FOR LIBERALS: WHAT IS GLSEN AND WHAT DO THEY ADVOCATE FOR OUR CHILDREN?

I have a theory --that liberals, in general, have no idea what GLSEN is trying to do in our schools --besides promoting "tolerance" for persons of all sexual orientations. GSLEN stands for Gay Straight Lesbian Education Network. I doubt very much that GLSEN explains their specific educational aims to their liberal supporters --but only to those on the GLBT (gay,lesbian, bisexual, transgender) mailing lists. At least, I have this HOPE that normal folks who happen to be liberal would nevertheless not want what GLSEN wants in our schools!

CWA, Concerned Women for America, reports the following pornographic propaganda which GLSEN is promoting for sex ed. --successfully in some cases. All the info below is shortened slightly from their letter:

"Fistgate" refers to the time when GLSEN got caught teaching Mass. schoolchildren as young as 14 about the dangerous and painful gay activity of "fisting." I don't think they were saying, "Don't let this happen to you!" Even if they were, do kids have to hear about this practice??? They conspired with school officials to hide the info from the parents and sued a man who publicly exposed the obscene classes.

The above link tells about GLSEN's sex ed conference in Boston to which they bused students in, age 14 up. The supposed goal is to prevent AIDS by teaching kids some "safer sex" activities, including the use of "dental dams" for the mouth, and various mutual masturbatory activities which, ostensibly, wouldn't give anyone HIV or a baby.

Years ago, when the Red Cross was educating my school board and all the others in the area about AIDS, they listed several unheard-of activities like "golden showers" that the gays of San Francisco themselves were saying they should avoid--anything that mixes fluids. I would hope that GLSEN would not even mention activities like golden showers ( which includes urinating on wounds from sado-masochistic whipping.) It's just one more example of the mental illness which is same sex orientation.

The Red Cross nurse educator noted that the rectal lining is so thin that the practice of anal sex is very dangerous as abrasion is likely, condom or no condom. But GSLEN thinks we should tell kids that the use of dental dams will protect the practice of "rimming," or putting the mouth on the behind --where fecal matter would be ingested without use of a dental dam. They suggest to youth that condoms and other prophylactics make everything safe enough.

I noticed the BLADE editorial last week saying there is a yuk factor to kissing pets on the mouth or giving them CPR --and wondered that no one but me and other "intolerant" folks note the ycch factor to gay sex. Why are we afraid to speak the truth about these unhealthy and promiscuous practices?

Kevin Jennings is the founder and longtime director of GLSEN whose avowed goal is to promote homosexual and transsexual acts as "good for kids" --and he is Obama's new ass't deputy sec'y for public schools!! He's the one who tells the story repeatedly about a 15 year old boy who came to him for help when he was a teacher. The boy said he had sex with a man he met in a Boston bus station. Jenning's response was to tell him --according to his own words, "Well, I hope you knew to use a condom," instead of alerting police, the school and the boy's parents to this report of statutory rape.

Jennings has also spoken viciously in bigoted terms against Christians. He also describes in his autobiography, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son, [potentially a gay-producing combo, I suspect] his extensive use of drugs and alcohol in h.s. and college. He made fun of his mother for not recognizing the smell of marijuana smoke on him.

I've mentioned before Jesse's Dream Skirt, a book for kids that promotes cross-dressing and gender confusion among children. This is actually part of GLSEN's "Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Lesson Plan Guide for Elementary Schools." Along with the book about the gay penguins and their "family" --I wonder where they get the kid. And various books featuring two moms or two dads as positive, minus the opposite sex parent in the home.

All the social indicators still say that the original mom and dad parenting as a functional family give their children a leg up in life, economically, academically, socially, emotionally. So why would we encourage any other arrangement?? Especially activities with the yccch factor.

Homosexuals deny it, but I'm sure that being deprived of a mother can incline a girl toward lesbianism and being deprived of a father could incline boys the same way--and I think the social science is out there to confirm this tendency for children who lack one parent or the other. The so-called "pregnant man" was such a girl, whose mother died and she was raised by Dad and brothers.

PARENTS, ASK YOUR SCHOOLS ABOUT THEIR SEX ED AND DIVERSITY EDUCATION. Ask if you can opt your child out. Ask if these perverse books are in the school libary. And if so, why? Schools make choices on how to spend the library funds provided by the taxpayers; schools DO censor and make choices in their purchasing; parents should have a say. We need to stop promoting to children this primrose path to perdition --the childless, abnormal, dangerous, typically promiscuous, same-sex lifestyle.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Democrats on the War --what are they thinking? '08 and nothing more

The Democratic bill regarding the War just hurts our troops by putting them in the enemies' crosshairs today --

"Let's see --how can we get the Americans out of there! Just kill more of their kids! Blow up some vehicles! We and the democrats want them out of this war --and deaths are their rationale--so let's give them more deaths to hurry them home!"

That's the reality --the democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq because they need our failure there to ensure a democratic pres. in the white house --they think.

Nothing will hurt our image and prestige more abroad than to let them say, "We told you so!" That's what the dems seem to want. Astonishing to me that they don't want to DETERMINE to get Iraq on its feet before we leave. Why do they expect instant success like instant everything else in America? --We've got centuries of history behind these people under the yoke of oppression and sectarian rivalries. But they voted! they cheered Sadam's demise! We need to stay there and behave while we are there --and be there in such numbers that we are a successful peace-keeping force. In time, they'll be grateful--as most of them were in the beginning.

Dems haven't really calculated the potential clout of the evangelical, pro-life third of the nation who have yet to find a candidate to back. When they do, the dems don't have a prayer--(I hope.) It won't be a democratic candidate for sure, because Ann Coulter was right --they are "godless" in their ACLU and NEA agendas for porn access, GLSEN (gay sex ed) in schools, rights of criminals, gay marriage and abortion on demand for convenience. (And I've not read her book.)

I also find our stance on the Iraqi's failure to help themselves a little strange --in light of our expressed guilt for going in there in the first place. Doesn't seem to be the right sort of rhetoric coming from those who think we should have been more "diplomatic" in conversation with Iran and No. Korea. Both sides of the aisle have blamed Iraqis for not really getting with the program of rebuilding their nation and providing its defense. Do we want to say that in insulting terms? Even if it's true. And I did hear one of our soldiers say (via his grandmother) that he and his buddies would stay fully dressed and sleep with their guns enroute to a mission with the iraqi army --while the Iraqis got comfortable. I'm thinking that says they trust us more than we trust them --in the middle of the night --with guns.