Thursday, October 18, 2007

California Governor Schwarzenegger Veto of Gay "Marriage" Made Meaningless by Other Bills

While most media coverage has been devoted to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of homosexual 'marriage', he has in fact nullified his own veto giving all the rights of marriage to other unions. His opposition to the bill redefining marriage was based on the passage of Proposition 22 a referendum in 2000 which protected the traditional definition of marriage.

On Friday Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 102, which awards married names to unmarried couples. AB 102 allows homosexual couples to hold themselves out as married by permitting them to choose the same surname upon registration of their "domestic partnership." The bill awards unmarried couples married last names, such as "Mr. and Mr. Smith" and "Mrs. and Mrs. Jones."

"Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians have created the public image of homosexual 'marriages' in California," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), in response to the signing of AB 102. "It's hypocritical for Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto homosexual 'marriage' licenses and at the very same time aggressively promote the public image of gay and lesbian 'marriages' in every community for every child to see."

In addition, Schwarzenegger signed AB 14, which requires more California businesses, as well as some churches and nonprofit organizations, to support and promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

AB 14 prohibits state funding for any program that does not support transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality. This means state-funded social services operated by churches and other houses of faith, which provide essential services to children and adults, could dry up.

Negatively impacted will be religious-based day care, pre-school and after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, job programs, and more. Throughout California, there are faith-based services that receive government funding that simply do not and will not accept transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

Infringing on matters of personal and religious conscience, AB 14 also forces every hospital in California -- even private, religious hospitals -- to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality. Under AB 14, private country clubs, tennis clubs and racquet clubs will be forced to support these sexual lifestyles on their premises. AB 14 also opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct. This certainly threatens the Boy Scouts, which is a membership organization as well as a nonreligious nonprofit.

"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB 14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrates the negative consequences of electing a liberal Republican to office," Thomasson concluded. "Schwarzenegger fooled many California conservatives into voting for him. Yet now he's flip-flopped and stabbed them in the back."


Study Finds that Among Teachers, Male Homosexuals are Most Likely to Sexually Abuse Students

A male homosexual was the teacher most apt to have sex with his pupils in a study encompassing 7 countries. Overall, 43% of teachers who made the news for having sex with their pupils over the last 27 years engaged in homosexuality. Homosexual teachers violated 1,925 (56%) of the 3,457 pupil-victims. Women were 11% of perpetrators, but a heterosexual female teacher was least apt to have sex with pupils. Sexual abuse incidents are frequently kept hidden by victims out of fear and shame and so the actual numbers of such teacher abusers are likely substantially greater.

Lexis-Nexis was searched from 1980 through 2006 uncovering 902 teachers who were known to have had sex with pupils. Teachers who engaged in homosexuality constituted 63% of perpetrators in Ireland, 62% in New Zealand, 60% in Canada, 54% in Scotland, 48% in Australia, 47% in England, and 35% in the U.S. The figures are especially significant given that homosexuals at any one time make up only a tiny 3%-5% of the population.

"Astounding," said Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado Springs think-tank, who conducted the investigation: "Similar results have been reported in U.S. studies from 1978 through 1996."

Prior studies included two polls of superintendents (homosexuals were 27% and 29% of perpetrators), convictions in 10 states (homosexuals were 32% of perpetrators), a poll of principals (35% of complaints were about homosexual teachers), and adults reporting on their experiences as students (23% of reports involved homosexuality). It's unusual to get such consistency from method-to-method, much less country-to-country."

Most (54% of 810 male, 83% of 92 female) teachers violated only opposite sex pupils, and 1,889 (55%) of the 3,457 victims were boys. The study was published in the new, free-access, on- line, peer-reviewed Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior. See the full study online here


The war against the Jews

The venomous animosity displayed by the UN towards Israel has been amply documented (if generally ignored). Now John Dugard, the UN human rights envoy for the Palestinian Territories, has vented a stream of this poison. BBC Online reports him saying that he will urge the world body to withdraw from the Quartet of Middle East mediators unless it addresses Palestinian human rights, since the US, EU, UN and Russia were failing to protect the Palestinians.
`Every time I visit, the situation seems to have worsened,' he said in a BBC interview. This time, I was very struck by the sense of hopelessness among the Palestinian people.' Mr Dugard attributed this to `the crushing effect of human rights violations', and in particular Israeli restrictions on Palestinians' freedom of movement.
Yes, the Palestinians' situation has worsened. This is principally the result of two things. a) The regime of terror instituted by the Hamas administration for which the Palestinians so unwisely voted and which is progressively making their lives a misery; and b) the restrictions imposed by the Israelis to counter the rockets which the Palestinians are lobbing at Israeli towns from Gaza, and the human bomb attacks they are ceaselessly attempting to perpetrate against Israelis. Strangely, Dugard makes no mention of either.
He said that although Israel did have a threat to its security, `its response is very disproportionate'.
Let's see now: checkpoints to stop its citizens from being murdered? Very disproportionate. Targeted assassinations, to kill terror godfathers while sparing innocent Palestinians as far as possible? Very disproportionate. Sitting on Israeli hands while rockets fired from Gaza slam into southern Israeli towns? Very disproportionate.

And what does Dugard have to say about Palestinians murdering other Palestinians? Last Saturday, Palestinian Authority forces shot dead two Palestinians, including a 5-year-old boy in Qalqilyah on the West Bank. Last month, masked gunmen attacked an 28 year-old Christian woman in Gaza city and looted a church.What does Dugard say about such crimes? Nothing. How very disproportionate.
He said the purpose of some of the checkpoints in the middle of the West Bank was to break it up `into a number of cantons and make the life of Palestinians as miserable as possible'.
The checkpoints are there for one reason only; to protect innocent Israelis from murderous Arab savagery. If there was no Arab violence, there would be no checkpoints.
The South African retired professor of international law said the response of the Quartet was weak because it was `heavily influenced' by the US.
Ah; now would that be the same US whose Secretary of State is currently saying:
`It's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state'
and intends to force Israel to agree, even while the Arabs in this putative state are showing what they would use such a state for by continuing even now to attack Israel by bomb and rocket - thus rewarding annihilatory terror and throwing Israel to the wolves?
The Quartet failed to engage properly on human rights, he said, and was also failing to deal with the current rift between the rival Palestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas. The militant Islamist movement Hamas seized the Gaza Strip in June, ousting Fatah, which is led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Mr Dugard said the rift was threatening the Palestinians' right to self-determination, and that the UN `should be playing the role of the mediator'. `Instead the international community has given its support almost completely to one faction - to Fatah,' he said. "That's not the role the UN should take.'
Of course not. It should give its support equally to a group that stands not just for the destruction of Israel and the murder and ethnic cleansing of Jews but the Islamisation of the entire region and its subjugation to tyranny.
Mr Dugard said he saw a greater danger - that of the Palestinian Authority raising expectations too high in the Palestinian community. `If those expectations are not met, I fear there may be serious consequences,' he added. The consequences include the possibility of a third `intifada, a large-scale, violent uprising against the Israelis, he said.

Mr Dugard said this should be no surprise.' Inevitably in a military occupation, there are likely to be those engaged in resistance.' These people may be labelled terrorists, Mr Dugard added, but history treats them differently. He cited the example of the French Resistance during World War II, and those in Namibia who fought occupation by South Africa. `Now,' he said, `they are in government and treated as heroes.'
So there we have it: a UN adviser who is endorsing and justifying a further campaign of genocidal mass murder against Jews by totalitarian Islamists, which he equates with the French resistance against Fascism. And people wonder why the world is teetering on the edge of catastrophe.


Can Australia's Leftist leader ever stop his whining?

Leftists just can't stand criticism

By Andrew Bolt

CRITICISM in politics is not just healthy. It's essential. So can Kevin Rudd stop his whingeing? ["Whingeing" is a British/Australian term roughly translatable as "whining". Spoilt or overtired little children are said to "whinge" (complain)] On Sunday, in his first speech of this election campaign, the Labor leader just couldn't stop complaining about being criticised. "In the days and weeks ahead, the good people of Australia are going to be bombarded with the mother of all negative fear campaigns," he moaned.

But while it was meant as a complaint, it turned out to be a promise. You see, Rudd went on to devote precisely 458 words, or 31 per cent of his speech, to a negative fear campaign, attacking Prime Minister John Howard as "old", "stale", out of ideas and "negative". By the time he'd fielded questions as well, he'd used an astonishing 1820 words, or more than half his comments, berating Howard.

Howard, by contrast, devoted just 125 words - or 20 per cent of his own election announcement -- to criticising Rudd. Same story the next day. Howard went positive, announcing a $34 billion plan to slash taxes over three years. Rudd's line for the day? An absurd scare-'em claim that a re-elected Howard might force state employees on to individual contracts. Yeah, right. So, who's really peddling scares?

Mind you, Rudd's spin sure is working. Here, for instance, is The Age's Michelle Grattan commenting on the two leaders' opening speeches: "Resting heavily on the crutch of negatives, he (Howard) played up the inexperience of the Rudd team . . ."

But why criticism is suddenly a negative anyway is a mystery. For years, Howard has been subjected to one of the most brutal negative campaigns in Australian politics, with the happy participation of the very people complaining he's now going "negative" himself. Remember these lines? Howard is a "liar", a "racist" who "doesn't like Asians", a "suckhole", an "a---licker" and the rest. A Liberal Party elder badly injured in a car crash was "deformed". A conservative columnist and Howard supporter was a "skanky ho". All from Labor.

Rudd, to his great credit, has cracked down on Labor's tradition of vitriolic personal attack, best exemplified by Paul Keating, long a media darling. But more civilised though Rudd is, he certainly isn't above implying Howard is up to his neck in lies and even bribery. Here, for instance, is Rudd on Monday: "This is the Prime Minister who's never accepted a skerrick of responsibility for children overboard, a Prime Minister who's never accepted a skerrick of responsibility for taking us to war in Iraq . . . and a Prime Minister who's not taken a skerrick of responsibility for $300 million worth of bribes being paid to Saddam Hussein to buy guns, bombs and bullets for later use against Australian troops."

Some sledge. But do I criticise Rudd for being negative? Not at all. I accuse him merely of being a hypocrite. In fact, Howard indeed deserves some criticism over those very issues and it's Labor's job to hold his joggers to the fire. Rudd has done that brilliantly. Good on him. From criticism comes better performance. And we need politicians not just to advertise their best, but their opponents' worst, because unless we know the best and the worst of both, how can we wisely choose?

But if Rudd thinks criticism of Howard is legitimate, why is criticism of Rudd not? Lord knows he deserves the scrutiny, and here's why. Few of us really know what Rudd is like, and what a leader he'd make. I've had coffees, lunches and dinners with him, so am better placed to tell than most of you, and even I don't know. I admire his ferocious hard work, his self-discipline, his intelligence, his civility, and his apparently conservative bent - well, conservative for a Labor leader. His family seems a great tribute to him. But what does he really stand for?

So far, the best we know is that he's a mini-Howard. A me-too man, who said me-too when Howard booted out Mohammed Haneef, intervened in Aboriginal communities, sold off the last of Telstra, and tricked up the Murray Darling Basin plan. He also copied Howard's policy to send troops to Afghanistan, keep training troops in Iraq, and maintain logging levels in Tasmania. He even did a me-too on Howard's May Budget.

How much of that was sincere? Take Rudd's most recent me-toos - on the Government's decisions to take in fewer African refugees, approve a pulp mill and keep up funds to private schools. Was that politics or principle? Here's a more troubling example. Just before last week's Bali bombing anniversary, Rudd ran into strife over his policy to lobby everywhere against the death penalty, even for terrorists. He responded not only by junking his policy, but by waving a Liberal document on TV, and protesting: "The Liberal Party's policy, like Labor's policy, is identical." Identical to Howard's? That's all right then. But who will Rudd copy when Howard is gone?

Of course, you might like all this if you are a conservative, as I am, and thought Rudd was sincere. Yet even Leftist commentators are no longer sure of Rudd. Some are now even hoping he's just a fake. Take Professor Robert Manne, who on ABC TV reassured the Left that Rudd might still be their man, despite all his astonishing me-toos. "I think that we will only know what the Rudd government will do in three or four years time because at the moment the Rudd government is avoiding the kind of polemical stoushes with Howard because it knows it can't win ... when he gets into government then we'll begin to see the differences again."

Moralising Manne clearly hopes that when Rudd says me-too, he's just putting the con in conservative. So too, it seems, does the Sydney Morning Herald's political editor, Peter Hartcher, who claimed: "Rudd's me-tooism is his way of refusing to respond to Howard's agenda." Actually, no, Peter. Rudd isn't refusing to respond to Howard's agenda, he's adopting it. Or do you, too, believe he's just lying?

And that's precisely why Rudd, more than most Labor leaders, will face criticism - a "negative" campaign. When his policies to date are so close to Howard's, even on Iraq, the key difference between the two leaders must come down to believability. In Rudd's case we must ask - along with his supporters - whether he really means what he says. Is me-too a promise or a trick? And does he have the strength, the smarts and especially the team to deliver what's promised? That's not being "negative". That is asking the fundamentally important questions of a man who in November may well be our prime minister. Rudd's response should not be to complain, but explain. Oh, and do a little negative campaigning of his own.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: