The FCC Can Have My Pen and My Microphone When They Pry Them From My Cold, Dead Hands by John Ransom

I got a pen; I got a microphone. And they can have them when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

While it looks like the FCC has at least temporarily backed down from their threats of putting monitors into newsrooms, we haven’t seen the last of it.

This has been a dream of liberals for a long time.

“According to the research design presented to the FCC by a government contractor named Social Solutions International Inc.,” writes RealClearPolitics, “it wasn’t just television stations, either: Internet news organizations and newspapers were to be included in this information sweep, as if that were actually in the FCC’s purview.”

According to the company “Social Solutions International, Inc. is a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of social and health solutions to improve the welfare of underserved populations worldwide.”

Riiiight. Their clients look like a Who’s Who of welfare states, big government and rent seekers.

While we knew that liberals wanted to kill all of the 2nd Amendment and parts of the 1st Amendment—Freedom OF Religion, for example– I never supposed that the liberal media would support killing of Freedom of the Press.

But that seems to be the case.

Every three months or so I get to write a column about how I am running out of excuses for my liberal friends in supporting Obama and the Democrats.

It’s not that I object necessarily to their philosophical differences regarding the size and scope of government. But it’s becoming increasingly obvious to me that Democrats are looking to substitute censorship for competency, spying on Americans for real intelligence work, IRS audits for real debate and welfare for real work.

Who knew that those idealistic, long-haired, peaceniks from the late 1960s and early 1970s would learn as their lesson that since their ideology and economy had failed the only thing they could do was to try to out-Nixon Nixon?

Let’s face it: Democrats can’t deliver the goods.

And all they are saying now is give censorship a chance.

They’ve served America a bowl of swamp water, and to make it go down they need the media to call it a soup.

But their liberal media folks, to the great dismay of some, can’t make money calling swamp water a soup no matter how much pork barrel spending they add to it.

The latest casualty to be shot by this ratings bullet is CNN, which just canceled the prime time Piers Morgan show.

“CNN’s audience has tired of hearing a [liberal] Brit weigh in American cultural issues Morgan said in a story posted online Sunday,” according to Fox News.

Alec Baldwin, whose show on uber-liberal MSNBC was canceled when he angered a core liberal constituency by inserting the wrong part of his anatomy (his foot) into the wrong orifice (his mouth), has been so demonized by both the right and the left that he’s quitting public life.

“I’m aware that it’s ironic that I’m making this case in the media,” he writes in New York Magazine, “but this is the last time I’m going to talk about my personal life in an American publication ever again.”

He’s retreating behind a “gate” in L.A.

“Everything I hated about L.A.,” he continues, “I’m beginning to crave. L.A. is a place where you live behind a gate, you get in a car, your interaction with the public is minimal. I used to hate that.”

Well Obama and the other liberals of the Pepsi generation want to put up gates too.

Because like Baldwin they can’t seem to tame the real transformation that’s going on it America.

I got a pen; I got a microphone, thanks in part to cheap distribution via the Internet.

And you have the same things too.

And to some that makes us every bit the equal of the president of the United States, if not a little bit better.

No wonder they’re worried.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2014/02/24/the-fcc-can-have-my-pen-and-my-microphone-when-they-pry-them-from-my-cold-dead-hands-n1799853/page/full

Advertisements

A Force More Powerful Than Oscar by Chuck Norris

I don’t have to explain to anyone how television is much more risque, with some programs being downright lewd, than it was decades ago. But I want to tell you about something that can change the course of values in television and movies.

Once upon a time, about as edgy as it got was Barbara Eden’s “I Dream of Jeannie” character, who showed her trim tummy, and Elvis swinging his pelvis on “The Ed Sullivan Show” — though the broadcast screen only captured the upper half of his body as he did.

Today, of course, we’ve got everything from Miley Cyrus twerking in prime-time music award shows to explicit sexual scenes and over-the-top dialogue in even so-called “family programs,” which are on when kids are still up and surfing channels.

While television programming continues to push the edges of licentiousness further every fall, many people, including parents, across the nation are looking for refuges of decency when it comes to entertainment — and that includes at theaters, too.

There is a man who has been in show business for more than 40 years and who is fighting to hold a line on decency, respect and moral boundaries in movies and on television. His name is Dr. Ted Baehr. My wife, Gena, and I are dear friends with Ted and his wife, Lili.

Ted is the founder and publisher of Movieguide, which is a family guide to movies and entertainment, and chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, as well as a noted critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit.

I would encourage parents to check out Movieguide to see what movies currently in theaters or on Blu-ray are appropriate for your children. And I also highly recommend Ted’s latest best-seller, “How to Succeed in Hollywood (Without Losing Your Soul).”

Ted’s website explains that his life’s purpose is to be used by God to redeem the values of the media while educating audiences on how to use discernment in selecting their entertainment.

I’m proud to be a member of the board of reference for the dynamic organization Movieguide. It has a very long track record of making a difference in Hollywood. As noted on Movieguide’s website, everyone agrees that media have an immense influence on the way we think, act and even believe, and that is especially true of our children. Yet much of what is produced and praised in Hollywood attacks our core values of faith, family and freedom. But we can make a difference! The battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation has never been more important than now, and that battle is taking place at movie theaters and on your TV.

How can we ensure that our young people are being influenced positively through media? The answer is simple: Watch; comment; pray and invite; and fight.

–Watch. On March 1 at 2 p.m. EST, the 22nd annual Movieguide Awards airs on ReelzChannel. This year’s star-studded gala will be hosted by actor-comedian Bill Engvall, with appearances by “Duck Dynasty” stars Korie and Willie Robertson, “The Bible’s” Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, Billy Ray Cyrus, and Joni Eareckson Tada, who will exclusively perform the Oscar-nominated song “Alone Yet Not Alone.”

(Speaking of faith and family values, I’d like to congratulate Downey and Burnett on their great movie rendition of the life of Jesus, “Son of God,” due out in theaters and other venues this Friday, Feb. 28. It’s certainly going to be a powerful and inspiring way to enter into the Easter season.)

–Comment. Go to ReelzChannel’s Facebook page and state that you support Movieguide’s mission and will watch on March 1.

–Pray and invite. Keep the telecast in your prayers; share the information through your social media accounts; and perhaps invite someone over to watch it with you. Go to http://www.movieguide.org/help-us-share-the-good-news for sample emails, tweets and Facebook posts — among other resources — you can send to your friends to invite them to watch the broadcast, just as I have used throughout my column here.

–Fight. Continue to fight for change. Renew your war on ratings. Change the channel and help change the culture. And stand up for Movieguide’s mission and outreach.

By doing the actions above, you and your family will not only make a statement for decency but also stand up for future generations. Help those of us on Movieguide’s board of reference to remind Hollywood that America consists of families who want inspiring, edifying and wholesome entertainment.

As Ted wrote me a few weeks ago, “help us to take on the goliath and win the culture for the future of your children and grandchildren. Fight the culture war for your family by watching the battle of the century this Saturday: Oscar vs. Teddy! This is a fun but serious battle between: Oscar (the symbol of movie awards) vs. Teddy (the symbol of the Movieguide Awards).”

On March 1, let’s rally across the nation and pay gratitude to those in the movie and television industries who have given us inspirational entertainment, and let’s encourage them to continue their fight for the sake of our children and future generations by watching — and encouraging others to watch — the 22nd annual Movieguide Awards.

We all can still change Hollywood and our country one channel and one theater ticket at a time!

For more information, go to http://www.movieguide.org and http://www.cftvc.org, or write to: Christian Film & Television Commission, 1151 Avenida Acaso, Camarillo, CA 93012.

http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2014/02/25/a-force-more-powerful-than-oscar-n1799912/page/full

New Obama Promise: If You Like Your Life, You Can Keep It by Ann Coulter

Liberals are winning wild praise for their candor in admitting problems with Obamacare. It shows you the level of honesty people have come to expect of our liberal friends. Now, liberals are applauded for not lying through their teeth about something.

What are they supposed to say?This Obamacare website is fantastic! And really, haven’t you already read all the magazines in your current doctor’s office anyway?

The New York Times has described Obama’s repeated claim that you could keep your insurance plan and keep your doctor under Obamacare as a mere slip of the tongue: “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

Misspoke? How exactly does one misspeak, word for word, dozens of times, over and over again?

That wasn’t misspeaking — it was a deliberate, necessary lie. Even Democrats couldn’t have voted for Obamacare if Americans had known the truth. It was absolutely vital for Obama to lie about people being able to keep their insurance and their doctors.

Of course, it was difficult for voters to know the truth because every time Republicans would try to tell them, the White House and the media would rush in and call the critics liars.

The White House posted a specific refutation of the “disinformation” about not being able to keep your doctor or insurance plan. That claim, the website said, was being disseminated by Republicans “to scare people.”

Their proof consisted of a video of Obama clearly stating, “If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

A video of someone asserting the very fact in dispute does not rise to the level of “evidence,” but it was more than enough for MSNBC.

Even when pretending to be critical of Obamacare, liberals lie about the real problems. They tell us they’re worried about the percentage of young people signing up for Obamacare. The mix of young and old people in Obamacare is completely irrelevant. It won’t help if a lot of young people sign up because their premiums are negligible.

To keep the system afloat, what Obamacare really needs is lots of healthy people, preferably healthy older people. Their premiums are astronomical — and they won’t need much medical treatment.

Premiums are set by your age, not your health. It doesn’t matter if you never go to the doctor. Obamacare punishes you for having a healthy lifestyle. The Obamacare tax is a massively regressive poll tax on the middle-aged and the middle class.

Apart from those who are subsidized, everyone pays the exact same amount in penalties or insurance premiums for his age group. It doesn’t matter if you don’t make as much money as Bill Gates. Any 58-year-old male who doesn’t qualify for a subsidy will pay the same Obamacare tax as Gates.

When Margaret Thatcher tried to impose the same tax per person, as a “community charge,” there were riots in the street.

Our extremely progressive tax system, where nearly half the country pays no income tax at all, and the other half pays about 40 percent of their income, may not be fair. But most people also don’t think it’s fair to tax a guy making $80,000 a year the identical amount as one making $80 million a year. That’s exactly what Obamacare does.

With Obamacare, the Democratic Party has foisted the most regressive tax possible on America. This ruthless assault on the middle class is all so we can have a health care system more like every other country has.

Until now, the United States has had the highest survival rates in the world for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Cancer comparisons are the most useful because all Western countries keep careful records for this disease.

For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to a 66.3 percent survival rate for American men.

European women have only a 55.8 percent chance of being alive five years after being diagnosed with any type of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent of American women.

American survival rates for breast, prostate, thyroid and skin cancer are higher than 90 percent. Europeans do not have a 90 percent survival rate for one of those cancers.

The European rates are even worse than they sound because many cancers are not discovered until the victim’s death — twice as many as in the U.S. All those cancers were excluded from the study.

Canadian cancer survival rates aren’t much better than the European rates — and they’ve been able to sneak into to the U.S. for treatment! Women in the U.S. have a 61 percent survival rate for all cancers, compared to a 58 percent survival rate in Canada. Men in the U.S. have a 57 percent survival rate compared to 53 percent in Canada.

That’s why your insurance premiums have to go through the roof and your Obamacare tax is the same as Bill Gates’. So across the world, we’ll all be equal, dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes as often as everyone else.

It’s not that Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism; it’s that he wants to end it.

http://www.townhall.com

We Are Not ‘All God’s Children’ by Matt Barber

You’ve heard it said that “We are all God’s children.” This rings flowery and nice.

It’s an insidious lie.

Indeed, God both created and loves – in a way most unfathomable – everyone who ever lived. He wove us together in our mother’s womb and numbered our every hair. But God the Father has only one begotten Son. The rest of us, in order to become one of God’s children, must be adopted – in, by and through – the One Who is the Son: Jesus Christ. Those who are not adopted are not children of God. Christ and Christ alone is “the way, the truth and the life.”

Indeed, to become a child of God, we must ask God – through Christ – to adopt us. We mustn’t just believe upon Him – for “Even the demons believe that” (see James 2:19) – but, rather, we must also accept Him. We must follow Jesus, the one true God, as our only God. “But to all who believed him and accepted him (Jesus), he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12)

Don’t believe? Don’t accept? You have no right to become a child of God.

And that’s unholy hell.

I’m not here to question God. I can neither fully understand nor explain why what He says is so. I can only convey to you that He unmistakably, unequivocally and without stuttering, says it is so.

And so it is so.

“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

The postmodern concept of religious pluralism is likewise an insidious lie. It’s a relativist tool of deception, dreamed up the greatest of all deceivers. It’s a false religion – jazzed-up paganism – propagated by the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (see Ephesians 6:12).

Merriam Webster defines “pluralism” – in the context of which I refer – as “a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality.”

The goal of pluralist philosophy is to muddy the waters and divert mankind from the “narrow gate” that leads to eternal salvation (Jesus), while, at the same time, herding them along the “broad road” to eternal damnation (anything and everything that denies the singular and exclusive deity of Christ – or that rejects the certainty that He alone can save us from hell).

Pluralism is a non-starter. It’s inherently self-defeating, contradictory and, frankly, just plain stupid. Pick your “ism” – be it progressivism, socialism, Hinduism, Buddhism, communism, Marxism, atheism, et al. – and central to each you will find the leavening lie of pluralism.

Each of the world’s major religions fundamentally contradicts the other. They cannot all be true. Either one is true or none is true.

Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13) Again, Jesus alone is that “narrow gate.”

Here’s the thing. You can deny Christ until the day you die. But after that, you will deny Him no more. Hate Him you may still, but deny Him you will not. Philippians 2:10-11 assures us, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

John 3:36 warns: “Whoever believes in the Son (Jesus) has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Christ is both tolerant and intolerant – utterly exclusive and wholly inclusive. He said in no uncertain terms: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

Universalists, atheists, pluralists and other followers of false god’s and religions, take note: Jesus, rather conspicuously, did not say: “No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh or L. Ron Hubbard.”

The narrow gate to heaven is utterly exclusive.

Yet Christ also promised us this: “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.” (Matthew 11:28-29)

Romans 10:13 is even more direct: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The narrow gate to heaven is wholly inclusive.

If religious pluralism is true, which it cannot be, then Jesus is a liar. And if Jesus is a liar, then Carl Sagan was right when he said, “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.”

Worm food.

Thank God Jesus is not a liar.

Still, some apostate, celebrity mega-church pastors like Rob Bell have become wealthy calling Jesus a liar. They teach the heretical doctrine of “universal salvation,” which suggests that, ultimately, everyone ends up in heaven – even those who rejected Christ while here on earth.

Bell and others like him claim that “we’re all God’s children.”

This is a pseudo-Christian form of religious pluralism that may well condemn untold millions – to include celebrity mega-church pastors like Rob Bell – to the unimaginable horror of eternal separation from God. (Rob, brother, I pray that you’ll repent posthaste and ask Christ’s forgiveness for both your heresy and for leading your flock to slaughter. He’ll forgive you, just like he’s forgiven me for all the crap I’ve pulled over the years.)

And the Truth will set you free.

Romans 8:1-2 promises: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.”

By logical extension, the converse is true. There is condemnation for those who arenot in Christ Jesus. Until and unless you believe upon, accept and follow Jesus – you remain imprisoned under the law of sin and death.

Unconvinced? You don’t have to believe to quietly pray this simple prayer to yourself: “Jesus, if you’re out there, please reveal yourself to me. If you’re real, help thou my unbelief.”

If I’m right – if Jesus is not a liar and He is who He says He is – then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by inquiring further.

If you don’t inquire further, you have everything to lose.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2014/02/10/we-are-not-all-gods-children-n1792180/page/full

Gays for Late Term Abortion? by Mike Adams

“Good Afternoon, The semester is off to a busy start, and there are many program [sic] to look forward to this Spring. I wanted to remind you of an event being co-sponsored by SGA, UNCW NARAL and the LGBTQIA Resource Office next week.”

First, note that the student government association, or SGA, is sponsoring this event. It isn’t without cost to the public. This significance of this will be apparent as we read the rest of the email sent by government employees using government resources.

“On Tuesday, January 21, to celebrate the 41st Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, there will be a showing of After Tiller at 7:00 in Lumina Theater. This showing is free and open to the public.”

Note that the event is not free to the public because the taxpayers who attend pay for it with their taxes. Note also that this is not a discussion of Roe v. Wade. It is a “celebration” of Roe v. Wade. One hundred percent of UNCW money dedicated to discussion of abortion is decidedly pro-abortion. No dissenting opinions are ever funded by UNCW. The university has a clear position on abortion. That position is decidedly pro-Roe v. Wade. That is why university officials have lied to crisis pregnancy centers to keep them off the Women’s Resource Center web page in the past – even as they promoted the services of Planned Parenthood, including, but not limited to, the termination of the lives of unborn human beings.

“About the film: After Tiller intimately explores the highly controversial subject of third-trimester abortions in the wake of the 2009 assassination of practitioner Dr. George Tiller. The procedure is now performed by only four doctors in the United States, all former colleagues of Dr. Tiller, who risk their lives every day in the name of their unwavering commitment toward their patients. Directors Martha Shane and Lana Wilson have created a moving and unique look at one of the most incendiary topics of our time, and they’ve done so in an informative, thought-provoking, and compassionate way.”

It’s tough to go on for an entire paragraph with such nonstop moral confusion. In fact, just about everything in the paragraph you just read was either wrong or deeply morally misguided. First of all, third-trimester abortions really aren’t controversial. That is why, overwhelmingly, people reject them as morally unacceptable cold-blooded murder. Nor are the doctors who perform them courageous. It takes no courage to dismember a developed human fetus that is trapped in the womb and can’t fight back. Nor is it “moving” to celebrate child murder. Nor is it “compassionate.” It is simply twisted.

“Reviews: According to the Hollywood Reporter, ‘Whether one is pro-life, pro-choice or without opinion on the issue, After Tiller provides personal insight into a heart-wrenching, complex reality. The film does not pretend to be an answer to the abortion controversy but rather a presentation of the people who are demonized, correctly or incorrectly, for their actions.’”

Interesting, isn’t it? The LGBTQIA Office has included a set of reviews of the pro-abortion film. This one, by the Hollywood Reporter, actually suggests that the film is morally neutral on the issue of late term abortion. It isn’t. This false characterization requires a substantial obfuscation. This is accomplished by characterizing a very simple issue as a “complex reality.” It really isn’t. Regardless of one’s position on early term abortion, most people who are morally developed know that it is wrong to kill a developed human fetus.

“Additionally, Variety states, ‘Martha Shane and Lana Wilson manage a rare feat in After Tiller, making a calm, humanist documentary about a hot-button topic …Well contextualized and sensitively shot with extraordinary access, the pic reflects the personal, moral and ethical struggles of the doctors as well as their patients, and deserves the widest possible audience.'”

Sensitively shot to depict the ethical struggle of the doctor? Does it have a shot of the little one struggling while he (or she) is being torn limb from limb by the “struggling” abortionist? I agree it deserves a wide audience. Too bad 55 million potential viewers have been aborted and won’t be there for the showing.

“And, Movie City News says, ‘A+! A terrific documentary that handles sensitively this controversial and heated topic.'”

Actually, I don’t think the topic is heated at all. It is cold. It is heartless advocacy of cold-blooded murder. And your taxpayer dollars are going to support it. Amy Schlag, Program Coordinator of the LGBTQIA Resource Office and UNCW Instructor of Women’s Studies, left her office public phone number at the bottom of the mass email she sent promoting this event. This number is published publicly on the UNCW web page. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for pro-lifers to use it to express their concerns. If you call, please be more compassionate than she is. Thankfully, that won’t be difficult.

And, while you’re at it, email UNCW Chancellor Gary Miller atchancellor@uncw.edu. Ask him what LGBTQIA stands for. Is it “Leveraging Government Budgets To Quietly Increase Abortion?” If not, then why does the university refuse to fund the other side of the issue?

And, more importantly, ask Gary Miller if anyone employed by the LGBTQIA Resource Office is splitting time working for Planned Parenthood? I already know the answer. I bet you do, too.

…To be continued.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2014/01/27/gays-for-late-term-abortion-n1784193/page/full

If You Hate Your Kids, Send Them to Public School by Doug Giles

Y’know, when I was a wee lad growing up in West Texas, public schools weren’t all that bad. We started our day off with the pledge of allegiance, said prayers during football games, actually studied our nation’s founding docs, sang patriotic songs, and we celebrated the true meaning of both Christmas and Easter.

In addition to that pro-American bliss, nearly everyone and their dog graduated. It’s true. Dogs were actually graduating from school back then. I know. Weird, eh?

Indeed, out of our large graduating class there was only one drop out and that was my childhood buddy who left school to join the Banditos’ motorcycle gang. He had a tattoo before tats became hip and groovy, ubiquitous and virulently narcissistic. (Speaking of tattoos: Girls … if you’re going to get a cute butterfly inked into your shoulder, you must make the general public a promise that you will not gain 600lbs later in life and have that blue moth morph into a massive, faded condor that we all have to stare at. If that’s too much to ask, then please cease to wear tube-tops so we don’t have to gawk at that muted, colored vulture on your enormous back. Deal? Deal. Anyway, back to the good old days …)

When our parents dumped us off at school, they weren’t riddled with fear that our schoolmarms were going to morph us into domestic terrorists who think Che Guevera is the bomb. Our folks also knew that sexed-up teachers wouldn’t teach kinky weirdness to their twelve-year-olds. No, if their kids were going to learn about sex it would be done in the traditional way via their older brothers and theirPlayboy magazine stash in the alley behind the house.

Today, as far as public schools are concerned, it’s a veritable loaded-dice roll regarding how your kids will come out after spending eight hours a day with our “educators“. More than likely, Dad, unless you’re Bill Ayers, Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Russell Brand, you’re not going to be too pleased with what the public schools do with your kids’ noggins.

This week, a story surfaced about the father of a thirteen-year-old girl who got righteously ticked when his daughter showed him a pic of what the loons were lacing his dear daughter’s curriculum with. <href=”#i54pggdgbilftgp0.99%20%5c%5c%20_blank”>Check it out:

The father of a 13 year-old girl who was upset by a classroom poster that listed sex acts was shocked to hear that the poster is part of her school’s health and science curriculum.

As local Fox News affiliate in Kansas, fox4kc.comreported Tuesday, Mark Ellis said his daughter, a student at Hocker Grove Middle school in the Shawnee Mission School District, was “shocked” by what she saw on a poster on a classroom wall in school. Ellis said his daughter took a picture of the poster and showed her parents.

Originally, Ellis assumed the poster to be a student prank, until he called the school and discovered it was part of the curriculum.

Why would you put it in front of 13 year-old students? He asked.

The poster, entitled, “How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?” lists sex acts such as: Oral Sex, Sexual Fantasy, Caressing, Anal Sex, Dancing, Hugging, Touching Each Other’s Genitals, Kissing, Grinding, and Masturbation.

Ellis said after being told by the school principal the poster was “teaching material,” he is now concerned about what his daughter is being taught in school.

I’ve got two words for that poster being put out by a public school to 13-year-olds: they are “holy” and “guacamole”.

Man, when I was thirteen I had no real idea what sex was. I thought it consisted of my mom and dad wrestling with their shirts off. At least that’s what it looked like when they didn’t lock the door that one Friday night that, try as I may, I’ll never forget.

Sure, as a young pubescent boy I was attracted to girls. But we did normal things back then to show our interest in the opposite sex like: pull the girl’s hair, or jump a tall ramp on our Huffy while they watched, or suck milk through straws shoved up our nostrils. Y’know … something to show our prowess. It was cave man stuff.

Now, certainly the aforementioned wasn’t pretty or too suave, but it never came into to our minds that if we wanted to show we had feelings for a fair lass we should do it via anal sex. But that’s what is being taught at frickin’ Hocker Grove Middle School.

Good Lord, parents. You gotta take reins of your kids’ brains and bodies and rip them out of the hands of these bastions of banality, communism and overt sexualization.

Do it now, before it’s too late.

http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2014/01/19/if-you-hate-your-kids-send-them-to-public-school-n1781132?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Why Pro-Aborts Oppose Free Speech by Star Parker

It’s no surprise why pro-abortion forces in America don’t want free speech when it comes to raising awareness about this issue of, literally, life and death.

The more people understand the reality of abortion, the more they don’t want it as a legal, easily accessible part of American life.

Now, as 650,000 plus pro-life demonstrators are about to arrive in Washington, DC for this year’s March for Life on January 22, noting in protest the 41st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court has just heard arguments on a critical case involving freedom of speech on this issue.

Seventy-seven year old Eleanor McCullen’s challenge to a 2007 Massachusetts law, which forbids anyone other than patients and employees to stand within a 35 foot radius of the entrance to an abortion clinic, has made it’s way to the nation’s highest court.

Arguments that this prohibition is about the physical safety of women entering these clinics are absurd. There already are federal and state laws that prohibit physical interference or intimidation of clinic patrons.

This law is aimed solely to abridge the free speech of pro-life activists and prevent them from communicating with women arriving to these clinics. This abridgement of speech is a clear and flagrant violation of freedom of speech guaranteed in the constitution’s first amendment.

What a distortion it is that the pro-abortion contingent has managed to get itself labeled “pro-choice.” Choice is about light not darkness, about knowledge not ignorance.

Why do those who claim to favor “choice” fight so hard against efforts to assure that women who are considering the horrible decision to extinguish life they are carrying make as informed a decision as possible?

Unfortunately, this is often driven by elitism and racism.

Abortion clinic clientele are disproportionately poor and disproportionately black.

Across the board, poor communities and black communities have been devastated over many years by policies designed by liberal elitists convinced that they know what is best for these unfortunate souls.

The abortion clinic is often the last stop in a chain of bad information delivered into low-income communities that creates the government-dependent culture that fosters the never-ending cycle of poverty.

But good information at any stage of the cycle can change things forever. That good information can be a pro-life Christian standing at an abortion clinic.

I wrote a number of years ago about a young black woman named Ebony. When she became pregnant her boyfriend encouraged her to abort the child. She found little problem in arranging an appointment at a clinic, where they assured her she was making the right decision because abortion would be “cheaper” than having the child.

But Ebony was uneasy. Sitting up late, she called into a Christian radio talk show where she was referred to a crisis pregnancy center. At the center, she saw her baby via ultrasound and changed her mind. At the center they helped her birth and provided clothes, food, and counseling.

When I wrote about Ebony her son was four years ago and she had no doubt about the correctness of her decision. A decision made because she had the good fortune to get information.

In 1995, 56 percent of Americans polled by Gallup self- identified as “pro-choice” compared to 33 percent as “pro-life.” The last Gallup poll in 2013 showed 48 percent identifying as “pro-life” and 45 percent as “pro-choice.”

As I tour the country to speak at crisis pregnancy centers I hear the stories of sorrow, regret, and guilt from those who went down the one way street of destroying the child with which they were blessed.

America cannot be a free country without free speech.

Free speech leads us to a deeper realization that we cannot be a free country without proper respect for life.

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2014/01/20/why-proaborts-oppose-free-speech-n1780739/page/full