08, 2010

Interview of the President by Yonit Levi, Israeli TV

Diplomatic Reception Room

(Conducted July 7, 2010)

5:23 P.M. EDT

Q    President Barack Obama, shalom, and thank you so much for talking with us today.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Q    I’d like to actually open up by asking you about hope, which was such a prominent notion in your campaign and in your presidency.  And how can you convey that concept of hope to Israelis, who’ve seen so many failed attempts at a peace process?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, it’s always a challenge.  One of the things I used to say during the campaign but also at the beginning of my presidency is, being hopeful is not the same as being blindly optimistic.  I think you have to be clear-eyed about the situation.

And Israelis, rightly, look at the past and have skepticism about what’s possible.  They see the enmity of neighbors that surround them in a very tough neighborhood.  They see a track record of attempts at peace where, even when concessions were made, a deal could not be consummatedThey see rockets fired from Gaza or from areas in Lebanon, and say to themselves that the hatreds or history are so deep-seated that changed is not possible.

And yet, if you think back to the founding of Israel, there were a lot of people who thought that that wasn’t possible either.  And if Herzl or Ben-Gurion were looking at Israel today, they would be astonished at what they saw — a country that’s vibrant, that is growing economically at a extraordinary pace, that has overcome not just security challenges but also has been able to overcome challenges related to geography.  And so that should be a great source of hope.

Unfortunately Barry just can’t seem to stay in the real world; he prefers the warm dream of "what I want" to the somber reality of "what can be done with what we have."

Continue reading

A Glimmer of Sense From The White House; Maybe!


This in from the White House Statements and Releases:

"Statement on the UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Cheonan

Today’s UN Security Council Presidential statement condemns the attack by North Korea on the Cheonan and warns North Korea that the international community will not tolerate such aggressive behavior against the Republic of Korea.  The unanimous statement, reflecting the shared view of the 5 members of the Six-Party Talks, constitutes an endorsement of the findings of the Joint Investigative Group that established North Korea’s responsibility for the attack.  We commend the Republic of Korea’s restraint in the face of North Korean belligerence and reiterate our unwavering commitment to the defense of South Korea.  This statement increases North Korea’s international isolation, which includes the strongest sanctions that it has ever faced through UNSC Resolution 1874, as the international community continues to make clear the cost that comes with North Korea’s provocative behavior."

Good News if it is sincere!

It Is Confirmed, Our President is a Unapologetic Bigot!


It seems that the only reason our Bigot in Chief could come up with for why Israel is suspicious of him is that his Middle name is Hussein!

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."

What IS Your Problem Anyway?

idylls king 0013
I had a wonderful, fantastic vision while sitting on the (polite euphemism for toilet applicable to all  individual readers’ culture and tastes)  today.  What would our world look like a few years after a particular, completely unlikely, event. Namely the election in one year of NEW Senators, Representatives, Governors, and state legislatures never before involved in politics.
Just picture it, a government that is comprised of real, articulate, skilled or professional folks. People who have done things.  Imagine a further impossibility; NONE OF THEM ARE LAWYERS!
The quivers surely run down my leg thinking of THAT event Virginia.
What would happen if the Constitution and common sense ran the government?  Could it possibly be worse than the things the Left and Right have brought us with their endless political games that rape the future of We the People on the altar of their ambitions?
Will the paid-off-pundits of the Right who pretend to be Conservative please explain to me why they approve of the Supreme Court decision to equate dollars in marketplace with individual free speech as protected in the Constitution?
Just what is the justification for this equality of “voice” that allows a corporation to drown out the voice of real citizens who have no deep pocket masters?
We may never be able to rid ourselves of the “machine” that exists to promote the power grabbing of the Leftist and Right-Wingers, but we can surely starve it for funding and force it to listen to real people for a change!
And can the hypocrites on the Left who pretend to be Liberal tell me why they condone non-Liberal interference with the PROFESSION of education?
In the halcyon days of the political machine in America the murdering thugs who ran places like Kansas City and Chicago and New York had few morals, but they did have some unbreakable rules, one of which was keep your hands off the roads and the schools.  As long as these rules were kept to the population had little to complain of and the machine flourished. 
Some kind of perverse evolution has occurred over time.  As the governments in America became less and less overtly corrupt, and certainly less violent about it, they also threw the rules away.
Why are the schools across America constantly chasing “Liberal” ideals and consistently failing to improve?  Why are the roads in New Orleans the worst in my experience for a metropolitan area despite the huge income given the size of the city coupled with a, supposedly “Liberal” government?
Both Left and Right have felt no compunctions about interfering in every aspect of our lives motivated less by sense, than some immediate political consideration devoid of human values but rife with moralistic rationalizations.
But, most of all, I demand that the Left and the Right explain to me WHY partisanship is a good thing.  Just what is healthy about viewing the political opposition in a two party system as something to be ELIMINATED from the political process?
Is this not one definition of fascism, no matter the other politics of the proponent? Tell me Mr. Obama, and explain to me Mr. Limbaugh, why you feel a two party system would be healthier as a one party system.

We Must All Hang Together With Fox News, Or Assuredly We Shall All Hang Separately

That’s Treason Glenn!
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the Free Press all seem to be under assault in the West. Progressives and Totalitarians are moving to put Free Speech in chains. No country in the West is immune to their attacks.
From Vienna to Venice Beach we see Socialists, Marxists and Islamists moving to eliminate freedom of speech, religion and the press under the cover of “tolerance” and “multiculturalism”. With many Western leaders complacent or complicit it is past time for a light to shine on this agenda.
Even the U.S. President seems to have been seduced by this movement and its slippery logic.
NBC’s Savannah Guthrie interviewed the man to whom Americans look to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
Ms. Guthrie’s second question for the President made me sit up and take notice. The question was regarding the continuing controversy about FOX News Channel being cut out of the Real Media™ © 2009:
Savannah Guthrie: “…do you think it is appropriate for the White House to say what is or what is not a news organization?”
Obama: ”I think that, understandably since you are in the news business, this is something you are very interested in. I think the American People are a lot more interested in what we are doing to create jobs or how we are handling the situation in Afghanistan.”
S.G.: “Fair enough …but your advisors raised this issue.”
Obama: ”well no, the, uh, I think that what our advisors have simply said is that we are going to take, uh, media as it comes. And if media is basically operating as a “Talk Radio” format then that is one thing, if it is operating as a news outlet that’s another. But it is not something that I am losing sleep over.”
Let us translate the President’s political speech into plain English with the SpinTron 3000 running Kumquat’s iPolitician 2.0 so that we may react to his unfiltered ideas.
iObama: ”I think that, understandably since you are in the [Free Press], [government suppression of dissenting press] is something you are very interested in. I think the American People are a lot more interested in what we are doing [ to pretend] to create jobs or how we are [avoiding] handling the situation in Afghanistan.”
iGuthrie: “[Cool with me boss.] …but your advisors [initiated] this [confrontation and blacklisting].”
iObama: “NO, [o.k. yes, but the reasons WHY make it ok] we are going to take, uh, media as it comes. And if media is basically operating as a [“Free Opposition Press”] format then that [puts them on our black-list], if it is operating as a [“properly deferential” Free Press] that’s [allowable]. But it is not something [my agenda will stumble] over.
No Savannah, not fair or enough. Did no one teach Mr. Obama about Thomas Jefferson? Expedience and politics are no substitute for integrity and the Constitution.
Jefferson: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
“The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”
“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”
“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
How long will it be before President Obama’s naïve introduction of the Orwellian concept of a media blacklist leads to the silencing of not just networks but individual outlets and citizens who fear to anger “The State”?
Already the White House’s chill on the Free Press has produced frost damage. “Journalists” from the middle to the left of the spectrum are voicing their approval of the president’s declaring war on Conservative media. Dan Rather of HD-Net is on record saying the tactic:
Rather: “… has been very effective. And they [The White House] take the attitude that nobody gets a “no-risk shot” at our president. You take a shot and we’ll shoot back, [which] strikes me as sound strategy…”
Time and time again we are told that Free Speech means nothing if it does not allow unpopular opinions to be heard. I do not think there is much doubt what the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Locke would have to say about what is happening in the White House today.
Regardless of the Party in office this is an issue that strikes at the heart of all American freedoms. It is past time for Americans to start standing up for what they believe. For my closing I will again turn to Thomas Jefferson, the most passionate Moderate politician in American history.
“To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.” Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.”

Do Americans Feel Proud of Winning What They Do Not Deserve?

Sometimes when you least expect it Life gets good. I had such a moment this week when I opened an email from an editor at David Horowitz’s NewsRealBlog.com
Making a short story shorter I will now be a contributor to NewsReal Blog.

Between that and seeing a pair of articles cause quite a stir around D.C. from the Senate and House to The Library of Congress I would have to say that this week hasn’t sucked.

Here is my first article for NewsRealBlog.com

One Third of Americans Proud to Win What They Don’t Deserve
2009 October 21

Are Americans asleep, not paying attention, or simply stoned out of their minds? Has the zero-sum mentality become so prevalent that unearned triumphs are something to take pride in? Does seeing “Our Team” wearing medals, while the real winner of the race stands in the shadows, feel good to more than one third of Americans?

Anderson Cooper 360 yesterday discussed recent polls regarding public approval ratings of President Obama. The polls revealed some rather startling information that, if true, shows a significant portion of the population to be uninterested in fair play:

“Most Americans, 56 percent, don’t approve of the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, and only a third believe that Obama has done enough to deserve the prize. But seven in 10 are proud that a U.S. president won the prestigious award.”

Now, my math is not in the rocket science class, but those numbers say a lot to me. Only one-third of Americans think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize but more than two-thirds are proud “our guy” won it. Doesn’t that add up to about one-third of the country being proud to win something undeserved?


“Queering Our Schools” and excercises in denouncing gays for the wrong reasons

(HH here: well here we go again, not satisfied with legitimate concerns like over the top sexual details in early education and the kudos for the NAMBLA spokesman we will now observe a Right Wing partisan in all his glory attempt to oust someone who needs to go while reinforcing weak personal prejudices. No doubt in order to garner votes for Psuedo-Conservatives by “worrying about the children”.)

Fifty-three Republican congressmen yesterday demanded that President Obama fire his embattled “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings. Mr. Jennings’ bizarre sexual agenda for American grade schools is one reason the president should dump this dangerous radical.

(HH: Quite probably, but not for all the reasons that you want. Children are to be taught, not kept in bubble wrap until we thrust them out into a VERY confusing world.)

…book he endorsed was a collection of essays by different authors who supported teaching young children about homosexuality. Mr. Jennings’ foreword explains why he thinks it is important to start educating children about homosexuality as early as activist-educators can get away with doing so. “Ask any elementary-school teachers you know and – if they’re honest – they’ll tell you they start hearing [anti-homosexual prejudice] as soon as kindergarten.” And “As one third-grader put it plainly when asked by her teacher what ‘gay’ meant: ‘I don’t know. It’s just a bad thing.’ ”

(HH: Which is a good reason to keep them in the dark about the entire subject? We should just let them wonder and fantasize and be naive prey for the first plausible line from a sexual predator? Is that what you want so you can pretend that your Victorian concept of children being “harmed” by knowing about sex “too young”? You don’t see a need to tell these kids SOMETHING? When a child that sees a fundamentalist “Christian” who peddles hate instead of the Love of God say that Gays want to come and steal him from mommy and daddy and hurt him…what do you tell him when he finds out that Timmy’s father is Gay while at the school fair?

I am sorry I can’t give you a time machine to go back to when gays pretended they liked the opposite sex and straight folk mostly didn’t know gays were real. )

As another author in the book notes: “Any grade is ‘old’ enough [for the proper education] because even five-year-olds are calling each other ‘gay’ and ‘faggot.’ ” Other writers claim there apparently is no problem getting into these discussions because, “The belief that children are not sexual beings is not substantiated by research.”

(HH: You would just ignore it? Are you under the impression that children are psychological and physiological eunuchs until puberty? Or that they have no sex based perceptions?

We still are waiting for you to explain why it is BAD for children to know the basic facts about the people they are going to become. Explain how you are NOT just harking back to when the CONCEPT of sex was seen as “dirty” and so it is “good” to keep children “pristine” of this disgusting influence as long as possible lest it destroy their “godly character”. Whew, that left a bad taste in my mouth just saying it.)

The authors of “Queering Elementary Education” don’t seem to be bothered by the dearth of evidence to justify their position in favor of teaching children about homosexual relationships. Because they do not provide the names of teachers who told various anecdotes included in the book, there’s no way to check how many of the stories are secondhand exaggerations or even pure fiction.

(HH: spoken like a true disconnected adult. How long has it been since you paid any attention to what the children around you were saying? If you have kids or grandkids of your own how can you NOT know what they babble on about that they pick up from the adult world?

Or is it just that in your little world homosexuality is so hushed, so obviously shameful to even contemplate that the kids don’t share their thoughts and mistaken impressions with you?

The book probably does not make it a formal study because it is obvious. Are you unaware that Junior High and High school age kids use the term “that is so gay” as a put down?

The hilarious part to a moderate like me though is that to these kids, steeped in acceptance of gays, it is NOT a reference to anything homosexual!

That is Humanity for you, the kids have accepted with little resistance the equality of gays as “just people”. But at the same time from the pervasive negative propaganda they hear from, oh people like you, the word itself has become an insult. Does that make you proud or does it frustrate you that they got your hatred of “gay” but still understand that BEING gay is no big deal? In and of itself that is. )

One author in the book attacks the conservative notion that “artificial insemination, transient relationships, same-sex marriages and tangled family structures are not issues children should have to know about.” Others contributors advocate that “sexual-diversity issues are central to multicultural education” and that schoolchildren should sing songs such as “In some families we have two Moms.” Mind you, the authors don’t provide scientific evidence that their policies accomplish the strange goals they push.

(HH: Oh, wow. I just looked at the original article again. It doesn’t list an author; the Washington Times itself takes credit.

I am just floored at the notion that someone so partisan, so out of touch with the changes in the last, oh 70 years at least, has editorial control of a whole newspaper.

let us deconstruct this a bit at a time to avoid choking hazard:
The premise presented is that the book dares to attack a “Conservative” notion. I like that, notion. Not even a belief, just a notion and it is treason to children to defy it I guess.

Let us look at the purported “conservative” thought that is under attack: Children should “NOT HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT” such things as “artificial insemination, transient relationships, same-sex marriages and tangled family structures”. Okaaay! So, since it really IS 2009 and not 1899 what do you advise the parent or teacher or parent of a friend tell a kid who knows nothing he “does not have to know” when:

A) Timmy sees that the new baby next door looks nothing like the rest of the family. Timmy runs home and asks you why this is so when the baby’s mom says she did not adopt him. Given that you feel artificial insemination is something he “does not need to know” aren’t you going to have a lot to explain that could have been taken care of by biology class?

B) Timmy’s best friend Billy is sad because the woman that had been his “mommy” for the last year left and never calls him. Timmy runs home and thinking that all mommy’s and daddy’s are married asks you why Billy’s “mommy” left Billy.

C) I guess you prefer Timmy to cause you and others great embarrassment when he encounters the inevitable same sex couples and gets all freaky because you felt he “didn’t have to know”.

We all wish life was less complicated, never more than when trying to explain part of the adult world to kids. But try to explain to kids intentionally kept in a fantasy world of [Happy Mommy’s and Daddy’s Raising their 2.5 kids with “mom’s eyes but their dads coloring”] for 10 to 16 years how things REALLY work. Or don’t work as the case may be, human relations being what they are. Why do otherwise intelligent adults think that kids should be “protected” from ALL experience that might be useful once they reach marrying/career age?)

“Queering Elementary Education” argues consistently that children should be taught that same-sex-parent families are as normal and common as the traditional two-parent family or single-parent families. But it is one thing to argue certain behavior is acceptable; it is quite another to distort basic facts in an effort to change the worldview of children.

(HH: well it is nice to be able to agree on ONE thing at least in this article. Same sex relationships are as “normal” as the people make those relationships, no matter the plumbing involved. If heterosexuality were the prerequisite of “normal” parents then why are most of the people involved with DCFS hetero? Per capita not by numbers. The most common child molester is a straight male not a gay male or female. Radical “lifestyle” gays are no more representative of homosexuals than Rev. Phelps is of Christians.

But I do agree that the Leftist tendency to view the world via “Pravda” colored glasses is present. The whole “gender Studies” garbage about how we are all bisexual and only convention makes us otherwise is bad science and worse politics. Too bad the article did not start and end with this point.)

Mr. Jennings is one who claims that homosexual couples are more common than they actually are. One of his books titled “One Teacher in Ten” claims that 10 percent of people are homosexuals. Almost no one defends the old Alfred Kinsey survey that Mr. Jennings relied on to make this claim. That 1948 survey interviewed a high percentage of prison inmates and known sex offenders. There’s plenty of more objective studies out there. For example, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that the number of homosexuals in America was less than 1 percent.

(HH: Really? The fact that one study from the 50’s is not wholly accepted as valid means all others since are also wrong? That is a complete strawman argument if I have ever heard one. About the statistics, did you read this study yourself or did someone tell you about it? I hope the latter because otherwise you are seem to be lying! Here is the relevant quote from the study you refer to“:

“The gay and lesbian communities have long adopted 10% as the portion of the population that is homosexual.5 However, a series of recent national studies (Table 8A) indicate that only about 2-3% of sexually-active men and 1-2% of sexually- active women are currently engaging in same-gender sex”

First off 2-3 male and 1-2 female is NOT 1% in any statistics class I have heard of. And the kicker; “CURRENTLY ENGAGING”.

This figure is not even meant to represent all homosexuals. Personally I think that the inherent inability to get fully accurate data makes this answer likely to be on the LOW side. If 2-3% and 1-2% are willing in the hostile environment to be sexually active don’t you think that many places, oh like rural Alabama, are crawling with gays that do the best they can NOT to get caught? Many to my personal knowledge know they are gay but still accept the judgment that there is something “unnatural” about it that can be overcome if they “really want to”. Since they can’t change what they feel, only pretend, the often go radical and over-the-top or stay in the closet and hate themselves.

Oh, and let us not forget the bisexual people who may yearn for the same sex in certain ways but, from being smart enough to stay under the radar, choose to suppress the gay side in exchange for a simpler life.

Do you begin to see just how provincial your declarations are in the light of reality?)

Advocating the indoctrination of kindergarten children based on anecdotal evidence or flawed science isn’t Mr. Jennings’ worst offense. But it’s certainly not what Americans expect from a White House “safe schools czar” who is responsible for making policy decisions that impact children’s safety.

(HH: no, they are not, so why are you cynically using outrage at his real offenses to try to sell your own brand of fascism? Is it not the responsibility of those that choose to be firm against “evil” to be honest themselves about their opponents?

Read the original article or see this commentary and others at http://hereticscrusade.com)