Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
MND Guest Commentaries & News
Sunday, July 10, 2005
The Feminist View of Children
by Thomas Simon
Ok ladies, here is our three-step approach to children:
First, we have to kill as many unborn babies as possible. We're fast approaching the 50 million mark, and we have your fine work to thank for it. Let's give ourselves a round of applause! Following this session, we'll be having a live partial-birth abortion ceremony for your entertainment pleasure.
Second, for any children that survive the womb, our top priority is to make as many children as possible fatherless. We can accomplish that by portraying men as abusers who just want to control women and avoid paying child support. Make sure you give the phony statistics we cooked up to your media contacts, and don't even mention the real numbers. If anybody challenges your numbers, trot out the usual name-calling of "misogynist"," patriarchal-oppressor", and let us know about it so we can launch a personal attack. If it's a divorced father, always remember to say "he just doesn't want to pay child support", as our focus groups have shown this to be an excellent way to close people's minds. Since this doesn't work so well when the fact-checkers are female, we'll be having a special session later today on how to silence women who aren't afraid to speak out.
Third, for children that survive steps 1 and 2, we have to control how they think. First, we separate the boys and the girls. We have made great inroads in teaching girls to hate boys at younger and younger ages, and our media friends are increasingly willing to portray little boys as abusers and rapists. Thanks to our allies at the NEA, we've got the public schools under out thumb, and we're working with the ACLU on a strategy to indoctrinate or at least silence children from private schools and home-schoolers, and to shut down the Boy Scouts of America. We desperately need to get our VAWA funding renewed though, not only in order to shore up our successes with "choice" and control over family law, but also to buy more politicians for our campaigns targeting teenagers and criminal law.
Oh, and don't forget when you're talking to the media, throw in as many references to "women and children" as possible, as if we represent all women and actually give a damn about children. As long as they continue to buy it, we'll continue to sell it.
Thomas Simon
My bio for feminists: Thomas Simon is a former deadbeat dad and abusive husband, and now works any chance he gets to restore the patriarchy to its former glory and to deprive women of equality because all he really wants is to control women.
My bio for normal people: Thomas Simon is a divorced father who deeply loves his children and is very concerned about what has been done to them and other children in America, primarily through the denial of basic human and Constitutional rights to fathers and children under the guise of family law.
posted by Mike at 10:18 AM
4 Comments:
Anonymous said...
Simon is absolutely right. My ex is a feminist and used lies and legal threats to separate me from my child. What can men do when women resort to such childish and dangerous tactics? It is all made much worse when the courts back up hysterical and false accusations with very real jail time.
Due to feminism, I have a choice: I can't see my child and I pay huge child support, or I can't see my child and go to jail.
This situation has been repeated tens of thousands of times. Bravo feminism!
1:14 PM
s deluca said...
When I used to be a spokesperson for NCFM (National Coalition of Free Men) I would get calls from men separated from their children.
"Can you help me they would ask." And I would say "No, not really. Because not enough of us are fighting back and the courts don't care about a few. The politicians don't care about a few.
I suggested joining men's groups that were organized and fighting. The problem is, most men wait until "it" happens to them, most women wait until it happens to their sons, and by then, "it" (screwed in courts) has happened.
Losing your children - especially if claims of abuse and Domestic Violence are made - is so devastating that most men can barely get back on their feet to fight.
I keep thinking that wealthy men will start bankrolling men's groups when they see the damage done to our families and our culture, but so far, no luck.
We talk to each other and then forget to write to our senators to say, hey! you are not just going to lose my vote, I am talking to other men too, and we are tired of being targeted for all the ills of our culture. We built the buildings, died in mines and war to protect our families, paid our taxes to protect women's health and women's lives more than our own,and now you say we are "rapingbibedwarmongeringchildmolesters" - That's how we are rewarded for staying on the Titanic and dying earlier deaths from stressful jobs. We are called "pigs" ...
I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore.
(I forgot the movie that it came from I told my wife the other day that I see the names of men who don't quit, who have been trying for decades, men who write letters to the editor, men who are brave enough to be "politically incorrest" and to be accused of mysognistic behavior for simply asking for equal treatment related to our children.
It's time to ask other men, and if that doesn't work, tell them, demand it, that they get off their knees and start "doing something" to help fight the hundreds of thousands of feminists - who still can't believe how easy it was to move in to safe houses, schools, courts, and the media to spread lies about men, that if said about Blacks, Gays, or Jews, would have been shouted down years ago.
It's time to fight for our sons and daughters and to never quit.
Steve DeLuca
BX 1234 Mendocino CA 95460
2:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Want a solution to this whole problem?
Don't get married. Don't have children. In this day and age, there is no reason for it.
If you do get married and have children, don't do it in western countries and remain expatriated.
8:23 PM
Anonymous said...
In this day and age, marriage, if you're a guy, is tantamount to signing a devil's contract. And for women, It can be an investment opportunity. It's a shame, and I wonder if this is what feminists intended for the goal of "No Fault" divorce.
Jeff Foxworthy once joked that S.I.N.G.L.E. is an abbreviation for "Stay Intoxicated Nightly, Get Laid Everyday." If we let things go too far out of hand. We'll get an abbreviation like M.A.R.R.I.E.D. standing for "Men Aren't Rewarded, Ruined In Eternal Despair."
And that is my $0.02
10:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
No charges for wife who shot and killed her husband
Updated: 7/9/2005 10:27 AM
By: Capital News 9 web staff
Hamilton County investigators said Joan O'Neill shot her husband in the back, killing him inside their home in the Town of Wells. Joan was charged with Second Degree murder. Now, the grand jury has reached a different conclusion.
"She will face no criminal charges and no prosecution for the events that took place on May 4," said Special Prosecutor Louise Sira.
At a press conference, Special Prosecutor Louise Sira painted a dark picture of how the events unfolded over the years.
"Mr. O'Neill has suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. He is a combat veteran of Vietnam," said Sira.
He is also decorated for saving another soldier's life. But Sira said the stress that ended his career as a Schenectady police officer also led to threats against his family, and were backed up by the nine illegally owned and loaded handguns he kept around the house.
WATCH THE VIDEO
Woman cleared by Grand Jury
A Grand Jury cleared a Town of Wells woman who shot and killed her husband in early May.
"Mr. O'Neill made it extremely clear to Mrs. O'Neill that if she called the police again, he would kill the police officer who came to the house," said Sira.
Officials said Robert chose their Pumpkin Hollow Road home based on its strategic location. It overlooks Route 30 and Pumpkin Hollow Road, and the high ground usually wins in a battle. That's one reason why officials said the threats were taken so seriously.
Mrs. O'Neill's attorney said a visit from the police would have led to tragedy.
Attorney William Martuscello said, "He was going to be ready for them. It was going to be a blood bath."
It came to a head May 4. Officials said Robert got into a fight with his son, and things quickly got out of hand.
"Mrs. O'Neill heard the bolt action of the rifle that had been broken in the previous altercation," said Sira.
And that's when Joan made the decision to end the fight, without risking the lives of police officers who would be targeted if called to the scene.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
Catholics cannot support abortion rights-Vatican
07 Jul 2005 10:18:46 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY, July 7 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said too many Roman Catholics were not taking their religion seriously and that those faithful who receive communion and still support abortion rights were behaving scandalously.
In an 88-page working document for a synod of bishops to be held in October, the Vatican also decried dwindling attendance at Sunday Mass and reaffirmed a rule that Catholics who divorce and remarry outside the Church cannot take communion.
The document on the theme of the Eucharist said many Catholics had lost the sense of the sacred surrounding communion, which the Church teaches becomes the body and blood of Christ during the Mass.
One part of the document returned to an issue that remains particularly hot in the United States -- whether Catholics who support abortion rights can receive communion.
"Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal," it said.
"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favour of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace," it said.
The U.S. Catholic community was divided last year over whether they should support presidential candidate John Kerry, himself an Catholic who supported abortion rights.
Some Catholics say they personally would not have an abortion but, in pluralistic societies such as the United States, feel obliged to support a woman's right to choose.
But the Church, which teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder, says Catholics cannot have it both ways.
The document lamented what it called "a crisis in the meaning of belonging to the Church" and an inadequate understanding of the Catholic teaching that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real and not symbolic.
It said an increasingly secularised society had weakened the sense of mystery in the sacrament of communion. Too few Catholics were approaching communion with the "fear and trembling" that the true presence of God warranted.
It also listed a series of other "deficiencies and shadows" related to communion, lamenting that too many Catholics were taking the sacrament while they were in a state of sin because they had not gone to confession first.
"The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion without even thinking that they might be in state of mortal sin," it said.
The taking of communion by divorced Catholics who remarry outside the Church had become "a common occurrence in various countries" even though it is officially forbidden.
The Catholic Church forbids divorce.
The document lamented that in some developed countries participation at Sunday Mass was as low at 5 percent and again urged the faithful to keep Sunday holy.
AlertNet news is provided by
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
THE EX-GAY GENE?
Nicholas Jackson
July 8, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
In Columbus, Ohio on June 24-26, we just wrapped up the Christian Home Educator’s of Ohio’s Annual meeting to help raise the future leaders of our nation and teach parents how to educate their Christian children from a Christian perspective.
Interestingly, and concurrently we had the PTA’s annual meeting where they also met to discuss the future education of our precious children. Largely ignored by the mainstream media was the fact that Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) gave a presentation and manned an exhibit promoting homosexual indoctrination in our schools. Undoubtedly, there was discussion about intolerance, homophobia, anti-bullying policies and how to teach our youngsters to embrace and affirm, because homosexuals, as we have been told, are born that way. Or are they?
As reported by George Archibald in the Washington Times, the PTA last year invited PFLAG to have an exhibit at their convention and to make a presentation. This year, the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) wanted to share its perspective on homosexuality and school safety but were denied exhibit space at the upcoming annual convention. In a case of viewpoint discrimination and intolerance by the PTA, PFOX was relegated to having their own convention across the street, and was told by the PTA you don’t exist.
Parents may be shocked to learn what some schools are teaching their children. In the book, “The Homosexual Agenda, “Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today,” Co-authored by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, many shocking and disturbing incidences of homosexual indoctrination are documented. The author’s describe an incident that happened to a young boy named Kyle in his high school biology class.
“One day during his biology class, Kyle’s teacher stated that homosexual behavior was genetic. Kyle immediately raised his hand to disagree. The teacher, a self-professed bisexual who had testified in support of civil unions in Vermont, immediately ridiculed and humiliated him in front of the entire high school’s class. ‘What’s the matter, Kyle?’ she said mockingly. ‘Are you unsure of your sexuality? Did you know that the people who scream the loudest turn out to be gay themselves?’
A few weeks later, in the middle of a discussion on genealogy, the teacher again digressed into the subject of homosexual behavior. Kyle asked again what homosexuality had to do with the subject. The teacher again questioned his sexuality and implied that he might be covering up the fact that he was homosexual. Kyle stood up and denied the accusation, stating he had a girlfriend. The class snickered at him.
One classmate went as far to suggest that the girlfriend was a cover-up and that Kyle was a closet homosexual. Devastated and humiliated, Kyle’s grades dropped from a 3.70 GPA to 2.10 in the months following the incident.”
As Kyle was being taught that homosexuality is genetic, we are fed a steady diet of sensationalized studies which assert that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Natalie Angier wrote in the New York Times on September 1, 1991, “Proof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could provide further ammunition in the battle over discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon, rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” or “preference,” then gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or a teaching job than could, say blacks.”
The quest for the “gay gene” is undoubtedly a key component in the gay rights activists’ quest for gay marriage, adoption, and “hate crimes” legislation which limits free speech of Christians and other faiths which view homosexuality as sin. Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute wrote an excellent piece summarizing the debate over the “gay” gene called “Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic” Knight sums up the debate well with a paraphrase from a researcher, Dr. Satinover: “Some people may be predisposed because of genetic, prenatal hormonal influences or other physical or brain differences to have personalities that make them vulnerable to the environmental factors that can elicit homosexual desires. So is homosexuality biological? Not in the way that popular media and homosexual activists have presented it.”
With all this talk about a “gay gene,” This brings me to my assertion at the beginning in the title of my piece. If the idea is put forth that homosexuality is genetic, that there is indeed a “gay gene,” which has clearly been debunked, then by the same logic there would have to be an ex-gay gene. What else would account for the thousands and thousands of people who have found freedom from homosexuality?
I realize this is dehumanizing and sad to reduce people to being simply a product of their genetics and having no control over their behavior. Our society has tended to blame our genetics for every malady ranging from criminal behavior to gambling. The Church is confused. In Ohio, while working on our constitutional marriage protection amendment (which passed with a 62% majority), I often ran into confusion on this issue. However, I don’t intend this column to provoke a search for a gay gene or an ex-gay gene.
My heart is grieved when an admirable group like PFOX is denied a seat on the bus, and told they don’t exist at our national PTA conference. My heart is grieved when a co-worker tells me that her husband abandoned her for another man and left her alone to raise her children. My heart is grieved when my friend caught in the homosexual lifestyle told me about seeing his father commit suicide when he was 15, and to see that he is only seeking the love that only the Heavenly Father can provide.
With this grieving is also encouragement. I am encouraged that people continue to be transformed and made whole by repenting and receiving The Lord Jesus as their Savior. I am encouraged by my Christian friend who was rescued from homosexual pornography and experimentation in college. I am grateful for the woman I met recently who was assisting in protecting marriage in Ohio this year who was set free from her lesbianism. I am grateful for testimonies from men like Greg Quinlan, of Pro-family Network here in Ohio, who after becoming a Christian left the homosexual lifestyle and was married to his beautiful bride Cheryl. “Greg faced Cheryl that day, took her hands in his and proclaimed to her and the guests, ‘I never thought this day would come, but the Lord has done this. This is the answer to my long-time prayer, for He has finally brought you to me.’”(The Grander Vision of Greg and Cheryl, by Linda Harvey, Mission America.)
The Lord is about transformation and change. In all seriousness, there is no gay gene, and there is no ex-gay gene, there is something all the more serious and that is “sin.” Jesus Christ despised sin so much that he died a bloody horrible death on the cross to pay the penalty for it. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God,” It goes on to say, “and that is what some of you were, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of Our God.”
If I take a candid look at my life I have to admit that I was an ex-alcoholic in college when I was in a fraternity, I was an ex-idolater when I followed New Age Religion, I was an ex-adulterer, as Jesus says anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart. I engaged in many ex-sins. Gratefully, the Lord brought me to repentance and He has forgiven me of my ex-sins. It’s time for the Church to stop excusing and rationalizing sin but to repent, teach the truth, and point people to the ultimate in gene reparative therapy, Jesus Christ.
Let me leave with a few scriptures, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”(1 John 1:5-10)
“If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed.”
© 2005 Nicholas Jackson - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Jackson is a physical therapist from Ohio who assists pro-life and pro-family ministries in the Central Ohio area. He is executive director of Reform America, a Christian Activist organization based in Columbus. For more information on Reform America go to www.reformamerica.com
E-mail: nick@reformamerica.com
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
ILLEGALITY OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!
By Albert Burns
July 8, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
“Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse.” -- Thomas Jefferson to the Washington Tammany Society, 1809.
At a time when the Founding Fathers of this country, and the Constitution they established, are continually being denigrated and “mean mouthed” by educators, the mass media and others, it cannot be repeated TOO OFTEN that the Constitution is a limitation on the GOVERNMENT, and NOT on individuals. It does NOT, and was not intended to, prescribe or proscribe the conduct of private citizens, but only the CONDUCT of government and those to whom governmental power had been granted. In its most basic aspects, it is NOT a charter for government, but rather a charter of PROTECTION of citizens FROM their government.
The basic Constitution, itself, was a statement of strictly limited governmental powers. Then the great Bill of Rights was added to even further define what the government COULD NOT DO!!! Amendments 1 through 9 specify certain things which the government was NOT allowed to do and then the incredible Tenth Amendment which says, in effect, “If we forgot anything else, you CAN’T do that EITHER!” They did everything they could to protect future generations.
Unfortunately, as always throughout human history, there arose those who were determined to gain more and more centralized power. At the end of the Civil War (the War Between The States for you Southerners) the time was ripe for a major move in that direction. In 1865, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were introduced in Congress by the Republican Party (yes, the Republican Party was at it even back in 1865!). The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery was immediately ratified by the required three quarters of the States including all the southern States except Mississippi and Texas.
The 14th Amendment was never legal nor Constitutional from its very inception. The Constitution mandates that proposed amendments must be approved by two thirds of both houses of Congress. In December of 1865, the radicals in control of Congress refused to allow the legally elected Representatives and Senators from the southern States to be seated. Hence, at that point, Congress itself was unconstitutional. However, even disregarding that technicality, when the vote of those who WERE seated as part of the House was taken, out of 184 Representatives, only 120 voted in favor of the resolution. Two thirds of the 184 would have required 123 to vote in favor. In spite of the failure to get sufficient votes to constitutionally pass the resolution, the leadership of Congress arbitrarily declared the Resolution passed. Congress then submitted the 14th Amendment to all the states for ratification, INCLUDING the States which had already been DENIED representation in the Congress!
The 14th Amendment was soundly defeated when it was rejected by all but one of the southern States and all of the so-called “border” States. Iowa and Massachusetts had also failed to ratify it by the beginning of March, 1867. The radicals had only 21 ratifications of the 28 needed. What to do?
Those in power in the Republican Party which controlled the Congress at that time rammed through the Reconstruction Act of 1867. This incredible abuse of Congressional power simply abolished the legal governments of all ten of the southern States which had refused to ratify the 14th Amendment and placed all of them under military dictatorship. The generals placed in command of these dictatorships were required by the Reconstruction Act to prepare the “rolls of voters” for conventions which would formulate governments acceptable to Congress. Anyone who had served in the Confederate Army was denied the right to vote or to hold office — in spite of presidential proclamations by both Lincoln and Johnson granting amnesty to southern veterans who would swear allegiance to the U.S. The Reconstruction Act provided that when these “new” legislatures ratified the 14th Amendment they would be admitted to the union.
In other words, this illegal Congress — for purposes of excluding Representatives and Senators from southern states — considered those states OUT of the union. For purposes of getting the 14th Amendment ratified, this Congress considered the states IN the union. When they refused to ratify the amendment, the Congress simply abolished their governments and set up “reconstruction” legislatures, controlled by northern military power. Now these states were again treated as OUT of the union until they ratified the 14th Amendment — although the Constitution clearly requires that only states which are IN the union may act on amendments.
By July, 1868, Iowa and Massachusetts and six of the “reconstructed” states had ratified this 14th Amendment which would have added 8 states to the original 21 states for a total of 29 ratifications. HOWEVER, the legislators of two northern states had been so incensed by the whole outrageous manner in which this amendment was being forced through that they had RESCINDED their previous ratifications. (Illinois rescinded on January 15, 1868 and New Jersey on March 24, 1868.) Therefore, there were only 27 ratifications when 28 were required.
On July 20, 1868, then Secretary of State William Seward proclaimed that 3/4 of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment IF the legislatures in the six former confederate states were authentically organized and IF Illinois and New Jersey were NOT allowed to rescind their ratifications. The radical Congress did not like this equivocation and on July 21, 1868, Congress passed a joint resolution simply DECLARING that the 14th Amendment was a part of the Constitution and directing Seward to declare it legally ratified.
Such is a small part of the sordid history of the 14th Amendment as researched by constitutional scholar, Dan Smoot. In our next column, we will examine WHY the radicals of the time (and since) were so dead set on getting this change introduced into our Constitution and WHY it is essential that we recognize the consequences to all of us.
© 2005 Albert Burns - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Burns was born 1924 and brought up in Elizabeth, NJ. Enlisted in the Air Force in September, 1942. Sent to Boca Raton, Florida to begin Officer training. Graduated as a Second Lieutenant. Attended University of Arizona to study Civil Engineering.
Albert moved to Lima, Peru as Assistant Supervisor of Construction, with the U.S. Foreign Buildings Division of the State Department. Worked on the construction of the new U.S. Embassy Office Building in Lima. After completion, he was transferred to Mexico City to work on the construction of the new Embassy.
Joined the John Birch Society in 1967. Was a chapter leader, section leader and eventually served for several years as the Coordinator in Hawaii. Once he got on the Internet about ten years ago, he began writing articles in an effort to alert fellow Americans to what was taking place in America which the vast majority were unaware of. He has been studying and writing, ever since. E-Mail: avburns@mindspring.com
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
MOVE OVER MOSES, YOU'RE BEING OUTSOURCED
Deanna Spingola
July 9, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
So, have you ever heard of the Earth Charter? It is referred to as the Declaration of Interdependence by many – a mockery of the Declaration of Independence. This interdependence is applicable to the nations of the earth; which strongly suggests the dissolution of sovereign borders.
Two very influential individuals spearheaded the creation of the Earth Charter: Maurice F. Strong and Mikhail S. Gorbachev. No, we have not seen or heard the last of the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner Mikhail Gorbachev, past leader of the communist USSR. To fully understand the ramifications of the Earth Charter towards the establishment of world governance we should view the history of these two individuals and their complicit association with the United Nations.
Because of his extensive worldwide network of prominent people, Maurice F. Strong, a successful Canadian government official and mega bucks businessman, was selected to direct Earth Summit One in Stockholm in 1972. His selection was probably motivated by his vast international experience in maneuvering NGO’s. An NGO (non-government organization) is a way to reach government objectives by using philanthropist and big business money. That is another way of saying that money can purchase power, establish government policy and guarantee political appointments. “NGO's and their many members were funded through the Canadian government to attend the Stockholm conference to give the appearance of participation by the general public.”[1] This Earth Summit is the acknowledged beginning of the political use of possible world environmental calamities to instill international fear in order to gain support which will culminate in complete world control.
In 1972, because of his wide sphere of financial influence Strong used his clout to gain participation from both developed and developing countries that had previously benefited monetarily from the NGO’s he administered. This augmented devised participation lent great credibility to the developing concern about alleged environmental issues. Perhaps as a consequence of his early but brief employment at the U.N. (1947) and the elitist associations he established, he became a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation which funded the Stockholm Earth Summit Conference.[2]
One of the many outcomes of the Stockholm Earth Summit Conference was the establishment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1973. Maurice Strong was its first Executive Director.
The forerunner of the proposed Earth Charter was the World Charter for Nature, adopted in 1982 by the UN General Assembly. This earlier charter was a multi governmental declaration that the media never discussed. The purpose of that charter was to:
1. Define a global environmental ethic.
2. Affirm respect for nature as the primary principle of conservation protection.
3. To provide strategies & policies required to ensure ecological well-being.
However, the perpetrators of the World Charter for Nature did not convey the connection between the environment and the human condition.
In 1983, Strong joined the U.N.'s World Commission on Environment and Development. The head of this organization was Brundtland, the Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Seeking a more totalitarian control over humanity, they laid the foundations of what would become the Earth Charter. After devious deliberation, Strong, Brundtland and other members of the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development created a seemingly benign document entitled “Our Common Future” containing 21 articles. This was presented to the U.N. General Assembly on 11 December 1987. Immediately thereafter, the Commission issued a request for the creation of the more comprehensive Earth Charter that would incorporate the 21 articles as well as some fundamental principles for sustainable development. See IISD
The term “sustainable development” was coined in the late 1980’s by the World Commission on Environment and Development. The term depicts the promotion of development while sustaining the environment.
In 1988 Strong was put in charge of organizing the twenty year anniversary 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit 2, also known as World Summit on Sustainable Development. He had almost been shut out of that position by the U.S. State Department but they were overruled by the U.N. friendly Bush One White House. In preparation for the same Stockholm style simulated grassroots-like participation he used big money from major Foundations to subsidize a multitude of NGO’s, including many from the United States. This conference was attended by these highly visible, highly paid NGO groups who demonstrated their highly paid approval of the abominable Agenda 21 which was adopted at this conference.
Another one of the results of this 1992 United Nations Earth Summit was a directive that the developed, industrialized nations should give $600 billion dollars to the third world nations to atone for their environmental sins. Of course, this constitutes the socialistic redistribution of wealth worldwide while falling under the sustainable development agenda.
Maurice Strong is a manipulator of governments, businesses and people. He is a dedicated socialist as well as a very rich capitalist whose goal is one world government. He is well connected to the elitist crowd, including Al Gore, the vice president in 1992. Al Gore is also known as the self proclaimed Internet inventor. Strong was Al Gore's chosen candidate for the World Bank position.
In 1992, through his association with Al Gore, and because of his U.N. position, he could exert his faux environmental influence in the Clinton administration. Global warming, a questionable political issue, was and is as much a figment of the imagination as Al Gore’s creative computer genius. Global warming was an issue that Gore used in his campaign for the presidency.
Strong, completely dedicated to the implementation of one world government, makes his intentions quite clear through his actions and his words. He wrote the introduction to the book Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil (1991), former secretary general of the World Commission on Environment and Development. This book was published by the Trilateral Commission. His fellow traveler David Rockefeller wrote the foreword. In the introduction Strong said:
"This interlocking...is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life."[3]
In 1994 Maurice Strong, chairman of the newly formed Earth Council and socialist Mikhail Gorbachev, also a member, created the new Earth Charter Initiative, the initial step replacing the World Charter for Nature. The Earth Council was established to continue the totalitarian implementation of Agenda 21. The implementation of an Earth Charter would be a unique tactic to bring the world together by using environmental concerns which question the very survival of mankind.
Representatives from thirty countries and more than 70 organizations met at The Peace Palace in The Hague (created by the Carnegie Foundation 1913) in May of 1995 to begin the consultation process for the charter’s development.
Ultimately, an Earth Charter Commission was formed in 1997. This commission established an international drafting committee to create the Earth Charter. Later, it will be claimed that thousands of people helped write the Earth Charter. The only internationality of it was Strong, the Canadian, Rockefeller, the American and Gorbachev, the Russian. This was to be “a universal declaration to guide state behavior in the transition to sustainable development.” Professor (of Religion and Ethics) Steven Rockefeller, son of Nelson Rockefeller, multi-millionaire and advocate of global government, chaired the international drafting committee, which supposedly received input from thousands of people from around the world. Rockefeller, also a promoter of “creation centered theology”, is currently a co-chair for the Earth Charter for the United States.
The Earth Charter promotes the philosophy of the Transformational Movement which emphasizes unity, wholeness and community rather than individualism and self-interest. The individual is sacrificed in favor of the community. What is good for the community is priority. This may include social engineering, euthanasia, forced abortion, ethnic cleansing, etc. The charter is the “new scriptures” for the “new gospel”.
The Charter was launched at The Hague Peace Palace on 29 June 2000 with these words from Maurice Strong:
"The focus now moves to the use of the Earth Charter as an educational tool in formal and non-formal education, and as the basis for business and professional codes of conduct and national development plans."
"We are nowhere near to realizing the objectives of the Earth Charter because the poor are preoccupied with their next meal and the rich are preoccupied with their next deal. In the meantime, through globalization the world economy is stronger than ever before and the gap between the rich and poor is greater than ever before."[4]
The initial goal was to have the Earth Charter endorsed by the United Nations and in force by June 2005. United Nations approval is still pending.
There was a ten year follow up to the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit Conference in Johannesburg 26 August--4 September 2002 called World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). One hundred and four heads of nations attended and 191 nations participated. The Earth Charter was unveiled at this conference.
Maurice Strong has held many influential positions: Senior Advisor (1997) to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. He was a Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn who he had hired out of Harvard to run one of his businesses in the 60’s. He was Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; member of Toyota's International Advisory Board. As an advisor to Kofi Annan, he oversaw the new UN reforms.[5] One of Strong’s reforms was the reorganization of the UN. His plan was entitled Our Global Neighborhood created by the Commission on Global Governance.
In addition Strong has interests of a “religious” nature: he is a director of the Temple of Understanding (founded by Lucis Trust, formerly Lucifer Publishing Co.) located in New York City. This organization is linked to the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, home of the Gaia Institute. The cathedral is also the home of "a female Christ on the cross, complete with shapely hips and full breasts."[6] This cathedral has many well known big donors:
American Express Company
CBS, Inc.
Chase Manhattan Bank
Colgate-Palmolive Co.
David Rockefeller Jr.
Donald J. Trump
FEMA
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Hearst Corporation
J.P. Morgan & Co.
Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Huffington
Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Forbes
Mr. and Mrs. Felix Rohatyn
Mr. and Mrs. Laurance Rockefeller
Mr. and Mrs. Laurance S. Rockefeller
Mr. and Mrs. Steven C. Rockefeller
Mr. Robert de Rothschild
Mrs. Mary C. Rockefeller
Philip Morris Companies
Prudential Insurance Co.
Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
The New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
The New York Times Co.
The Rockefeller Group, Inc.[7]
Strong is also associated with the United Religions Initiative, a movement to “…promote an enduring, daily, interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the earth and all living beings.”[8] Naturally, interfaith cooperation implies a one world religion. A one world secular, godless religion for a one world government is the objective. Maurice Strong stated “The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”[9]
Of the same mentality as Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev was elected the General Secretary of the Communist Party on 11 Mar 1985 after the untimely deaths of his two predecessors, Yuri Andropov (former head of the KGB) and Konstantin Chernenko, who, interestingly, both died after little more than a year in office. He made major changes in leadership. He called for more openness and attempted to restructure the failing economy by allowing more personal freedoms. In 1987 he called for the democratization of the country. The country’s economic problems continued and there were uprisings and strikes. This substantially weakened and led to the downfall of the Communist Party. There was a coup in August 1991 and on December 8, 1991 the Soviet Union all but ceased to exist. On 25 December 1991, Gorbachev resigned. And to the delight of the West, this ended the Cold War so everyone could live happily ever after in peace and tranquility - NOT.[10]
Gorbachev founded the Gorbachev Foundation in 1992. In 1993 he climbed aboard the environmental band wagon by founding Green Cross International as a result of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He is one of the three major sponsors of the Earth Charter. Comrade Gorbachev remarked: “Do not do unto the environment of others what you do not want done to your own environment....My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount', that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century.”[11] Considering their arrogant comments, are these two earth worshippers attempting to supplant Moses, a prophet, and cast themselves in his role? And if this is the case, just who are they getting revelation from?
One very well known member of Green Cross is Ted Turner, a major property owner, who received the Green Cross International "Founder's Award" in 1998. Money talks! Ted Turner considers Gorbachev the greatest leader in the last 2000 years.
Gorbachev enlisted some of the following notable people to serve on his board of directors: Yoko Ono (widow of John Lennon), Olivia Newton John, John Denver, Carl Sagan and Javier Peres de Cuellar (ex-Secretary-General of the UN). His two presidential advisors for Green Cross International were Robert Redford and Ted Turner. Ted Turner is so dedicated to the objectives of the United Nations that he gave the largest single gift ever given to an organization – one billion dollars. Ted Turner is the single largest individual share holder in Time Warner which owns CNN News.
In an effort to claim world wide support for this dubious document an official earth charter web site states: “The Earth Charter, a Declaration of Interdependence, was created by thousands of people in 78 countries over the span of twelve years. There are sixteen Earth Charter principles that focus on respect for nature, economic justice, universal human rights, and a culture of peace. The Earth Charter can be used as a foundation for businesses, governments, and communities working towards building a just, sustainable, and peaceful society.”[12] Supposedly, it has the core value of interdependence and calls for economic and social justice, peace, democracy and ecological integrity.
It has long been the usual tactic of the satanical United Nations to assault from within, weaken families and individuals, promote socialistic state dependence and then deprive humanity of their God given individual liberties by corrupting the law and infiltrating the government. The adoption of this godless charter and the obvious objective of interdependence with other countries will result in the complete loss of any particle of sovereignty by each of the participating countries belonging to the United Nations who embrace this charter.
By our ignorance, perpetrated by our complicit big business Turner-type media, we are participating in our own approaching destruction. The combined garnered effort of the never named 78 countries who supposedly participated in the writing of this deadly document is a stealthy satanical maneuver to gain proponents who will participate in their own national demise. This maneuver is another way of enabling the enslaved to contribute to their downfall. Worried over global warming and other environmental crises, the fear filled foreign lemmings are gathering and seeking safety through the United Nation’s intervention. The uninformed, the compliant and the complicit lemmings in our own country are also gathering - casting their hopeful eyes at the “all powerful” United Nations.
The Earth Charter is receiving endorsements through such organizations as Earth Charter USA where one may personally endorse it and order brochures. Grassroots Earth Charter Summits have been held in communities around the country and throughout the world to garner individual and community support. People can attend workshops and meetings where they can be thoroughly brainwashed on global warming and other fear inducing hoaxes.
Many U.S. based organizations and governments have also endorsed the Earth Charter. It is not surprising to see the city of Berkeley, California, a haven of socialistic indoctrination at the top of the list. The U.N. has not yet endorsed the charter. They don’t need to. All that is needed is the growing grassroots groundswell who will plead for global governance and protection because of the earth’s diminishing resources and other environmental shams.
The Earth Charter is housed within the “Ark of Hope” which resides in the Interfaith Center of New York City. This center is a secular educational organization which was founded in 1997. Its mission is to make New York and the world safe for religious differences by increasing respect, mutual understanding and fellowship among citizens of diverse religious faiths and by fostering cooperation among religious communities and civic organizations to solve common social problems. Interfaith basically means a godless no faith sham of a one world religion which tolerates every possible deviant behavior and is committed to nothing.[13]
This ark of hope resembles the Ark of the Covenant as depicted in the movie – Treasures of the Lost Ark with Harrison Ford which is patterned after the description of the Ark of the Covenant described in the Old Testament.
Americans, Christians, Patriots – wake up!!! The United Nations is the satanical evil empire. Their corrupt leaders, with their oil for food scandals, merely provide a preview of their horrendous political policies. Their one world enforcement of the Earth Charter, after the ignorant of the earth beg for their endorsement, will totally enslave us. We must do whatever we can to get the United States out of the United Nations and the United Nations out of the United States. If you haven’t already, contact your congressman and implore them to support Congressman Ron Paul’s bill H.R. 1146 to end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Footnotes:
1 Maurice Strong: The New Guy in Your Future by Henry Lamb
2 Ibid
3 Maurice Strong: The New Guy in Your Future by Henry Lamb
4 Report to WFEO on the Earth Charter
5 International Man of Mystery: Who is Maurice Strong?
6 The New American, Vol. 11, No. 02, January 23, 1995
7 Ibid
8 United Religions Initiative
9 Papers & Speeches, 5 March 1998
10 Mikhail Gorbachev, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
11 Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1997
12 Changing the Earth One Fun Badge At A Time
13 The Interfaith Center of New York
Bibliography:
The New American The Earth Charter, November 4, 2002,
The New American The New World Religion, September 23, 2002
CBC News
Maurice Strong: The New Guy in Your Future by Henry Lamb
The Men Who Rule the World by Irvin Baxter Jr.
© 2005 Deanna Spingola - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center. She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution.
web site: www.spingola.com
email: deanna@spingola.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY
Brannon Howse
July 11, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.
Thanks be to God.
Living in a time when debating governmental systems was voguish among intellectuals, the Founders could have chosen from a smorgasbord of forms based on widely divergent worldviews. However, they deliberately chose a system of government built on a standard that is unchanging even if—and particularly if!—the majority populace deviates from the standard.
These days, most of our citizens believe America is and was a democracy and that democracy embodies the highest ideals of liberty. This, despite the Founders’ labors to create a system that wouldn’t cave in to the baser instincts of its citizens, the self-serving potential in its leaders, and the nearly boundless potential in any society for domination of the few by the many. We pledge allegiance to our flag “and to the republic for which it stands…,” but most Americans do not even know the important and clear distinctions between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
A democracy is what the late Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer called “the dictatorship of the 51%.” In U.S. War Department Training Manual No. 2000-25, published in 1928, the U.S. Government defines democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy [mob rule]. Attitude toward property is communistic—negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in… anarchy.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution so feared the dangers of democracy they included a provision in the Constitution requiring “each State maintain a republican from of government” (Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution). In addition, the Founders warned about the perils:
Noah Webster said, “In democracy…there are commonly tumults and disorders…Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”[4]
John Witherspoon wrote, “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state—it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”[5]
If, then, a democracy is so menacing to social well being, what is it that makes a constitutional republic a solid base for our society?
Turning back to U.S. War Department Training Manual No. 2000-25, we find the following description of a republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress…Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.
Noah Webster explained what the fixed principles of this republic must be: “[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principals is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.”[6]
Similarly, contemporary historian and author David Barton, in his video Keys to Good Government, states:
The difference between a republic and a democracy is the source of its authority. In a democracy, whatever the people desire is what becomes policy. If a majority of the people decides that murder is no longer a crime, in a democracy, murder will no longer be a crime. However, not so in our republic: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for murder is a crime in the Word of God. It is this foundation which has given our republic such enduring stability.
The Founders chose a constitutional republic because they understood that, over time, people will naturally choose to do wrong. The Bible tells us clearly that every way of a man is right in his own eyes (Proverbs 21:2), that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), and that evil men and seducers shall become worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Timothy 3:13).
Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution, reflected this understanding when he explained the reason we need governments: “Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint….”[7]
The foremost legal authority of the Founder’s day was William Blackstone. Introduced in 1766, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the laws became the legal guidebook of early American leaders. Blackstone’s Commentaries, in fact, formed the basis of American law until 1920, considered authoritative even in the U.S. Supreme Court. Commenting on the need to keep our laws consistent with God’s laws, Blackstone states:
To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine…If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law…But, with regard to matters that are…not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such for instance, as exporting wool into foreign countries; here the…legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.
Alexander Hamilton supported this worldview: “[T]he law…dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”[8]
Another signer, Rufus King, likewise noted, “[T]he…law established by the Creator…extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind…[T]his is the law of God by which He makes His way known to man and is paramount to all human control.”[9]
According to David Barton in his book, Original Intent:
The Founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people’s knowledge of those values should ever be lost…Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it. Therefore, in analyzing public policy remember to ask, “Is this act consistent with our form of government?” and support or oppose the policy on that basis.
Despite the fact America was founded as a constitutional republic, we are sliding toward democracy and are reaping the consequences. Maintaining a republic is hard work and requires the election of individuals that understand the unique nature and foundation of our government. If we are to preserve this heritage, we must elect men and women that understand God’s instructions on how we are to live—individuals who hold a comprehensive biblical worldview.
This is the path the Founders set us on. We dare not stray.
[To order "We are A Republic Not a Democracy"
T-shirts click here]
Footnotes:
1 Fischer Ames (Works of Fisher Ames, Boston T.B. Wait & Co., 1809, p. 24, Speech on Biennial Elections delivered on January 15, 1788)
2 (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States. Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851, vol. VI, p. 484, Discourses on Davila; A Series of Papers on Political History)
3 (The letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. I p. 454, quoting John Joachim Zubly, Presbyterian Pastor and delegate to Congress, in a letter to David Ramsay in March or April 1788)
4 (The American Spelling Book: Containing an Easy Standard of Pronunciation: Being the First Part of a Grammatical Institute of the English Language, To Which is Added, an Appendix, Containing a Moral Catechism and a Federal Catechism. Boston: Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews, 1801) pp. 103-104.)
5 (Witherspoon, Works, 1815, Vol. VII, p. 101, Lecture 12 on Civil Society.)
6 (Noah Webster, History of the United States, New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832, p. 6)
7 (The Federalist, p. 80, Federalist #15 by Alexander Hamilton).
8 (Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771, Vol. I, p. 41.)
9 (Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900, Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.
© 2005 Brannon Howse - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brannon is the author of the One Nation Under Man: The Worldview War Between Christians and the Secular Left, which will be released September 1st.
Website: www.christianworldviewnetwork.com
E-Mail: Brannon@worldviewweekend.com
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
Do you mind? Female contestants kiss on Channel 10's Big Brother.
Sex and nudity rule our TV
By KELVIN HEALEY and MARY BOLLING
10jul05
SEX, violence and profanities are standard fare on television these days, a Sunday Herald Sun survey has found.
An analysis of television between 8pm and midnight from Monday, June 27 to Friday July 1, has found TV programming is punctuated with sexually explicit, violent and profane scenes.
The study shows questionable and objectionable viewing was not restricted to the controversial Big Brother series.
The survey tallied up 65 acts of violence, more than 100 uses of vulgar or profane language, including 30 uses of the "f" word.
And it found 85 scenes showing sex, nudity or sexual references.
Among the worst offenders were: Channel 9's Cold Case and CSI: Miami, Channel 10's Law and Order and Big Brother Uncut, the ABC's Big Train and Channel 7's Last Man Standing.
Big Brother Uncut last week aired the "f" word 15 times, showed bikini-line and buttock waxing, a female contestant massaging another's breasts and sex talk.
CSI Miami depicted the shooting of a policeman four times -- including a close-up of the bullet entering the chest.
CSI: NY had a close-up of blood vessels popping in an eye, a body at a murder scene and a scene showing a man chewing his own hand off.
Other controversial scenes included a male rape scene on the SBS comedy, Pizza.
Channel 10's All Saints showed a man douse himself with petrol and set himself alight.
SBS on Friday July 1 aired the 10pm documentary In Search of the Perfect Penis, featuring genitalia and oral sex.
Australian Family Association president Bill Muehlenberg called for an urgent review of TV rules.
"Enough is enough. We need to have a reality check and have a strong look at what is allowed on television," he said.
"There is no question there's been a decline in standards and all the networks are guilty.
"We've become desensitised. Probably two thirds of children are still watching TV after 8.30pm."
A Network Ten spokeswoman said content was within guidelines.
"Big Brother Uncut is on late at night. It is never promoted in general or children's timeslots, or even during shows children might be watching, like The Simpsons."
SBS network programmer Matt Campbell said documentaries such as In Search of the Perfect Penis were educational.
"With our Friday night documentary, we look at sexual issues. We do it in an intelligent way and ask questions people want to know," he said.
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
Eric
old hand
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 807
Loc: USA
|
|
July 10 2005 at 02:46PM
By Juggie Naran
One out of every three children is having sex at the age of 10, and 17 out of 100 will deliberately spread the virus if they know they are HIV-positive.
These are the findings of a comprehensive survey by the Community Information, Empowerment and Transparency (CIET Africa) in November and December 2002.
CIET is a worldwide network of professionals from a variety of disciplines that provide technical support to communities to enable them to participate in an informed way in decisions that affect their lives.
'Explicit messages with sexual connotations are common'
The results of the study have already been used to develop life skills education materials, called "Beyond Victims and Villains", adapted to meet the standards of the revised national curriculum. The survey was published in the British Medical Journal last year.
The study involved 269 905 pupils in Grades 6 to 11 in all language groups, across a range of schools and from all nine provinces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the other disturbing findings included that, at 18, two out of every three children had had sex. Two out of 10 pupils did not believe condoms prevented pregnancy or other sexually transmitted diseases.
One in 10 said they believed sex with a virgin could cure HIV/Aids, and one in 10 had been raped in the past year. Three out of every 100 pupils thought that girls liked sexually violent boys and one out of every 10 thought that girls who got raped, asked for it, according to the study.
The study further stated people were becoming sexually active earlier and belief systems about sex supported sexually violent and sexually irresponsible behaviour.
'Often young girls become victims of rape'
"It is not surprising that 43 percent of all sexual crimes committed on children reported to Childline, were committed by children under 18," the study reported.
Despite widespread preventive interventions, reports of sexual abuse had increased. Reported incidents do not reflect the scale of the problem. CIET Africa research concluded that of every 394 offences committed, only 272 were reported.
"Only 17 of these become dockets of which five are referred to court for prosecution. One docket in every five gets 'lost' and only one conviction is secured," said the study.
Some of the reasons for not reporting rape were shame, feelings of guilt, lack of access to a reporting point, intimidation, adult gate-keeping, an emotional bond with the abuser and economic dependence.
The study also challenged myths:
Damage to the child was irreparable. Children can, in fact, heal. It is essential to acknowledge and support the child's capacity to heal and benefit from therapy and a healing environment.
Children can say "no" to abuse. This can put children at greater risk as it creates an expectation of safety. Children often cannot say "no" because the abuser is more powerful physically and psychologically. There is a universal norm of respect for an older person that most children have internalised. Older people have access to resources children may need or want and use these to manipulate the child.
Abused children will develop into adult abusers. While this is sometimes true, it was not true for the majority of victims - girls.
Public campaigns and activism, said the study, had very little impact on service provision in respect of prevention or management.
Research indicated that a secure childhood was seen as one of the most critical factors in developing mature and responsible adults. But, the study recommended that life skills education in schools focused on the inculcation of a human and child rights culture.
Life skills needed to focus on not only the pursuit of protecting and claiming a person's rights but also the protection of the rights of others, particularly the rights of those who were vulnerable.
Educational psychologist Salochani Govender supported the CIET Africa research findings. The time had arrived for South Africa to become pro-active and this had to start at home and school, she said.
Education on sexuality, HIV and Aids, creating attitudes of empowerment and growth and developing a transformational mindset were the keys to moving forward, said Govender.
The education department had life skills, sexuality and HIV programmes as well as pupil support material for supporting youth in a trained and nurturing environment in which issues could be discussed.
The Advice Desk for the Abused executive director, Fatima Bayat, said it was very disappointing and sad to note that rape and sexual assault were dominating society.
"Our youth, including young children, are sexually active."
There were numerous reasons why young people displayed inappropriate sexual behaviour patterns, said Bayat.
"Media, especially television, plays a very influential role to enhance kids' curiosity and encourages them to become sexually active. Explicit messages with sexual connotations are common.
"Often young girls, deprived of financial security and love, become victims of rape or consenting to sex for fear of rejection," said Bayat.
KwaZulu-Natal department of education spokesperson, Christy Naude, was not available for comment.
This article was originally published on page 6 of Sunday Argus on July 10, 2005
--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
