PFOX Highlights Gay Inc.'s Antagonism Towards Former Homosexuals‏

Three cheers for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays for fighting for the freedom of ex-gays to have their voices heard. While certain school districts simply lap up whatever propaganda is offered up by the Pink Hand such as The Day of Silence, PFOX offers an alternative view by encouraging students to print and distribute flyers that promote the organization's mission and resources to offer a balanced view on this chosen, alternative lifestyle...

"It lets people know that PFOX can offer resources for parents and students as well as ex-”gay” speakers for schools or clubs, books for libraries and other information.

“Every year thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity through non-judgmental environments or their own initiative. Their decision is one only they can make. However, there are those in society who refuse to respect an individual’s right to self-determination,” the brochure explains. “Consequently, formerly gay men and women are discriminated against simply because they dare to exist. Ex-gays and their supporters are denied equal access and support, forcing them to remain silent for fear of negative reactions and disapproval.”

The brochure documents that “there are no replicated scientific studies to support hat a person can be born ‘gay.’ No ‘gay gene’ or gay center of the brain has been found. No medical test exists to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is based on feelings and is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Some teens are labeled ‘gay’ or other names even though they do not have same-sex attractions. Appearance is not a reliable means to know what another person feels. No one should be labeled based on the perception of others. Name calling is wrong because the victim can begin to believe what others tell them about themselves, which may be completely false labeling and cause gender confusion.”" (emphasis mine)

Outstanding PFOX! May others learn by your example and refused to be silenced when doing the right thing might not be popular thing to do. The Parent Teachers Association has already shown themselves to be completely against the freedom of expression in classrooms on this subject. Oh, that students might have the liberty to hear both sides of the subject and then decide for themselves.

Why Leftist Policies are so Detrimental to Blacks‏

Economist Thomas Sowell (above) again hits the nail squarely on the head by laying out in vivid detail how the party that gives lip service to compassion and caring to the lowest members of the societal scale actually winds up destroying black lives with their inept and misguided policies...

"One of the things that turned up, during a long-overdue cleanup of my office was an old yellowed copy of the New York Times dated July 24, 1992. One of the front-page headlines said: “White-Black Disparity in Income Narrowed in 80′s, Census Shows.”

The 1980s? Wasn’t that the years of the Reagan administration, the “decade of greed,” the era of “neglect” of the poor and minorities, if not “covert racism”?

More recently, during the administration of America’s first black president, a 2011 report from the Pew Research Center has the headline, “Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.”

While the median net worth of whites was 10 times the median net worth of blacks in 1988, the last year of the Reagan administration, the ratio was 19-to-1 in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. With Hispanics, the ratio was 8-to-1 in 1988 and 15-to-1 in 2009.

Race is just one of the areas in which the rhetoric and the reality often go in opposite directions. Political rhetoric is intended to do one thing – win votes. Whether the policies that accompany that rhetoric make people better off or worse off is far less of a concern to politicians, if any concern at all."

None of this comes as any suprise as even blacks are beginning to abandon Chairman Zero in droves as they are beginning to realize that Obama simply uses them as useful pawns like he does anyone else that he decides is politically expedient at the moment.

The 98 Percent of Catholic Women Used Contraception Myth

"According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception" Source: whitehouse.gov, Link

While the White House and their unthinking synchophants are uncritically parroting the line that "98 percent" of Catholic women have used contraception, there is a rising chorus of questions being raised about the methodology utilized in the cited study that the regime is using to buttress their propaganda...

"During the recent debate over the Obama administration's birth control mandate, White House officials and many reporters have repeatedly said that 98 percent of all Catholic women have used birth control at some time in their life. This claim is being disputed.

The statistics come from an April 2011 study on women and contraceptive use published by the Guttmacher Institute. Reporter Mollie Hemingway stated bluntly on GetReligion.org, "Guttmacher erred in what it claimed were the results of its own study."

The study used a survey of 7,356 females aged 15 to 44 conducted between June 2006 and December 2008 by the National Center for Health Statistics. The sample did not include Catholic women older than 44...

..the sample itself is narrower than even Catholic females aged 15 to 44. A footnote under the chart states, "restricted to sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant." (The study defines "sexually active" as those who reported having sex in the previous three months.)"

In sum, the study finds that 87 percent of Catholic females between the ages of 15 and 44 who are having sex, not pregnant, not recently pregnant and trying to not get pregnant have used some form of birth control – a statistic far removed from saying that 98 percent of all Catholic women have used birth control."

Are there any other groups being left out of the (now we're down to) 87 percent? I guess we'll never know being that the last thing that the White House is interested in is finding out the truth in these numbers. This regime, through hook or crook, will manipulate it's way utilizing any method possible into pushing the pro-abort agenda.

Obamacare little more than thinly disguised Social Engineering

If you have a moment and this sort of thing interests you, check out George Neumayr's latest offering which pulls no punches in describing the disasterous notion of Obamacare. Here's a snippet...

"On one level, Obama is nothing more than a glib and empty pol, who careens from focus group to pollster. But on another level, buried deep within his cold and rootless personality, he is a man of perverse tenacity, a convinced socialist and secularist who was trained long ago to run the ball into the end zone for radicalism...

Such a deluded Democratic president was bound to overreach disastrously. Obamacare is a "big f -- king deal," Joe Biden whispered into his ear. And it is -- an unconstitutional coup disguised as altruistic legislation that was rammed through Congress by reckless partisan hacks who hadn't even read it.

But the central planners and social engineers from Planned Parenthood had pored over the bill carefully. The passage of the legislation left them giddy with excitement, as they knew its unread provisions would soon turn into nooses for their religious enemies on the right."

Three cheers for Neumayr for calling out Obama and his mind-numbed minions on this deliberate coup on the constitution and the American people.

Thank You Georgia!

Finally a state has the cahones to stand up to the legal bullies utilized by Obama...

"In the courtroom of Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, sworn testimony was delivered rapid-fire over two hours to the effect that Obama is not qualified to have his name on the 2012 presidential ballot because his father was not a U.S. citizen, which precludes him from being a “natural-born citizen,” a clear, unambiguous requirement of the Constitution.

Obama refused to honor a subpoena to attend the hearing, produce records answering the charges or even send legal representation to dispute the evidence. Instead, they sent a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp suggesting the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.”

In response, Kemp warned Obama and his counsel that if they chose not to participate in the proceedings, “you do so at your own peril.”

The judge is expected to rule in the case shortly. However, he has little choice but to issue a default judgment in favor of the challenge – potentially removing Obama from the ballot in Georgia in November.

That would be an astonishing development to the major media in this country that have collectively scoffed at and caricatured the notion that there is any doubt as to Obama’s eligibility."

Already the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether the excuse of health or family will be offered up for Obama's soon-to-be abrupt exit from presidential politics. I find it particularly hilarious that the supposed 'scientific evidence based' left competely accepted on face value the Obama nativity account without ever asking for solid evidence on the matter. It's particularly side-splitting because they made John McCain jump through hoops to demonstrate his eligibility.

The Catch-22 of Radical Feminist Pro-Aborts

To witness the contortions in which pro-aborts would have to stretch the imagination and twist truth on this topic would be laughable if the subject matter were not so serious....

"U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican from Arizona, has filed a bill that would accomplish those ends. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act would criminalize sex-selection abortion in the United States, subjecting physicians who perform such abortions to fines and imprisonment for up to five years. Organizations that perform sex-selection abortions would forfeit federal funding under the proposal. Women who seek the abortions would be exempt from prosecution.

The sad irony is that the same technological advances that have bolstered the pro-life cause -- ultrasound images -- have promulgated sex-selection abortion. Parents may now more easily determine the gender of their unborn child, and opt for an abortion accordingly...

Yet leftist groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have blitzed Franks' bill, calling it an attempt to circumvent access to abortion. "This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

That argument carries weight with the far-left spectrum of the pro-choice cause, but it won't fly with the general American public that decidedly supports restrictions on abortion. The logic isn't even coherent: How is ensuring that more females are born discriminate against women? On the flipside, how does aiding the termination of unborn females help women's liberation?"

I really don't see how they can squirm their way out of this one. We already know that such practices are carried out in highly secular Scandinavia and also in Vietnam. I wonder what made femi-nazis think for one moment that the cause that they so screechily and ardently support would not eventually amount to political hari-kari for thier own membership?

(Above: Baby development at 9 weeks)

Occupy J Street

"I am appalled that Democrat politician after Democrat politician, including the president and vice president, are embracing these protests, even claiming to understand their supposed concerns and motivations, when so many of these people are using, among other things, anti-Semitic slurs of the oldest kind,” .... It is appalling and I hope the public takes note.” Mark Levin

While democrats rush to embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement, they never once considered what these clowns actually stand for or if they did, they just said 'to heck with it' and decided to show their own true colors...

"Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy."

The Daily Caller follows up this particular revelation up with...

"Yeshiva World News, an Orthodox Jewish news outlet, explained in an editorial Thursday that “many Jews” are feeling a bit uncomfortable with the growing protests because of hateful video footage claiming the U.S. economy is organized for the benefit of Jews.

“The reasons for these ‘uncomfortable feelings’ don’t need to be elaborated on this page,” the editorial reads. “Suffice to say that Jews have been blamed for the world’s troubles for thousands of years, and many are nervous that this finger-pointing will soon start — or , maybe it already has.”

National Review Online and The Blaze have published online video footage this week showing Occupy Wall Street protesters saying and shouting anti-Jewish slurs.

“Go back to Israel,” shouted one protester at an elderly Jewish man."

One thing that I've learned from this ongoing circus is that the word 'banker' can be a code word for 'Jew' in some instances in the New World Order as Rush Limbaugh explains...

"To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s – if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there."

The Bizarre Form of Tourette's Syndrome of the Left

“I always use the word ‘extreme,’ that’s what the caucus instructed me to do the other week,” Sen. Chuck (you) Schumer (D-NY) 3/29/11

Although by and large, I consider most democrat members of congress (and a few republicans) to be complete moonbats, you have to admire the consistancy of the Left in keeping up their attacks against conservative members of congress. Let's count the ways they demonize the opposition as "extreme", yet are so admirably choreographed to all stay on the same page...

Nancy Pelosi: Republican legislation 'Extreme' 2/11/2011

Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): Republicans Becoming More Extreme 7/27/11

"The extremism of these people; they're not satisfied with a vote on it, they want a guarantee that it pass before they'll allow an extension of the debt limit. I mean, how bizarre can anyone be?" Senate Majority Leader (Dingy) Harry Reid (D-NV) in debt negotiations with republicans Link, 7/29/2011

"We should not let these extremists dictate direction of debate" Harry Reid again, referring to republicans, 7/25/2011 Link

Harry Reid again, ‘Extremists Have Locked Down This Congress’ 7/29/11

"There are 100 people in the House who don’t care if we default, who are extreme and ideological" The aforementioned Sen. Chuck (You) Schumer (D-NY) re: debt negotiations with republicans 7/25/2011

Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE): Sharon Angle. Christine O'Donnell 'Extreme'

You got that Lemming? Republican=Extreme. No free thought allowed here. We'll tell you what to believe and we merely have to make the accusation, not back it up. You do not have the ability to do your own research on the matter and thus form your own thoughts based on the pertinant information.

On a related note, who here would ever like to be "held hostage"? It's nothing that would particularly interest me, but apparently this is another part of the democrat meme of marginalizing republicans as has been recently well documented...

"STENY HOYER: (rotunda noise) The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.

DEBBIE "BLABBERMOUTH" SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.

DINGY HARRY: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.

CHUCK-U SCHUMER: (rotunda noise) It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ...hold the debt ceiling hostage.

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.

JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.

BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.

EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.

JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.

ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.

JOHN LARSON: ...ideological HOSTAGE situation...

LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.

JAMES CLYBURN: Holding the American economy hostage.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: This President is being treated differently!

SPEAKER PRO-TEM: (gavel banging)

JACKSON: No other President has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage"

And on and on it goes. Is it too much to ask that members of congress try to work together without characterizing the opposition as some sort of parody? Apparently so and don't even get me started on Tea Party generalizations

Next we come to the obligatory Taliban references..

Republican Taliban declare Jihad on Obama


Jim Moran (D-VA): GOP is the 'Taliban ticket'


DNC: GOP Has Thrown In With 'Terrorists -- Taliban and Hamas'


Representative Alan Grayson “compared Republicans to the Taliban” in his campaign

Are you getting the entire picture yet? Republicans are the ideological equals to extremist, 9th century throwbacks who utilize improvised explosive devices to implement their agenda through terrorism and who sincerely want to take you hostage.

Such hate-filled hyperbole is so verfiably predominant on the Left, it would be laughable if it were not so counterproductive.

The Left and les faits de la vie

Dennis Prager's recent column examines the inherent problem that the left has in effectively presenting it's idealized worldview and trying to conform it to fit reality. Les faits de la vie, or "the facts of life" seem to be unimportant when presenting a worldview that is not grounded in anything resembling the state of affairs as they actually exist.

"In my original article, I offered one explanation: Since the Enlightenment, the secular world has had to believe in man (or "humanity") because if you don't believe in God and you don't believe in humanity, you will despair.

But one critic opened my eyes to an even deeper reason most liberals do not acknowledge that people are not basically good.

This is what he wrote:

"What a sad world it would be if we all believed as Dennis Prager that mankind is inherently evil."

And this is what I responded:

"I did not write that man is inherently evil. I wrote that he is not basically good. And, yes, that does make the world sad. So do disease, earthquakes, death and all the unjust suffering in the world. But sad facts remain facts."


...the left lives by theories and dogmas into which the facts of life must fit. That is why left-wing ideas are usually wishful thinking...


Here are four descriptive statements rejected by the left for these two mutually reinforcing reasons.

1. People are not basically good.

Leftists tend to reject this because a) It is too painful to accept, and b) it undermines the leftist dogma that people do bad because of outside forces -- poverty, capitalism, racism, etc.

2. Men and women are inherently different.

Leftists have rejected this idea because some of the differences are too emotionally upsetting to accept. Men are variety-driven by nature? Too upsetting. Women may have less yearning for, and ability in, math and engineering? Only a sexist like former Harvard president Lawrence Summers would say such a thing. Moreover, the belief that men and women are inherently different violates the left's foundational principle of equality. Many liberals admit that they reject talk of male-female differences because it can easily lead to gender inequality.

3. Black males disproportionately commit violent crime in America.

Leftist reactions to this truly painful fact are to label one who notes it a racist and to decry American society as racist because there are more black males in prison than in college.

4. The United Nations is a moral wasteland.

Since before the U.N.'s founding in 1945, liberals placed much of their hope for a peaceful world in the United Nations. That the U.N. has turned out to be an abettor more than a preventer of violence is a fact that the left finds too painful to acknowledge. And it violates the left-wing belief that nationalism is evil and internationalism is the solution.

It is generally believed that as people grow older, they reject much of the liberalism they believed in when they were young. This is true, and one reason is relevant here: As we get older, we tend to make peace with painful faits de la vie."

I tend to agree with all of Prager's points except for perhaps one. Gregory Kane points out in today's column that "There are more black men in prison and jail than in college, some black talking heads like to point out. The claim is false: For the 18-to-24 age group, the ages when black men should be in college, the numbers of black males in institutions of higher learning outnumber those in prison by 4 to 1." However this is a talking point that is widely accepted after being repeated ad naseum and it tends to be believed by a lot of people.

Star Parker reports on something I touched upon the other day which involves some painful facts as well...

"Almost two years ago, a new Democrat administration and congress took control of Washington.
They immediately sent out invitations to the American people.

“You are cordially invited onto the government plantation. P.S. We’re in charge but you pick up the tab. RSVP by November 2, 2010.”

The RSVP’s have poured in and the majority of Americans have replied “Sorry, we’ve got other plans.”

But it was mostly white voters who turned down this invitation.

Why are blacks, who know life on the government plantation better than whites, and who are proportionately being hit much harder in this difficult economy, still buying what working class whites have rejected hands down? That, as Karl Rove put it, “…we can spend our way to prosperity?”

The problem is broader and deeper. Blacks still by and large see government dependence as the remedy rather than the disease, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They still choose to listen to left wing black political leadership and media who have careers in keeping it all going."

Of course when I criticize left wing black political leadership for keeping it all going, it's suggested in ominous tones that I just might be "a racist prick" or a "bigot". Is Star Parker a racist for holding such views? Of course not, to argue as so would be an exercise in abject stupidity. The important thing in the mindset of the left is to appeal to emotion, make the accusation of intolerance and move the discussion away from the issues at hand and try to paint those with opposing viewpoints as racists because they cannot win in the court of ideas with arguments on their own merits.

EDIT: It turns out that a certain internet cesspool has taken up the topic of whether or not I am bigot. Wow! My own thread. I HAVE arrived people! The comment that made me literally laugh out loud the hardest was this one...


"He (JD Curtis) seems to think bigotry is using racist names or categorizing any entire group (Entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for him) .
He's not racist because he married a black woman and has links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense."

I would like to see this person come over here and argue such nonsense.

#1. Where did I ever say that an "entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole" for me or even remotely try and argue as such? If the answer is absolutely never, then why is this not an complete and outright lie?

#2. "He's not racist because he married a black woman". I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot.

#3. "..links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense". As if I use this as mere cover for my latent racism. Ha ha ha ha! The above writer fails to take into consideration that the sidebar of columnists on my blog serves as a resource for me. In a blog that is about a year and a half old I have cited columns and created threads for writers like Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Ellis Washington (at least 3X), Mychal Massie (at least 5X),Deroy Murdock (at least 5X), and from Thomas Sowell a minimum of SEVENTEEN TIMES. Can the above writer cite any other blog on the internet that they frequent that cites more black columnists then this one?

B-b-b-b-but don't let that fool you folks! It's all just an intricate scam that he devotes alot of time and effort to just to throw you off! Bigot! Bigot! Bigot! Racist! Racist! Racist! or something like that.