“Gay” Sex Kills

“Gay” Sex Kills

Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote “tolerance” for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to “embrace who they are,” pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke?

Neither can I. The public would go ballistic, and for good reason.

But that hasn’t stopped officials in thousands of schools across the country from promoting other politically correct and socially “in-vogue” behaviors that — both statistically and manifestly — are every bit as dangerous as the aforementioned frowned-upon behaviors.

That’s exactly what the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” is all about — advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance among children of the homosexual lifestyle.

Just the Facts Ma’am

By recently admitting that “HIV is a gay disease,” Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death.

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of “gay” activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study — conducted by pro-“gay” researchers in Canada — was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” — more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called “homophobia,” that being “Homophobia: The rational fear that ‘gay sex’ will kill you!”

The fact that we don’t have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

Yeah, so?

Of course, that’s all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn’t change reality, nor does it eliminate the study’s disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a “perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation.”

The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood.

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, “have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”
Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among “gays,” and Hepatitis C is twice as common.
But perhaps most shocking are today’s syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
The “Day of Silence”
In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or “sexual orientation”).

But instead, the “gay” lifestyle is vigorously promoted in our public schools. Sexually confused children who suffer from gender identity disorder and same-sex attractions are told to “embrace who they are,” and are encouraged to entertain deviant and dangerous sexual temptations. “But always use a condom!” liberal educators bellow. (Forget that condoms have a perilously high failure rate and are incapable of preventing numerous STDs such as the HPV virus.)

On April 25, 2008, the pro-homosexual indoctrination of your children comes to a boil. Homosexual activists and like-minded liberal educators will be pushing the so-called “Day of Silence” on kids in thousands of schools across the country.

The “Day of Silence” (DOS) is organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), one of the most militant and well-funded of the powerful homosexual pressure groups. DOS purports to confront the alleged systematic harassment and bullying of children who self-identify as homosexual, bisexual or “transgender.” (For a sampling of the kinds of things GLSEN teaches children, click here. Be warned, though. It’s pretty graphic.)

To be sure, bullying and harassment should not be tolerated against anyone, anywhere for any reason, and those who engage in such activities should be firmly disciplined. However, DOS has very little to do with “bullying” and has everything to do with propaganda.

During DOS, children and teachers are encouraged to disrupt the school day by refusing to speak, in a show of support to self-described “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” and “transgender” students. Kids are additionally taught that Biblical truth, which holds that human sexuality is a gift from God shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, is “homophobic,” “hateful” and “discriminatory.”

Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It’s the height of impropriety and cynicism for “gay” activists and school officials to use good-hearted but misguided children as pawns in their attempt to further a deceptive, highly controversial and polarizing political agenda.

DOS is pure, unadulterated propaganda and, based on the medical science, amounts to nothing short of educational malpractice. With liberal school officials in tow, these militant homosexual activists are brazenly circumventing and abusing parental authority to further this dangerous political agenda. DOS is also a slap in the face to the many students with traditional moral values.

So, it’s time for the “Day of Silence” to finally live up to its name. It’s time for these radical adult activists to be silent in our children’s schools.

And you can to do something to help.

At DOS-participating schools all over the country, parents are joining with dozens of pro-family organizations, such as Concerned Women for America (CWA), in a “Day of Silence Walkout.” They’re keeping their kids home from school on DOS as a show of protest. (For more information visit www.missionamerica.com).

Parents and children are also strongly encouraged to participate in the Alliance Defense Fund’s non-disruptive “Day of Truth,” which will follow DOS on Monday, April 28, 2008. (For more information visit www.dayoftruth.org).

Children are impressionable. Their young minds are fresh clay ready for molding, and these adult homosexual activists know it. Your child’s spiritual, emotional and physical well-being belongs in your hands, not in the hands of liberal activists and elitist educators with a deceptive and destructive political agenda.

It’s time to shatter the silence with truth.

Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

Why Is Congress Ignoring The Incredible Promise Of Adult Stem Cells?

Liberal Republicans and Democrats in Congress are rushing to overturn President Bush’s ban on expanded use of human embryos in stem cell research this week. Under consideration this week is H.R. 3, a bill that is designed to institutionalize the killing of unborn humans for their stem cells.

Why are liberals so determined to expand on the killing of the unborn? They already vigorously defend the so-called “right” of an abortionist to “terminate” the life of unborn children—even those in the ninth month of life. What drives these individuals to now view human embryos as spare body parts for others?

But, more to the point: Why do liberals consistently refuse to consider the promising results of adult stem cells, which are already being used to cure diseases?

For years, physicians have used adult stem cells, stem cells from umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, placentas -- as well as gene therapy -- to help individuals with diseases. Significant progress is being made in the field of regenerative medicine – which uses the body’s own cells to regenerate damaged tissue.

The Washington Post, (January 8, 2007) reported on the promise of using cells in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women for the healing of diseases. These cells can grow into brain, muscle and other tissues!

These cells are apparently even easier to retrieve and to store than are embryonic stem cells – and don’t carry the ethical baggage with them. These cells can potentially be frozen and kept in a personalized tissue bank for future use. This is the latest breakthrough in the use of non-embryos for stem cells – and should be vigorously pursued.

Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already been used to treat diseases successfully. The Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that 50% of those with Lupus who were treated with adult stem cells were disease-free 5 years after treatment; The Journal of Rheumatology found that 73% of those with rheumatoid arthritis could be controlled on medication after being treated with adult stem cells; and the journal Nature has reported that vision-impaired mice injected with adult stem cells showed improvement.

There is more: In 2004, the National Right To Life Committee reported that adult stem cells are used in more than 30 anti-cancer therapies! In addition, adult stem cells injected into damaged hearts have become healthy muscle tissue. Harvard Medical School researchers have successfully reversed juvenile onset diabetes in mice by using “precursor cells” taken from the spleens of healthy mice. In addition, severed spinal cords have been regenerated in mice by the use of gene therapy!

These are only a few of the many examples that can be given of the successful use of adult stem cells to cure diseases. On the contrary, there is not one case I’m aware of showing that the use of stem cells from unborn humans has been successfully used to cure any disease.

Why is Congress so eager to normalize the killing of unborn humans for their body parts? What sort of grisly mindset compels these legislators to believe it’s ethical to kill one human to benefit another? Is it because the embryo can’t donate, scream, protest, or picket? How can a civilized society accept the high-tech cannibalism involved in the deliberate killing of a human embryo to harvest its parts?

Perhaps our Congressmen should research the horrific practice in Communist China of killing political prisoners for their body parts. The same logic applies to the killing of unborn embryos for their parts. After all, why waste those eyes, livers, spleens, etc., of dead prisoners when they could benefit a high-ranking member of the Red Chinese Army? This is what has regularly occurred in China over the past decades. (After denying this practice for more than a decade, China’s leaders admitted what they were doing in 2006. They have now supposedly banned this practice. Lying to Capitalist news outlets is standard practice in this ruthless dictatorship so their assurance is suspect.)

So, will Chinese Communist ethics rule in Congress this week as legislators debate H.R. 3, or will our lawmakers reject this war against human embryos and focus on adult stem cell research and the promise that regenerative medicine holds? We’ll know soon.


By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

A Tsunami of a Problem

Try to remember that time not so long ago when celebrities were flooding the airwaves, begging for help for victims of the tsunami. Only the most heartless of Americans could have possibly turned down those impassioned appeals.

Now comes word from the BBC that half of the billions of dollars pledged by individuals, businesses, and governments around the globe for tsunami aid has not yet been spent—two years after the disaster.

It should come as no surprise, however, that a number of foreign governments have completely reneged on their promise to send aid. Others have only given a small percentage of what they promised.

All told, some 6.7 billion dollars was pledged, but only 3.4 billion has been spent, according to the BBC report. Among the biggest deadbeats—China, which pledged 301 million dollars to Sri Lanka, but has actually given only a paltry million…France, which promised 79 million, but has forked over just a little more than a million…and Spain, which pledged 60 million, but has actually donated less than a million.

With friends like these, the tsunami victims need no enemies.

The BBC reports that the European Commission owes 70 million; Britain, 12 million. Meanwhile, the United States has donated about 38 percent of the dollars it promised. The Red Cross, one of the most trusted relief agencies in existence, promised to build 50,000 homes, but has finished only about 8,000.

The British Red Cross is defending its post-disaster performance, with spokesman Matthias Schmale telling the BBC: “It is incredibly difficult…we said from the beginning, this is happening in very difficult circumstances. We raised the money knowing it was difficult. It will take time to spend this money in a responsible manner.”

Schmale admitted that the speed at which houses are being built sounds like “slow progress.” However, he noted that the tsunami also swept away identity papers and legal documents, creating a bureaucratic storm.

However, an official with the United Nations, Miloon Kothari, sees the excuse-making as uncalled for: “It should really not take this long to build permanent housing,” Kothari told the BBC.

Kothari added, “I do not accept the explanation that it is going to take four to five years, in some cases, seven. I’m an architect, I know how long it takes to build a house.”

It was the day after Christmas in 2004 that an earthquake measuring 9.3 in magnitude sparked a tsunami that resulted in the loss of more than 200,000 lives.

Obviously, it can take a long period of time for those who survive such a disaster to recover. But when promised money is inexcusably slow in coming…when pledges made are not kept…and when snail-paced bureaucracy is involved…recovery is not only hindered—it can actually grind to a halt.

If ever there was an effective argument against nationalized health care, the tsunami relief fiasco is it. If it takes more than two years for a centralized authority to build a house, imagine how long it could take for you to find a surgeon to remove your gall bladder—if the federal government were in charge of the entire health care system.

There are some things that the private sector is simply better equipped to handle. Home building, food service, economy-building, and health care are just a few of them.

Hanging Brings Iraq No Harmony

Those who believe that a kindly Providence keeps a watchful eye on America's welfare can cite the fact of Gerald Ford. On Aug. 9, 1974, at a moment when the nation was putting aside a tormented president and aching for serenity in high places, to the center of national life strode an abnormality - a happy, normal man as president.

Watergate and a presidential resignation were only two of the nation's problems that August. The mid-'70s were years when everyday things could no longer be counted on - inflation was undermining the currency as a store of value, and lines at gasoline pumps testified to the power of foreigners to get between the Americans and their best friends, their automobiles.

Ford was a political sedative for a nation with jangled nerves.

He was one of five presidents who never got elected to the office. He was the only person to be president without receiving any popular or electoral votes for president or vice president. He was born in Omaha and represented a western Michigan district, and much was made, rightly, of his Midwesternness.

Ford was an "accidental president," but there are reasons why accidents happen as they do. Call it the cunning of history, or an irony of American life, but this underestimated graduate of the Yale Law School served a purpose Nixon did not have in mind when he nominated him to replace the disgraced Vice President Spiro Agnew. Nixon probably hoped Ford's popularity in the House would enable him to rally House Republicans against impeachment. Instead, Ford's presence in the vice presidency probably made his former House colleagues less afraid of impeachment.

There is a photograph of the House Chamber when President Truman was delivering one of his State of the Union addresses. Scattered through the chamber in front of Truman were four future presidents - Congressman Kennedy, Sen. Johnson, Congressman Nixon, Congressman Ford. Never before or since have four consecutive presidents gone directly from the legislative branch to national elective office.

In 1976 Ford might have won a full term if he had been less statesmanlike: His pardon of Richard Nixon unquestionably hurt him politically but unquestionably helped with national healing. Ford also might have won if he had stepped out of character and been more adventurous - if in selecting a running mate he had chosen, as he considered doing, Ambassador Anne Armstrong, a Texan, to be the first woman on a national ticket. Instead he chose a Midwesterner, Kansan Bob Dole, thereby giving a boost to a distinguished career that would produce the party's presidential nominee 20 years later. Ford also might have won if some unsettling economic numbers had not come out a few days before Election Day. Or if he had not become lost in the labyrinth of peculiar thinking and rhetoric that went with detente, insisting that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union.

He almost won anyway. A change of 12,791 votes in Ohio and Mississippi would have sufficed. The 1976 presidential election was the only one the Republicans lost between 1964 and 1992. Ford was punished for Nixon's sins: Jimmy Carter won by running as the non-Nixon.

Surely subsequent presidential history has deepened the nation's appreciation of what it had for 29 months.

Flag Day

Millions of Americans will wave Old Glory from their front porches today - Flag Day proud of what it symbolizes: freedom.

Yet in Washington, Congress again plans to debate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would "prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Most Americans don't want to see their flag spat upon, defaced or burned. But a nation that tolerates such acts shows a profound respect for the freedoms it holds dear, especially the freedom of speech and expression. Some say that burning the Stars and Stripes is the ultimate expression of free speech, even though most of us find the message repugnant.

Supporters of the amendment say it would stop those who express hatred for freedom, insult the sacrifice of patriots and reject American principles. But limiting freedom of expression because we don't like the message represents a dangerous slippery slope.

The flag is an important symbol of national pride, but it is not more important than our cherished right to live and speak freely.

Diplomacy 101 with Iran

The willingness — or desperation — of the Bush administration to try diplomacy in pursuit of dissuading Iran from its nuclear ambitions is a welcome change of behavior.

Tehran and Washington continue to push and shove with words, but the atmosphere took a decidedly promising turn when the White House agreed to talk with the Iranian regime. The two sides are wrangling over preconditions to those discussions, but even that is a remedial kind of diplomacy for each. "Working with our international partners," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week, "the United States is making every effort to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome ... "

After nearly six years of bluster at every turn, these are welcome words out of the Bush administration.

American foreign policy has been powered by a sense of exceptionalism and independence from international rules and diplomatic protocols, as if the United States did not need anyone's permission or assistance. The Iraq war demonstrated the tragic consequences and expensive and lethal limitations of such an attitude.

Iran actively chose not to be impressed. Threats and intimidation have not worked, so President Bush and his secretary of state opted for old-fashioned diplomacy. They recruited two of Iran's key benefactors and trading partners — China and Russia — plus three European leaders — Britain, France and Germany — to tell Tehran to knock it off.

Suddenly, the mouthy Iranian regime no one trusts is confronted with a diplomatic coalition of the willing — countries ready to talk and cajole and back economic sanctions, if need be.

The next step is patience, plus the willingness to apply pressure and keep it in place to stanch the hemorrhaging of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Give or take brief chats before U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries have not talked since 1979 and the rise of the Islamic revolution and the taking of American hostages. Give this process enough time to get established before it is prematurely declared a failure.

The Bush administration is invoking diplomacy and that ought to be applauded.
(by Seattle Times)

It’s Time to Re-brand “Brand Atlanta”

With the Mayor’s proposal Monday to spend $14 million of additional taxpayer money to fund Brand Atlanta the next two years, the time finally has come to say publicly what everyone has said and thought privately: while Brand Atlanta has worthy goals, the creative execution has been a flop.

I do not assert this lightly or in a vacuum; I have asked the opinions of hundreds of people in the business world and larger community over six months, and the overwhelming verdict is that the campaign is bland, not uniquely identifying, nor meaningful. Certainly not one believes it has been worth the time and money spent, or that what we have out there now will materially enhance the city’s reputation and prospects.

Like the old fable of the Emperor sold on invisible clothes, townspeople were first stunned, then laughed quietly, then they just resigned themselves to watching the silliness unfold. But also like the fable, the situation has grown ever more serious while town elders have not spoken up, and someone now must tell the Emperor that (s)he’s not wearing any clothes! With a whopping $12 million spent so far, about a third of which came directly from taxpayers, and now the proposal for $14 million more, it is time to continue Atlanta’s legacy of speaking truth to power.

What was the original goal? In Brand Atlanta’s own words, to “distinguish the city as a preferred destination for visitors, residents and businesses alike.” Everyone rightly points to the Las Vegas campaign as the new promotional gold standard, to the point that I don’t have to repeat their tagline. They have a distinctive theme, use memorable imagery, and create humorous storylines.

So what specifically is wrong here? The slogan “Every Day Is An Opening Day” doesn't have a natural tie with Atlanta no matter how hard they spin it, no one really gets it (who’s opening what when?), and it’s just not true. The radio and TV commercials with Holly Hunter’s and Samuel Jackson’s distinctive voices sound polished, but ring of fake boosterism, like corporate-talk at a trade show. And why are we saturated with them here – isn’t this intended for people elsewhere?

The hip-hop “anthem” has a limited audience, and people who like the genre tell me it’s not a good hip-hop song anyway, a big reason it gets no airplay. No one cares about the alternate versions recently created. The logo looks like someone put Coke red, the Hawks wings, and a boring 70’s font style in a blender.

Let’s not forget (if anyone ever learned them to start) about “The Three O’s”, a set of mission-speak generalities that no one listens to – “Our city’s boundless optimism and spirit of universal openness create a place of opportunity for everyone.” Huh? What city are we talking about again?

Clearly, creativity just doesn’t work by committee, especially one run by huge companies.
Despite this poor start, however, there is still hope for a solution.

Burdened by the challenge of trying to please too many constituencies, Brand Atlanta spurned a simpler and better path. They rejected the one label everyone in Atlanta and almost everyone in the country already knows – "Hotlanta". Many times I have been in another city, told someone I was from Atlanta, and watched their face light up as they said “Oh, Hot-lanta! Great place, lots going on there.” How many other cities have such a positive and ubiquitous nickname?

Yet a November New York Times article reported that the committee actually regarded “Hotlanta” as a negative, one member asking, “Why remind people who are considering coming to Atlanta in July and August that it's hot here?” I had to read this twice at the time before laughing out loud at how badly they missed the meaning of the term. Come on, everyone knows it can get hot in the South! Texas is worse, and our climate is great the other ten months. More importantly, everyone I’ve talked to rolls their eyes when hearing that quote, knowing that the "hot" refers to the energy and dynamism of this city, the excitement and growth here, not the thermometer!

No, instead of running away from the one label everyone knows, it seems clearly smarter to embrace it. So I would like to put forth a different six-word slogan, one that every person of the hundreds I have polled believe works much better:
.
Hotlanta – The Cool Place To Be

This is at once easily identifiable, easy to interpret, and it speaks truthfully to everyone across cultural boundaries. The neat play on words between hot and cool works as a counterpoint: we’ve got both big-city sizzle and gracious Southern style. Hotlanta is so hot on several fronts that it's become the cool place to be. It purposefully doesn’t say “To Visit”, but a place to be, to stay – this message speaks to relocating companies as easily as it does to tourists and conventions.

Moreover, easily-imagined ad campaigns could support this theme for decades, putting front and center the special mix of assets, environment, and people Atlanta boasts: unique attractions (Georgia Aquarium, World of Coke, new High Museum, CNN, etc.); exciting and varied nightlife; a dynamic, hospitable business environment for large and small companies alike; the vibrant, trend-setting music industry scene; many top universities; great neighborhoods and diversity; and certainly our top sports venues and franchises – Michael Vick is one all by himself.

If we need a theme song, why try to create one from scratch? It would be easier and effective to reuse the most popular songs from our biggest hometown acts. Why not ask OutKast if we can take their major hit “Hey Ya” with its infectious beat, create new lyrics and change the title to “Hotlanta”? That would be an energetic, upbeat anthem out of the box, known and liked by all. For the logo, why not have a Peachtree Road Race-style design competition, choose 3 to 5 finalists and put it to a vote? Let’s make this a real community effort, one in which people feel they have a stake.

Good leaders in business and politics constantly solicit feedback, measure effectiveness, and take corrective action. Recently New Jersey spent $260,000 on a slogan before killing it, while New York aborted launching its own poorly received campaign. In Atlanta, we too can give ourselves a mulligan and quickly get back on track. The $4.5 million in tax money already spent is sunk, but we should at least learn the lessons it bought us before committing more.

Mayor Franklin has been incredible so far at taming large, long-standing problems facing our city. This represents a new challenge, one where she and Coke executive Jackson Kelly, Brand Atlanta’s new leader, can quickly turn a set of missteps into a victory.

So this time let’s give all Atlanta a voice – let’s have the AJC and other media run polls on whether people prefer the current slogan or this new one. If 70% or more agree that we can do better with Hotlanta, let’s do what Atlanta has done many times before and go with what works.

And if we do that, fear not: unlike the big-ticket ad firms, I won’t charge millions. The city can use the slogan free of charge. The best reward would be a cool key to The Cool Place To Be, Hotlanta.


Mr. Fleischmann is President & CEO of Atlanta-based MostChoice.com, a leading online insurance and mortgage quote request service providing leads for agents and brokers nationwide. He also has experience revamping his company's business model to achieve a spot in the upcoming Inc500.