PTA stifles input from ex-gays

It would appear that the Pink Hand has more sway over the minds of our nation's young people than previously imagined...

"The National Parent Teacher Association has denied a pro-family organization that advocates for the ex-gay community, Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays, the right to exhibit at the PTA's national convention, June 10-13, in Memphis, Tenn.


PFOX was told in a letter from the PTA's president, Charles J. "Chuck" Saylors, that PFOX's mission, goals and objectives were "not in harmony with the National PTA's Diversity and Inclusion Policy."...


A PTA spokesperson said the organization had no additional comment regarding PFOX, and neither Saylors nor PFOX could be reached for comment. However, the PTA's list of exhibitors for the national convention includes the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Asked why PFLAG was allowed to be an exhibitor but not PFOX, Martinez said only that PFOX's mission and goals did not line up with the PTA's....



Why is it gay groups meet the PTA Diversity and Inclusion Policy but our families do not? 'Diversity' and 'inclusion' should mean exactly that -- diversity and inclusion of everyone," PFOX executive director Regina Griggs said in a statement. "... The PTA has become a left-wing advocacy group instead of serving the needs of all children."

Indeed, why does such liberal, group-think mentality that submits to the meaningless mantras of "diversity" and "inclusion" steadfastly refuse to heed it's own advice? The world is rife with the testimonies of people who were formerly gay and have later renounced such a destructive lifestyle. Why do I have a feeling that PFLAG will conveniently gloss over the fact that gays have dramatically lower life expectancies than heterosexuals along with much higher risks of mental disorders ? I believe the term we are looking for here is that such statistics represent "An Inconvenient Truth" that to face and meaningfully address would be eventually wind up questioning the commonly accepted, conventional "wisdom" on the topic that is churned out like political propaganda by left-wing elitists with their heads in the sand.

The Ethicist, Bill Clinton

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this one...

"Bill Clinton calls La. senator 'sinner' in fundraising letter



"Former President Clinton has sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under his own name warning that Republicans are trying to "derail' President Obama's agenda.

Not much unexpected there.

But along with the letter, Clinton has included a flyer from the DSCC that's bound to raise eyebrows.

"DSCC funds go towards efforts to unseat far-right Republican senators like admitted sinner David Vitter..." the flyer says, referring to the Louisiana senator who admitted patronizing a prostitution service when he was in the House.

Vitter has been a Clinton foe for a long time, calling on President Clinton to step down in 1998 because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

In 2009, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-1 to approve President Obama’s nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State.

Casting the sole “nay” vote was Vitter, who was concerned about Bill Clinton’s “multimillion dollar minefield of conflicts of interest.”

Next time, Clinton -- an admitted sinner in his own right -- might want to check the small type in campaign material he distributes."

Indeed, he would be better off proof-reading the literature that his cronies send out with his name on it. Is this the same Bill Clinton of soiled, blue dress fame who looked right at you and said "I never had sex with that woman", and then sparked national debate on the definition of the word "sex"?



But it's not all bad news people. Last night in New Jersey, former Philadelphia Eagles offensive lineman, John Runyan has won the Republican nomination to run for a House seat in in the third congressional district. As anyone can deduce from my email address, I've spent many a Sunday afternoon watching the Eagles play and I know the guy is a hard worker. He's the type of guy you would hate to play against and yet love to have on your team. Good Luck John!

Something's Rotten in Brazil

As oil and ethanol revenues have increased over the years, Brazil is starting to emerge as a player (or wannabe player) on the world scene. Their addition of 2,600 peacekeeping troops in Haiti helps relieve the US do the heavy lifting in other parts of the world rather than having to coordinate such efforts in our own hemisphere.

With the election of Barack Obama there were hopes that he would be able to work well with a fellow leftist like socialist president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. There were hopes that Lula might be able to work well with such leftists in the US like Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when it came to international relations. However the reality is that Brazil is joining the "Blame America First" crowd and is casting their lot in with the Hitler of out time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the US is trying to initiate "crippling sanctions" on Iran through the United Nations Security Council

"Ankara, Brasilia, and Beirut have yet to declare whether they would vote against the resolution or merely abstain, but they indicate that they do not intend to support the sanctions. In the aftermath of the council resolution’s passage, several Iran-enablers beyond Turkey, Brazil, and Lebanon could yet declare that the resolution does not apply to them.

Mr. Obama, who came in promising to “heal” the rift that his “unilateral” predecessor opened with the rest of the world, will end up with pronounced divisions at the most prominent international body, over the most important foreign policy matter of his presidency to date. The comparison will make Mr. Bush seem like a world “uniter.” Link

Brazil has ambitions to develop nuclear technology as well. However the Brazilians seem to have diffculty in understanding that the United States probably wouldnt be nearly as worried by such efforts by a nation that hasnt fought a major international war since 1865-1870 against Paraguay and another country that rages Jihad 24/7/365 and promises to wipe a country "off the map".

It's not all bad news though. Although Lula has indicated he is against sanctions, he also stated "that he will try to convince Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a visit in Tehran...to restart negotiations to ease concerns about the nation's nuclear program." Right. Good luck with that.

Thomas Sowell sums it up best in his article from today when he stated...

"A newspaper headline said: "U.S. Growing Impatient with Iran." Boy, won't that scare them to death? If they keep going, and make enough nuclear bombs to blast us to smithereens, we will go to the United Nations and get a resolution passed, condemning their actions-- or, if the U.N. won't go that far, deploring their lack of cooperation."

I couldnt agree more.

Britain only the latest in a long line of those Thrown Under the Bus by Obama

After Jeremiah Wright, Jim Johnson and his own "typical white person" grandmother, Britain now joins what has become a long, distinuished list of those thrown under the bus by our 44th president of the United States...

"Thanks in large part to a deadly debacle at sea, things are getting shockingly tense between the US and a critical ally.

Israel? Yes. But also Britain.

President Obama’s drill-sergeant policy toward BP — yell more, maybe they’ll shoot straighter — has started to annoy British writers who say Obama’s attacks on BP do more harm than good.

“This crisis has injected an animus into transatlantic relations unseen since the days of George III,” said Telegraph columnist (and former BP exec) George Trefgarne.

Daily Mail columnist Stephen Glover said Obama harbored “anti-British prejudice” dating all the way back to Obama’s allegation in “Dreams from My Father” that his grandfather was tortured by the British army during the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya....

Immediately after taking office, Obama insulted Churchill (a bust of whom he returned to Britain), (pictured above) the Queen (by giving her an iPod loaded with his speeches) and then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown (whom he dismissed after a 30-minute chat, giving him a bunch of DVDs that won’t even work in the UK).

Last year a State Department official told Britain’s Daily Telegraph, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

BP has said from the beginning that it will bear the cost of the Gulf spill. It will also face huge civil suits. Obama doesn’t need to act in order for BP to be punished.

Nevertheless, to make the boss look like he’s in charge, his administration keeps threatening BP with thuggish language (“We will keep our boot on their neck”) and made public a criminal probe — something the Justice Department doesn’t normally do until it actually files charges....

Why announce a criminal case that may result in no charges, or minor ones? (Attorney General, Eric) Holder’s little hissy fit helped knock $18 billion off the market value of BP stock. (Exxon spent $4.3 billion on the Valdez cleanup and litigation.) Holder also spooked other oil stocks, which dragged down the Dow Jones average with them.

Even if you think being buried headfirst in an oil well is too good for BP execs, every time Obama lashes out at them, he’s knocking down innocents. BP is Britain’s largest company and the biggest holding in most British pension funds. About one-seventh of all the dividends paid out in the British equivalent of the Dow, the FTSE 100, came from BP. In Britain’s The Independent, a left-wing environmentalist newspaper, columnist Andreas Whittam Smith wrote, “BP has been trying to do the right thing,” “BP’s success is a national interest,” and “We don’t want to lose BP."

None of this is helping the matter at all. All resources of the federal government should be directed at stopping the leak. Investigations can begin afterward. As if on cue, democrats are already blaming George W. Bush for the spill and conveniently leaving out that the Obama administration awarded the platform in question a safety award just last year. Exactly where does the buck stop with this administration and when is Obama held accountable for what happens on his watch? Anybody?

Episcopal Church ordains lesbian bishop

Basically, I'm a "live and let live" sort of person. I couldnt possibly care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. However, it's with a little more than a little tripedation that I read the following in an article today......

"A West Coast diocese of the Episcopal Church has become the first to ordain an openly lesbian bishop, further straining the relationship between the U.S. branch and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Mary Douglas Glasspool, 56, was consecrated as an assistant bishop at the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles in May with about 3,000 people in attendance. While she is the first openly homosexual woman to be promoted to such a status, she follows the ordination of the church's first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson, who was consecrated in 2003.

"I am a reconciling person and I will seek to reach out and engage with people who believe or think differently than I do, and try to build a relationship with them," Glasspool said, according to Reuters.

Glasspool will assume her post at the 70,000-member diocese July 1. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said her ordination "raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion but for the Communion as a whole," but he did not elaborate."

Can anyone discern for me what the Hell Archbishop Williams is saying here? It's as ambiguous as Ms. Glasspool's gender if you didnt know any better and just had a quick glance at her above picture. The world is slowly going to Hell in the proverbial handbasket. This is just another mile marker on the way.

UPDATE: I see that Fr Longenecker (who's blog I link to on the right) has posted the video of her "ordination" if you want to call it that along with the following dire disclaimer... "Warning: liturgical abuse, heresy, elderly hippies and open Episcopaganism on display." Ha!

Israel Alone

Spelled it right this time, right Froggy? Anyway, one of the columnists that I link to on the left margin, Larry Elder (pictured above), brought up an interesting question that I'm going to throw out to you regarding the recent "flotilla" incident off the coast of Gaza... "In 1962, the United States imposed a naval blockade -- a "quarantine" -- on Cuba. What would we have done to a "humanitarian" flotilla determined to help Fidel Castro place Soviet missiles 90 miles from Florida?"

It's a legitimate question. The only difference that I can tell is that the threat to the US back then was nuclear missles whereas in Israel's present day case it would be from a terrorist organization (Hamas).

Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated "the right of the State of Israel's to defend itself" so what is to be done in a situation like this? Buehler? Anyone?

The Coming Resignation of Barack Obama

Although I am personally not so bold as to predict that which Peter Ferrara is predicting in today's article in The American Spectator, I respect his opinion. I find his analysis to be interesting nonetheless...

"Months ago, I predicted in this column that President Obama would so discredit himself in office that he wouldn't even be on the ballot in 2012, let alone have a prayer of being reelected. Like President Johnson (pictured above) in 1968, who had won a much bigger victory four years previously than Obama did in 2008, President Obama will be so politically defunct by 2012 that he won't even try to run for reelection.

I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it that far. I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012. Like my previous prediction, that is based not just on where we are now, but where we are going under his misleadership.

Watergate was supposed to have established that Presidents are not above the law. If that is so, President Obama may have to resign for breaking the law in the Sestak affair.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is now the Democrat nominee for the Senate seat held far too long by Arlen Specter. President Obama induced Specter to switch parties and give the Democrats their very temporary, 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority, in return for endorsing him for reelection and promising him no opposition in the Democrat primary. But Sestak had already announced that he was running for the seat, and he refused to get out. Two week ago, Sestak defeated the unprincipled, opportunistic Specter for the Democrat nomination, continuing the perfect string of everyone who Obama endorses and campaigns for going down to defeat.

For months now, Sestak has publicly claimed that President Obama tried to keep his promise to Specter by offering him a high-ranking Administration appointment if he would get out of the race. The rumor is that Sestak, formerly an Admiral, was offered appointment as Secretary of the Navy. The problem is that a federal statute explicitly provides that it is a federal felony, punishable by up to one year in prison, to attempt to bribe a candidate with a federal job, or anything of value, to influence an election."

The article goes on to point out what can be conscrued as either incompetency or outright negligence on the part of the administration insofar as plugging an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Just where is all of this compentency we were promised? Rush Limbaugh muses...

"..a column in the New York Post today by Kirsten Powers (she of the liberal persuasion). Her column was entitled, "Where was Plan A?" and here's the pull quote from the piece: "It also shouldn't be a secret that no matter how many inspections and safety requirements you have, you can't ever completely prevent disasters like this one. If you're going to permit offshore drilling, be prepared to respond to a spill. If he promised us anything, Obama promised us competence. Instead, we've gotten the Keystone Cops." This is a body of thought that is starting to permeate throughout the political sector, including even people on the leftist side of things. There clearly has not been any federal presence here oriented toward solving the problem. There has been no "competence" on display.

There's just been a bunch of petulance, finger pointing, blaming, and demand (doing Obama impression), "Plug the damn hole! Just plug the hole," and as I pointed out yesterday: We don't have a leader here. A community agitator and organizer is not a leader. You know, everything has gotten done for Obama throughout his life. Things have been taken care of. If he's a C student in reality, he got an A or a B probably. There have been people around to take care of things. Now he's in charge, and even though he promised all this competence, we don't see any of it, and a lot of people are noticing."