The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel will be conducting a hearing on the issue of homosexuals in the military. Among the witnesses who will offer testimony will be Brian Jones, a highly-decorated former Sergeant Major of the US Army's elite Delta Force, who served with the Department of Defense in Iraq in 2004.

Sgt. Maj. Jones will testify in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. The law passed Congress with veto-proof majorities in 1993 and has been upheld as constitutional several times.

The hearing will take place in Room 2118 of the House Rayburn Office Building, at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, 23 July .

John Howland from USNA-at-Large sends this along from Allan Slaff,

I am delighted that...Sergeant Major Jones will be on hand to testify before the House Armed Service Committee on Personnel on 23 July in regards to gays in the military.

I am confident that...he will do a superb job. I have a concern...on the unique sociological problems that would be generated by permitting openly practicing gays to serve in the ships of the fleet. These unsolvable problems make it absolutely impossible to permit that to happen.

Let me summarize here:

The habitability standards under which our enlisted personnel serve in the ships of the fleet afford almost no possibilities for human privacy. I examined the habitability standards afforded our bluejackets at sea for the Secretary of the Navy many years ago and found that the habitability standards afforded our enlisted personal in the ships of the fleet were less than 50% of the habitability standards allowed our federal prisoners.

Other than a privacy curtain which may be pulled across a man's berth, there is none. Outside that small space of stacked berths the remainder of the compartment is completely open; thus public nakedness is the norm. The same applies to the heads, washrooms and showers.

These ships deploy for normally 9 months at a time and sometimes much longer. Unlike our air force and army personnel there is no leaving the base after normal working hours except on very restricted liberties when in foreign ports from time to time.


That compartment is our bluejackets' home 24/7 as long as the ship is deployed. It would create a truly impossible sociological situation to permit openly gay personnel to live in such an environment.


It would most assuredly wreak havoc with the good order and discipline of the ships company Requiring gays to abstain for long periods would be akin to berthing two heterosexual men in a compartment of essentially naked women for long periods; especially when those young men were being driven by an absolute rush off hormones. Impossible!


There is another issue. Homosexuals are as intellectually capable as heterosexuals. Therefore, eventually the gay will win advancement in rate. He will then be in a powerful position to bring exquisite sexual pressure on the non-rated personnel under his control.


As you know, I am also opposed to women serving in the combatant ships of the fleet. I base my opposition not on any failure of intelligence, courage, patriotism or ability of women.


It is based solely on the absolute impossibility of eliminating the powerful drive of sexuality. At least, however, in the case of the women, they may be isolated into their own living accommodations on board ship.


Instead of establishing my qualifications to speak with authority on this vitally important issue, I shall send along an abbreviated curriculum vitae. Please note the enormous experience I have had in serving in eleven ships of the fleet and commanding four of our very best.

Under a B. Hussein Obama administration, homosexuals will be allowed to openly serve in the armed forces. As Allan notes, this will destroy unit cohesion and hurt our military readiness.

Military Readiness will not matter under Obama anyhoo. He will simply surrender to the jihadists making our military power moot.

Voting for John McCain is important. He knows how to run the military.

B. Hussein Obama is an accomplished community organizer.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Update: Alert Reader CourtneyMD comments below on the need for the presentation of a compelling argument rather than two homosexuals pictured enjoying a cruise. This may help:

CourtneyMD, You are close: I'm not 14, but this is an argument any 14-year-old understands. Even My 15-year-old daughter.

We all may not have the reasoning power of a 14-year-old, but let us attempt a review.

The arguments are simple to comprehend, especially for those few that have served in the armed forces.

Close quarters, intimate surroundings strip away modesty. It does not promote good order and discipline in a military unit to enable sexual attraction. The military mission does not have the margin of error to tolerant the distraction caused by having a girlfriend or boyfriend in arm's reach in harm's way 24/7.

See close quarters -- men and women -- on a submarine.

This is different than the soft civilian life most people enjoy, even in dangerous occupations. Females and homosexual firefighters and police-persons can go off-duty.

Can't really go off-duty on a submarine.

In the absence of privacy, no person -- whatever they may tell the pollsters -- does not want other service members lusting after their bodies.

A sailor wants his buddy to watch his back -- not covet his backside.

As requested, see a compelling argument for unit cohesion.

And let's not forget B. Hussein Obama's other sugar stick women in combat.

B. Hussein Obama and Jesus.

Double standards for women in the military.

And thank you for noticing the repetition of B. Hussein Obama -- and thank you for repeating it back. Perhaps you are trainable.

Repeating back a negative is something even the professionals have trouble with. See the Bimbo Awards with the late Tony Snow.

Your Business Blogger(R) works at teaching business sense. Here, we are reduced to teaching common sense.

Thank you for commenting,
Jack

See Dana Milbank from the WaPo. Your Business Blogger(R) is not related to the Cynthia Yost mentioned in the Milbank article

Posted at 9:25 AM | Permalink
Comments (2)

Charmaine is taping an interview for CNN American Morning on the Senator Barack Obama flirtation with Bible believing, Jesus loving, Evangelicals who hold for the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. is pictured at left during a taping of Ethics in America with Barney Frank(D).

Obama has a chance with some church goers. About 30% of self-identified Christians voted for Bill Clinton.

Obama believes reporter Michael Weisskopf who wrote that members of the Christian Right are, "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

So while the poor impoverished are clinging to guns and religion, how would the elitist Obama lead the nation?

1) Bring legislation forcing citizens to embrace homosexual demands: Homosexual Marriage and the Homosexuals in the military.

2) Raise taxes.

3) Raise gas prices by punishing oil companies. He refuses to explore and drill for energy.

4) Demand that some babies born alive be left to die.

5) Force citizens how and what to think. Mark Steyn is being sued under hate-crimes law in Canada for his writing about Islam in America Alone, a must read. Barack X. Obama supports this mind-thought control through legislation.

The ObamaNation will force churches and the Boy Scouts to hire Homosexuals.

The ObamaNation will force government-controlled doctors on the country.

The ObamaNation will place women in land combat and in submarines.

The ObamaNation will take more of the citizen's money in taxes and fees.

The ObamaNation will force these government doctors to perform abortions.

The ObamaNation will force babies born during a botched abortion (re: live birth) to die.

The ObamaNation will continue the African-American genocide thru Planned Parenhood.

The clip will air next week. Hit times will be announced. Please let us know what you think. Comments are now open.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Obama may be a disciple of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't understand the Bible. And after attending Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, it figures. For example, the Old Testament dietary restrictions no longer apply. This is a "new" teaching in the New Testament that is different from the Old. Obama is going to be confused about these Old and New Testament issues:

Dietary restrictions.
Circumcision.
Animal sacrifice.

Homosexual abominations remain in effect.

Obama is fuzzy on his Biblical interpretations. And a bit confused on secular matters -- but he is consistent with the old-style liberal world view.

Your Business Blogger(R) looks forward to the continuing debate between Obama and Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Obama might come to Jesus yet...

Voters will not answer the ObamaNation altar call, Lord willing.

Click here for more on Ethics in America.

Larry Cirignano sends us this article by Bishop Harry Jackson on Planned Parenhood.

Posted at 10:09 AM | Permalink
Comments (7)

"Let all the babies be born.

Then let us drown those we do not like."

GK Chesterton, Babies and Distributism, GK's Weekly, 11/12/32

GK Chesterton writes a prophesy: He sees evil and wants it to stop --

Barack Obama writes a policy: He sees no evil and wants it to continue.

Obama is the full-spectrum abortion candidate.

Abortion thru nine months
Abortion at birth
Abortion after birth

Obama demands that some babies born alive be left to die.

Obama makes clear what he will do about the killing of babies -- born and pre-born,

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health.

"With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 12:05 AM | Permalink
Comments (1)

Charmaine recently appeared on CNN with a sound bite on the recent court actions in California. The video clip is here.

Charmaine, the Vice President for Communications at FRC, appeared on CNN's Situation Room June 16, 2008 to discuss the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California.

This is not good for civilization.

The liberals with an anti-family world view are over reaching in this political season.

Charmaine above on an earlier cable appearance on homosexual "marriage."

Posted at 7:20 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Charmaine on an earlier
CNN appearance Charmaine will be recording a taped interview to appear on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.

She will be discussing the recent court actions in California on homosexual marriage.

One of the questions these court rulings have is to remind us that we have allowed ourselves to be governed by judges. Five Guys now rule America: An oligarchy.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government our infant nation had created for ourselves, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

So what is the problem with homosexual marriage? Maggie Gallagher tells us that the homosexual activists are equating homosexual preferences with racial civil rights. Conservatives who disagree with homosexuals are called bigots and worse.

There is no free and open and honest debate with the members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). (Motto: Sex by 8 or it's too late.)

Just as racists these days cannot get, say, an FCC license, Gallagher says that the homosexuals will make it impossible for "homo-phobes" to be a part of the mainstream of society. "Gay Pride Parades" will be considered first normal then mandatory. And you better be there with your children, smiling. At all the nekked men.

John McCormack writes in The Weekly Standard, May 26, 2008,

...[T]wo Christian doctors [in California] are being sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian, and last summer four firefighters sued the city of San Diego on sexual harassment grounds after they were required to participate in a gay pride parade over their objections. How would California deal with doctors who refused to treat an African American? Revoke their licenses. How would San Diego treat firefighters who objected to marching in a Martin Luther King Jr. parade? Fire them.

Is this self-governance as envisioned by our Founding Fathers? Nope.

The homosexuals are on a marketing campaign using marriage and the military through the courts for acceptance.

Robert P. George, Ph.D. believes that we should have open vigorous debates on marriage, abortion, stem cells; the big moral issues of our day. George writes in First Things, January, 2008,

We will be advised to frame arguments in coded language so as not to scare off the soccer moms or whoever is playing their role in the next election cycle.

All of this must be resisted...

The question, then, is not whether there are truths about such things as the morality of abortion and the nature of marriage; the question in each case is, What is true?

The homosexual activists do not want truth or government by the citizens. Liberals and the homosexuals in the Obama-Nation are happy with the dictatorship of the courts.

Most people want the self governance of a constitutionally-limited republic -- protected by good Republicans...

CNN is attempting to open up the conversation on homosexual marriage. We are anxious to see how they edit the tape.

Hit time for Charmaine is between 4 and 6pm today. Tune in and let us know what you think.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Dr. George teaches at Princeton University and sits on a number of boards, including the Family Research Council and Americans United for Life.

Your Business Blogger(R) also blogs at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Posted at 1:52 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

The Dreamer scored in the 93rd percentile in Math for her grade in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I promised her a reward night out -- But a daddy-daughter-dinner-date at Subways won't be happening.

A good deal of her education was in homeschooling where Your Business Blogger(R) worked with her on that topic that counted: Counting. The hard sciences that "girls don't do well."

Not good in Math? Not my girls. My expectation was that they would do well in the quantitatives. (Parent and teacher expectations are the biggest variable in the success of students.) My wife is a genius with SPSS and regression analysis . The Dancer and The Diva are rabid readers and love 'rithmatic -- and are bloggers.

The Penta-Posse are outliers on the bell curve of school age young'ums.

So. I promised The Dreamer a night out. But not at Subway. The restaurant is off the good-guy list for two reasons:

1) The company doesn't care for homeschoolers, and

2) They can't spell.

Our friend Don Wildmon at the American Family Association sends this along,

Subway tells home schoolers: We will not allow you to participate in our contest. Subway discriminates against home schoolers.

Subway, the sandwich restaurant, wants to hear your child's story – unless he or she is home schooled.

The national chain's "Every Sandwich Tells a Story Contest" offers prizes and a chance to be published on the Subway Web site and in Scholastic's "Parent & Child" magazine but specifically excludes home schoolers. Subway's website states:

NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied (sic) States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.

Subway will probably say they excluded home schools because of the main prize ($5,000 worth of athletic equipment to the winning child's school). But Subway could have given it to a local park, church or school of the winning home schooler's choice.

Subway's Web site promotion not only misspells "Untied (sic) States," but offers the grand prize winner a "Scholastic Gift Bastket (sic) for your home."

Subway's leadership clearly does not understand the value of homeschooling. In addition to learning how to spell, we are keeping our kids clear of the public schools' Family Life Education: Which is, as is commonly known, Sex Ed taught by liberals. When almost 20% of teens have herpes -- one would hope that this objective fact might persuade our feminist free-lovers that the condom classes might not be working.

Nope. The public payroll sex trainers are working even harder.

Here's some of what appears in Family Life Education for grades six through eight,

6.1 The student will learn that there are many health care and safety agencies in the community.
No need to talk with mom or dad, or aunt Sally or uncle Joe. The Planned Parenthood abortion clinic is just around the corner.

6.7 The student will be able to describe the etiology, effects and transmission of the HIV virus.
Clean needles for drug users? Contaminated blood supply? This is more important than spelling or math? The school will not reveal the detail of homosexual sex acts in the spread of the HIV virus. I did see a very nice man who teaches the course, however.

6.8 ...[E]valuate ...sexuality, and gender stereotyping...
The feminists are determined to get women in combat in the armed services.

7.7 The student will recognize that sexual behaviors are conscious decisions...
The public schools are a bit confused even about their own world view: homosexuality is a conscious decision; a preference -- not an orientation. FLE lurched into the truth.

So Subway supports only public schools, can't spell and doesn't like homeschoolers.

Dinner at Subway? No sirree -- We all are a-going to Chick-fil-a.


Chick-fil-A

Thank you (foot)notes:

Tom Peters once remarked that excellence should permeate an organization, especially for managing the perceptions of the customer. This is why managers make so much money. Airlines, in the consumers' mind, must understand that if the tray tables are dirty, the airline doesn't do engine maintenance.

The Army taught if boots were not shined, the soldier couldn't shoot straight.

If Subway can't spell, their food will make you [sic].

Send an e-mail to Subway President Frederick A. DeLuca. Tell him you will not eat with them anymore until and unless they allow home schoolers to participate. ©2008 Doctor's Associates Inc. SUBWAY® is a registered trademark of Doctor's Associates Inc.

This is an unpaid endorsement of Chick-fil-A.

See some commonsense at The sexual ‘revolution’ that keeps on turning

This is a cross post from Pro-Life Unity.

Posted at 10:36 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

McDonald's is funding homosexual activism--and I'm NOT lovin' it!

Charmaine and the Penta-Posse
at a McDonald's
somewhere in Middle America
circa 2005 Buying a McDonald's hamburger now promotes the homosexual lifestyle. Here's a sample open letter to the McDonald's leadership, supplied by the Family Research Council,

Dear Chairman McKenna,

We are writing to request that you end your "Corporate Partnership" with the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) and refrain from making corporate contributions to this or other homosexual organizations.

[If individual members of the board of McDonald's wishes to give to any charity, have it your way, so to say -- but a corporation should not
use earnings for charity. Charity is a test of the individual heart -- not corporate or government largess.]

We also request that you adopt a policy which would prevent your corporate officers from using the McDonald's corporate name to lend legitimacy to work they may do for such organizations. The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce exists to generate business for companies that are owned by homosexuals. While we do not object to McDonald's doing business with any suppliers who can provide a quality product or service at a good price, we also do not understand why anyone would engage in affirmative steps to seek out suppliers based on their sexual behavior, or assist in promoting businesses for that reason.

[Your Business Blogger(R) has spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in McDonald's PlayPlaces. I'm not sure I've ever seen a homosexual in a McDonald's. The demographics do not fit the fast food market segment.

No. The homosexuals do not want to eat at McDonald's any more than they really want to serve in the military. Homosexuals are on a marketing campaign for normalcy. And they are looking for a stamp of approval in basic cultural institutions: Ronald McDonald, marriage and the military.]

However, the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce does not exist just to promote the economic interests of their members. They also promote an extensive political agenda, including explicit support for legislation and litigation that would:

* Undermine the unique treatment granted to marriage between one man and one woman under the law
* Treat homosexual and "transgender" behavior on the same basis as race under federal civil rights laws
* Label disapproval of homosexual behavior a form of "hate" under so-called "hate crime" laws.

[Parents should ask if McDonald's will embrace open unisex restrooms where transgenders and transvestites and cross-dressers can have proximity to the wee ones.]

The NGLCC promotes a controversial social and political agenda that is offensive to tens of millions of your customers. A corporation like McDonald's, which prides itself on providing a family-friendly product in a family-friendly environment, should not be associated with any narrow political agenda. Thank you for considering my views.

Let the homosexuals dine on fast food at Starbucks. With the rest of the liberals.

Nope. The next time I need to take the Penta-Posse out for fast food -- Lord, the money we spend -- we will not go to McDonald's. And neither should you.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Market Research for McDonald's

Your Business Blogger(R) has enjoyed eating at McDonald's the world over. I'm not sure of the support for homosexuals in, say, China. See China's New Statue for Brotherhood and World Peace. And learn where the ad, I'm Lovin' It was developed.

Posted at 9:04 PM | Permalink
Comments (5)

Charmaine, Your Business Blogger(R)
Penta-Posse at the Grand Canyon
Easter 2005A few years ago Alert Readers will recall that Your Business Blogger(R) et al attended a Sunrise Service on the rim of the Grand Canyon in John McCain's home state. The Grand Canyon is Federal Property, but the surrounding locals quietly support a congregation of church and state.

McCain is a Red-State kind of guy -- even though Arizona is one third blue.

So it is likely that McCain would permit a continuation of Easter Services on Federal Lands.

But would any Democrat candidate? Obama or Clinton?

We may have a hint. We know the church habits of Obama and the Clintons.

Cross Obama attends the Hate America First church and is mentored by Jeremiah Wright.

The Clintons attended Foundry Methodist church when they lived in the White House in Washington, DC.

Your Business Blogger(R) attended services a time or two at Foundry Methodist during the Clinton tenure. It is a liberal church that differs from Obama's church only by degree, not kind. I stopped visiting.

Your Business Blogger(R), John Wesley Yoest, now has little use for the church founded by John Wesley.

The United Methodists at Foundry have run off the Biblical rails,

"...we proclaim this statement of welcome our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters: we affirm you..."

Obama and Clinton support liberal churches. Clinton's church supports Obama's church. It is likely they would both enforce liberal theology. It is certain Obama and Clinton will both support liberal positions.

Sunrise Service, Grand Canyon
Photo Credit: The Dreamer

I would predict that either Democrat would shut down Easter Services at the Grand Canyon.

McCain would let the services continue.

Happy Easter.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Easter: He Is Risen; Family, Faith & Freedom

He is risen! He is risen indeed!

See Clinton's church -- Foundry's supporting STATEMENT CONCERNING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT -- Obama's church, at the jump.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 7:52 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. addresses
the 2,600 attendees at last year's Summit
Photo Credit: Peter Shinn Hold September 12 on your calendar for the Values Voter Summit in Your Nation's Capital.

Called "the most exciting meeting there is in Washington" by author and radio host Bill Bennett, FRC Action's 2007 Values Voter Summit (formerly "The Washington Briefing") attracted over 400 national and international members of the media, a waiting list of speakers, and thousands of values voters representing nearly every state in the union and many foreign countries.

On September 12-14, 2008, 60 days before an historic election, FRC Action (a 501c4) will host its third annual Values Voter Summit at the Hilton Washington in downtown D.C., and you are invited.

As a participant in one of the conservative movement's must-attend events of the year, you'll have the opportunity to hear from some of America's key leaders at a decisive moment in our nation's history, including invited speakers such as Newt Gingrich (confirmed), Chuck Colson, Lou Dobbs, Bill Bennett (confirmed), Lt. Col. Oliver North, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Star Parker (confirmed), Justice Clarence Thomas, Patricia Heaton, Roger Hedgecock (confirmed), House and Senate leaders, and all the 2008 presidential nominees.

Charmaine at the podium 2006 In addition to lively discussions on issues ranging from life, marriage, school choice, and radical Islam to judicial activism and religious liberty, attendees can take part in: celebrity book signings; breakout training sessions; Radio and Bloggers' Row; special co-sponsored meals hosted by Focus on the Family Action, American Values, and Alliance Defense Fund; a unique student track (including a Friday night reception); and the Faith, Family, and Freedom Gala Dinner on Saturday evening.

The Values Voter Summit is quickly becoming one of Washington's most anticipated weekends of the year. Packages start at just $95 for adults and $50 for students and pastors. Sign up now and enjoy a $25 early-bird discount! Registration opens online tomorrow, March 15, at www.valuesvotersummit.org. Call 1-877-372-2808 for more details.

Thank you (foot)notes:

See Values Voter Summit 2007 and more.

Posted at 3:26 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

The Boy Scouts of America The Family Research Council Action has presidential candidate comparisons here.

Huckabee, McCain and Romney would veto any action to allow homosexuals to serve in the military.

This seems to be a conversion for Romney. Alert Readers will recall that to appease homosexual activists Romney did not allow the Boy Scouts at the Olympics.

Your Business Blogger is a former Boy Scout. We had to pledge to be "Morally Straight."

"Straight" Boy Scouts. This was too much for Romney.

From David Brody at CBN quoting Brownback,

In a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney offered his support for gay scout leaders:

"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

Thank you (foot)notes:

See General Pace Explains Unit Cohesion With a Morality Sound Bite and the legislation.

Homosexuals are not permitted to serve in the Armed Forces. There are many ways homosexuals can serve our country:

The Peace Corp,

AmeriCorp,

but not the Marine Corp.

The Salvation Army,

but not the US Army.

There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

But Your Business Blogger supports hiring homosexuals. Here's why.

But not as Scout Masters.

Posted at 4:19 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Kinglsey Brown Alert Readers will know of Your Business Blogger's endorsement of Professor Kingsley Brown and his research. Brown is on faculty at Wayne State University teaching law.

He writes to John Howland with USNA At Large,

“Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars” is due out on November 8, although it can be pre-ordered now on Amazon...

My book examines physical and psychological differences between the sexes and their implication for integration of combat forces. This examination includes not just individual traits -- such as strength, endurance, risk-taking, physical aggression, fear, courage, and other traits that affect both combat motivation and combat performance -- but also the effect of psychological sex differences on the functioning of groups. As you know, individuals do not fight wars; groups do, and the sex composition of groups has a substantial impact on how the group functions.

As you have yourself noted, trust is the “coin of the realm” in combat groups. It appears that men are not “designed” to easily trust women in dangerous situations. I’m sure that you and the other At-Large members have had the experience of knowing leaders whom you would be willing to follow through the gates of Hell and others whom you would be reluctant to follow across the street. Some people trigger trust in their comrades, and others –

Women in Combat

no matter what kind of training they have had – simply cannot do so. I suggest in my book that women generally do not trigger that kind of trust in men, no matter how much men like and respect women. This is not a criticism of either women or men; it is simply the way our psyches work. As the continued opposition to women in and near combat suggests, this is not a problem that can be solved simply through “leadership” and “training,” which are usually invoked as the solution to problems with sexual integration.

My book also chronicles a number of other impediments to sexual integration, many of which are well known, such as problems of pregnancy, double standards, political correctness, and so forth.

Best regards,

Kingsley

Thank you (foot)notes:

Read more on Kingsley Browne's work at Hiring Super Stars vs Tolerating Turkeys

Thanks to John Howland at USNA At Large.

More on Professor Kingsley Brown at the jump.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 9:48 PM | Permalink
Comments (4)

Gary Bauer has an excellent analysis of how liberal Democrats behave in power. Their disrespectful behavior would not improve if another Clinton were in the White House.

Charmaine has given congressional testimony and Your Business Blogger has attended a number of congressional hearings. Hearings are usually conducted with decorum and respect and dignity. The high ceiling-ed hearing rooms are treated as sanctuaries; like churches. And people are mindful of being considerate and deferential.

But not these days.

Bauer, as usual, gets it right on yesterday's hearings -- and his message deserves a wide audience.

The Inmates Are Running The Asylum

I spent most of the day on Capitol Hill yesterday, meeting with members of Congress and discussing important issues. The terrain is familiar to me, though it can be hostile at times. I have worked in this town for three decades, served eight years in the Reagan administration and have been through some tough hearings myself.

But yesterday something happened that I have never seen before, and even the Washington Post felt compelled to report the “theatrics” on page A2 today, noting, “the lid came off” of the liberals’ anger during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.

Simply put, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace were ambushed by radical activists and liberal Democrats on the committee. Senator Robert Byrd, chairman of the committee and the top recipient of campaign cash from MoveOn.org, whipped the audience into a frenzy. Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post:

“He [Byrd] invited the audience in the room to join him in heckling the witnesses [Secretary Gates and General Pace], creating a responsive Greek chorus.

“Byrd: Are we really seeking progress toward a stable, secure Iraq?
“Chorus: No!

“Byrd: Is our continuing occupation encouraging the Iraqi people to step up?
“Chorus: No!

“Byrd: Are Iraq's leaders doing the hard work necessary?
“Chorus: No!

“Emboldened, two dozen hecklers in the audience from the antiwar group Code Pink continued to shout at the witnesses and wave signs for the better part of an hour. Finally, after Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) challenged Pace on his view that homosexuality is immoral, the hearing collapsed as the hecklers shouted down the nation’s top military officer.

“...When the proceedings resumed, minus two dozen pink-clad demonstrators, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) felt the need to ‘go on record with how disturbed I am about the conduct that occurred here. Such tension, such chaos, such disrespect.’”

What is described here is a mob scene in which top officials charged with the defense of our country were verbally harassed and insulted by arrogant politicians and a cadre of loud-mouthed radicals. Secretary Gates and General Pace were not there to offer testimony about the war. They were intentionally set up and they walked into a trap.

That kind of petty partisan behavior is disgraceful and unbecoming of the United States Senate. While I appreciate Senator Mikulski for speaking up, it’s no wonder that Congress’ approval rating has fallen to record lows lately.

By the way, when Senator Harkin decided to bring up the issue of open homosexuality in the military, General Pace reminded the senator that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits homosexual activity -- and adultery. To which Sen. Harkin retorted, “Well, then, maybe we should change that.”

Wow! I wonder what the good folks back in Iowa think of that idea. I hope they will keep it in mind next year when Harkin runs for reelection.

Global Warming = Higher Taxes

Liberals in the House of Representatives are putting the finishing touches
on a plan to combat global warming, and, of course, it involves higher
taxes. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee is being very blunt about the facts of the plan, saying, “I’m
trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that
it’s going to have a measure of pain that you’re not going to like.”

In making his call for “shared pain,” Dingell is proposing – and you might
want to sit down for this – to hike gasoline taxes 50 cents a gallon;
phasing out the interest tax deduction for home mortgages; and a new tax on
carbon emissions of $50 per ton, which would increase the cost of
electricity, winter heating fuel, etc., etc.

I’ve been saying for some time now that this debate was headed in precisely
this direction. Regardless of the science or the value of being good
stewards of the environment, liberal Democrats are turning the policy
debate on its head and using it as a tool to accomplish their agenda of
bigger government, higher taxes and more control over your life.

Democrats Debate Values; Go Off The Deep End

An interesting question was posed to the Democrat candidates during last
night’s debate in New Hampshire. A member of the audience told the
candidates about a situation that occurred last year in Lexington,
Massachusetts, in which second grade students were read a “fairly tale”
about prince who could not find true love until he met another prince. The
book is called “King and King” and it is being used to indoctrinate young
children about same-sex “marriage.”

This concerned citizen asked each of the Democrat candidates, “Would you be
comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school
curriculum?” Their responses were revealing.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards responded, “Yes, absolutely. I
want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay
and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that
they’re faced with every single day of their lives.”

Barack Obama essentially agreed with Edwards, noting that children need to
understand that some people are different. Then it was Hillary’s turn.

“I really respect what both John and Barack said. With respect to your
individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion,” Clinton
said.

Well, actually, it’s not. When the father of a child in the Lexington
class objected to what his son was being exposed to, he was told that
homosexual “marriage” was legal in Massachusetts. When he continued to
protest the school’s blatant disregard for parental rights, he was
arrested. Parents later sued the school district and a judge dismissed
their suit. So much for “parental discretion.”

I’m pleased to report that several Republican presidential candidates today
are noting just how extreme and out of touch the Democrats have become on
values issues. Earlier this year, the Democrats participated in the first-
ever “gay debate,” demonstrating the influence the militant homosexual
movement wields within the party of Clinton and Kennedy.

My friends, today’s news – liberal Democrats haranguing our military
leaders; trying to raise taxes through the roof; and forcing homosexuality
on our children – once again illustrates the stakes involved in the 2008
elections. I’ll be reporting even more in the days ahead. I hope you are
ready, and I hope you will support us!

Thank you (foot)notes:

If you would like to receive Gary Bauer's update by e-mail, you can sign up online at http://www.cwfpac.com/cwf_eod_request.php

If you would like to support his outstanding work, please click on the following link:
https://www.cwfpac.com/cwf_contribution.php

These are unpaid links for the Campaign for Working Families

Full Disclosure: Your Business Blogger and Charmaine have worked for Gary Bauer in different capacities over the decades.

Posted at 9:13 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)

The Cowboy Poet and Larry Craig
Charmaine had just finished her book, Mother in the Middle: Searching for Peace in the Mommy Wars, so we put The (little) Dreamer in the car and went book-flogging across America.

Our travels took us to Boise, Idaho, in the flyover country of conservative book buyers. The local Family Policy Council invited us to their fund-raiser and Charmaine spoke behind headliner and popular Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig.

She wrote about the experience for Policy Review, formerly owned by The Heritage Foundation, and now under The Hoover Institute masthead. She begins,

Rudy Gonzalez, a "cowboy poet" with a handlebar mustache and a home-on-the-range accent, strummed his guitar, then launched into a joke. The crowd relaxed into laughter as he regaled them with tall tales and folk wisdom.

Reading Charmaine's old article now seems like anything but a trailer for Brokeback Mountain.

This is the Idaho Family Forum's annual summer fundraiser, the Spud Bake, where this group of moms and dads marks the end of summer by eating baked potatoes. Lots of them. Followed by spud-shaped ice cream.

But cowboy poetry soon gave way to public policy. U.S. Senator Larry Craig rose to address the group, and the question-and-answer session that followed was brisk and well informed. The Idaho Family Forum (IFF) and its supporters are dedicated to changing cultural trends that are undermining the stability of families -- from no-fault divorce to teen pregnancy to chronic welfare dependency.

Larry Craig's talk was red meat to this Red State.

His remarks were sincere, but looking back was he being, as we now say, authentic?

Or does Craig's resignation announcement today indicate something more. That his "wide stance" -- a sort of big tent across men's room stalls for anonymous homosexual sex -- now means that one cannot be homosexual and conservative?

(Many of our Log Cabin Republican homosexual friends vote pro-life. Believing that if science ever finds that "gay gene" that mothers will root out gays in the womb and abort to eliminate this "orientation" from that family blood-line.)

Nope. Larry Craig was cheating on his wife.

Once in the Army, Your Business Blogger had a battalion commander, a Lieutenant Colonel Paul Funk, who gave poor marks to a Major who had a weakness for women; his wife not included. We young lieutenants were a bit perplexed: this Major, a Vietnam Vet was being penalized for personal behavior that had nothing to do with his job. How judgmental! How intolerant!

The word got around, as information does in any organization, that LTC Funk did not consider any lines between the personal and the public and the private.

He said, "If a man cannot be loyal to his wife, how do I know he'll be loyal to me?"

The same if true of politicians. Maybe even more so. If a Congressman or Senator cheats on his wife, it is a matter of when, not if, he will cheat his constituents.

Larry Craig took the correct action by leaving the Senate.

Thank you (foot)notes:

LTC Funk continued with his medieval sense of duty and chivalry and honor. He was rewarded, and advanced to become a Lieutenant General and hero of the First Gulf war. I understand he retired quietly back to his hometown of Roundup, Montana. I've been blessed with a number of talented bosses and he was one of the best.

Read Charmaine's original article Family Policy Councils: The Real Grass Roots Needed for the Next Conservative President

Posted at 7:12 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

The Simpsons Movie
by Matt Groening

Your Business Blogger had an extra 100 dollar bill to burn and decided to see a movie.

So Charmaine and I packed up the Penta-Posse and another boy from The Dude's baseball team to binge on buttered popcorn sprinkled with gold dust.

(A theater's loss leader -- movies are just a front:

The real money is in the concessions...)

The Simpsons Movie...

Here's your Hollywood script checklist:

Profanity -- Check > Even Marge lets loose with a God D@mm!t

Bestiality -- Check > Homer wants to kiss his pig "to break the tension." Pig gender not revealed.

Nudity -- Check > Bart (anagram of brat) exposes p*n!s.

Homosexual activity -- Check > Brokeback moment when two cops embrace, kiss, fall to ground...

Suicide -- Check > Unable to deal with frustration, a character blows brains out with hand gun. (OK... so it was a robot.)

Blasphemy -- Check > Homer thumbs through Bible, declares that "This Book has no answers!"

Biased -- Check > Non-subtle product-placement-endorsement Hillary 08 sign.

Cliched -- Check > Big business is evil. And profit motivated.

Liberal -- Check > Patriot Act has entire government listening in to your pizza order.

This is America as Hollywood sees it.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Stephen Hunter, reviewer for The Washington Post, loves The Simpsons Move, as the Alert Reader would guess,

The genius is in the writing and in keeping all gambits created by the individual writers in sync, so the piece has a tonal consistency and a narrative flow. A lost art in Hollywood? It's really one of the best movies of the year.

The Simpsons Movie PG-13, 87 minutes Contains adult material. In theaters.

Matt Groening of MATT GROENING PRODUCTIONS/PRODUCER of BEVERLY HILLS, California has donated the maximum to liberal democrat Barbara Boxer.

Surprise.

Posted at 9:50 PM | Permalink
Comments (5)

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
Family Research Council
Pictured in The Nashville Post Family Research Council targets Lamar over hate-crimes bill, byline E. Thomas Wood. He writes,

"A major national religious conservative group is mounting a telephone campaign intended to keep Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander on the ideological straight and narrow when it comes to hot-button social issues.

The Family Research Council is placing automated calls (sometimes known as "robo-calls") to Nashville households about legislation that would include attacks motivated by the victim's sexual orientation among the offenses covered by federal hate-crime laws."

If you have never listened to a "robo-call" here's your chance.

Catch Charmaine's voice on the automated call here. Link courtesy of the Nashville Post, where,

"...FRC Vice President for Communications Charmaine Yoest warns voters about "legislation that would provide extra punishment for certain crimes committed against specially protected classes of people." Yoest urges the call recipients to telephone Alexander's Nashville office and urge that the senator vote 'no' on any hate-crimes bill that grants special protection to people because of their sexual preferences."

Note also the language: The liberal reporter Thomas Wood says sexual orientation. Charmaine says, sexual preference. It is a sexual preference, not a genetic "orientation."

The liberal says hate crimes. The conservative says thought crimes.

John Edwards is close -- there may not be two Americas, but there are certainly two world views.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Alert Readers will recognize the Official Family Research Council portrait of Your Business Blogger's wife, Charmaine. It was the subject of some debate.

See Randy Thomas with FRC on Thought Crimes Vote and HRC Misleads USA Today Readers.

Visit Hate Crime e-mail Alert for contact information.

Posted at 4:43 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)

Homosexuals at sea The Other Side of the Story

by Allan Slaff

On 13 June, the Wall Street Journal printed an op-ed piece by former congressman Bob Barr entitled “Don’t Ask, Who Cares” in which he argued that barring homosexuals from openly serving in the military was unfair, un-American and counterproductive. Mr. Barr writes that he has become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services. With all due respect to the two authorities that he refers to, ex Senator Simpson and General Skalikeshveli, both of whom I greatly admire and respect, neither of them have any first hand idea of the sociological problems of going to sea in a man of war.

I strenuously disagree with Mr. Barr and his military authorities, and I would like very much to offer “The other side of the story”. Since I am a retired naval officer, I shall write to what I know well and that is going to sea in a man of war. I served in eleven ships of the Navy and had the unique honor of commanding four combatants including the heavy guided missile cruiser Albany all of which, by the way, were at the time considered among the finest combatants in the Fleet.

In a combatant ship our bluejackets are literally packed into berthing compartments, typically holding about 40 men. They are afforded minimum privacy even under the most enlightened habitability standards. As a nod for the need for some human privacy the modern enlisted bunks are fitted with a privacy curtain which they may close. Public nakedness is the reality of enlisted life in Navy ships and that pertains to the heads, and wash and shower rooms as well.

Our ships get underway for months at a time. The typical deployment when I was in the Fleet was for nine months and I understand that that is still typical. Thus, those compartments become the bluejackets’ home for very long periods of time. There is no such thing as going home ashore after your watch or if you are in a liberty section so that you may enjoy the company of your homosexual partner. There are of course occasional liberty ports but liberty for enlisted personnel usually expires in the late evening. The Fleet doesn’t even enter port for replenishment. All of that is done underway.

Now assign a few homosexuals into that living compartment when all of them including the homosexual are very young and when their hormones are at their most powerful and you have an invitation to disaster. It would be akin to inserting a few heterosexual males into an all female compartment where nakedness is a way of life and sending them off for months at a time. Impossible! And thus it would be exactly the same for the homosexual in a heterosexual male compartment.

As Mr. Barr correctly points out, the homosexual has as fine an intellect as the heterosexual. They thus eventually and inevitably they will be advanced in rating. As petty officers they will be in a position of powerful authority over men of lesser rating and thus in a position to exert exquisite sexual pressure on their subordinates.

For these very apparent sociological reasons it would be a disaster to change the present policy. It would reap havoc on the fighting efficiency of the Fleet and good order and discipline so necessary in a man of war. It just cannot happen.

Allan Slaff

Thank you (foot)notes:

Allan Slaff submitted this letter to the editors of The Wall Street Journal.

Credit to John Howland at USNA At Large.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 10:19 AM | Permalink
Comments (3)

Big Brother is watching
1984
Bush is expected to veto any Thought Control/Hate Crimes legislation. As well he should.

Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign video was posted. Alert Reader Suricou Raven wondered that No attempt to counter his (very good) arguments? Or even to deny the accusations made?

Tony Perkins says it best: Thought Control law is wrong because it,

A series of special rights for a particular group. Family Research Council says,

"In a move that is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment which affords equal protection under the law, the House of Representatives passed a "hate crimes" measure that would grant certain victims of crimes allegedly motivated by bias - greater protection than other victims of violence. The measure passed by a vote of 237 to 173."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional. The actions of a majority of the House today undermine the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal.'




There has been no proof that violent crimes perpetrated against any of the groups listed in the bill have not been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, yet now Congress is asking the federal government to get involved in issues that are, and should remain, local concerns.

And be sure to read The Thought Police by Chuck Colson

What the Hate Crimes Law Would Do

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech -- speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Read various pressers at the jump.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill, By Randy Hall, CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor, May 03, 2007

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association reports, This law does not define "sexual orientation," leaving open the definition of the term. To see all the behaviors covered by the term "sexual orientation," please click here. Warning! This listing is offensive. Is it ever -- this will be a nightmare for human resource management.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 4:16 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)

HRC attacks FRC:

Posted at 8:21 PM | Permalink
Comments (2)

L to R: Your Business Blogger,
Charmaine
Senator Guy Barnett
Our liberal homosexual activist friends will always cite foreign law as a precedence for new law here in the US of A.

But there is one country that the activists and mainstream media will never mention in this debate:

Australia.

Your Business Blogger and Charmaine joined Guy Barnett, a Senator from the Land Down Under for dinner the other night at the Occidental in DC. (Do try the crab cakes.)

Same sex marriage was one of our topics and our concerns.

But it is not a concern in Australia. It has been tested by their courts and is "settled law."

The Australian law states that,

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Certain unions are not marriages.

A union solemnised in a foreign country between:

(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

We should also look to the Aussies for homosexual adoption:

They don't allow it.

We should also look to the Aussies for Civil Unions.

They don't allow it.

Australia might also be ahead of us on the thought-control/mind-control/hate-crime nonsense. The Australian Supreme Court recently stood up to the Muslim victim-lobby when the courts permitted two pastors to quote from the Quran. WorldNetDaily reports,

Quran did tell men they could beat their wives [and]

Yes, it did have verses calling on Muslims to fight infidels until they submitted

Infidels. They would be non-Muslims in America: Republicans. (The Democrats have already submitted.)

WND continues,

Many of the "hate crimes" proposals in the United States are based on a similar concept: designating as "crimes" the statements people make about their own beliefs or convictions.

The Aussies are ahead of us on marriage, homosexuals and thought crimes.

Now if they could only get 'gays in the military' right...

Thank you (foot)notes:

Guy Barnett is the (classical) liberal senator for Tasmania. He was recently at the UN working with Bill Clinton on support for diabetes education.

Jihadists and homosexuals: please log you death threats here.

Posted at 10:43 AM | Permalink
Comments (4)

General Peter Pace
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of StaffMarine General Peter Pace supports our law that states, homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." General Pace then says, "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Because this would undermine unit cohesion.

Trust is the foremost component of the bonds that bind a small military unit together.

Trust, in that I trust you with my life. I trust your word.

Undercover homosexuals in the armed forces are living a lie. Where their first act in the military is to hide, to deceive, to circumvent the law: Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

If your first act on joining the military is to lie, what makes us think that you would not continue to lie.

The best indication of future performance -- is past performance. If the homosexual deceived in the past, the homosexual will deceive in the future. Living the lie destroys unit cohesion -- no one will trust the homosexual.

The Department of Defense Directive, 1332.14, 28 January 1982, said,

The presence of such [homosexual] members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members...

The presence of homosexuals destroys mutual trust.

...to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy...

Service members do not want to be in close, intimate quarters with any gender who would be sexually attracted or attractive. Heterosexual men do not shower with women. (The military is not a college campus.)

...to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain the public acceptability of military service...

What mother or father would knowingly send their son off to a San Francisco bath house?

The Gay, Lesbian, BiSexual and Transgender genders are demanding that the military accept their morality. They are more interested in fighting the culture war. And less concerned about losing the war against the Islamofascists.

There are many ways homosexuals can serve our country:

The Peace Corp,
AmeriCorp,

but not the Marine Corp.

The Salvation Army,

but not the US Army.

There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Also see Don't Ask; Don't Tell and The Ban on Homosexuals in the Military

PUBLIC LAW 103-160 - NOV. 30, 1993

UPDATE: So what did General Pace actually say? Listen to the clip here.

See Peter LaBarbera, Praised.

Your Business Blogger is a former Armored Cavalry Officer.

Posted at 8:49 PM | Permalink
Comments (9)

MSNBCThe homosexual lobby group PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) is pushing legislation to dissolve any family that does not produce children.

This is not a joke.

PFLAG also supports the transgender surgical removal of body parts.

That is not a joke.

Charmaine will be debating against the homosexual position.

Tune in on MSNBC today, Wednesday, February 7. UPDATE: Charmaine will be on twice -- Hit time is 1pm EST; and again at 3:30pm EST.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 12:25 PM | Permalink
Comments (10)

Your Business Blogger
and CharmaineThe gay marriage scorecard shows that the nation prefers marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Heterosexuals, 28; vs.
Homosexuals, Transgender, Bi-Sexual, Bigamists,
National Man-Boy Love Association, 1

Yes, that's 28 to 1.

27 of 28 public debates on marriage were decisively won by traditional marriage proponents.

Only voters in Arizona voted wrong.

Protecting Marriage as Between One Man & One Woman

Prior to 2004
Alaska (1998) 68%
Hawaii (1998) 69%
Nebraska (2000) 70%
California (2000) 91%*

*California’s statewide ballot measure, Prop. 22, enacted a new state law protecting marriage, rather than a constitutional amendment.

2004
Arkansas 75%
Georgia 77%
Kentucky 75%
Louisiana 78%
Michigan 59%
Mississippi 86%
Missouri 71%
Montana 66%
N. Dakota 73%
Ohio 62%
Oklahoma 76%
Oregon 58%
Utah 66%

2005
Kansas 75%
Texas 75%
Alabama 81%

2006
Tennessee 81%
Colorado 56%
Idaho 63%
S. Carolina 78%
S. Dakota 52%
Virginia 57%
Wisconsin 59%

Pending
Legislation:
Minnesota (’07)
Indiana (’08)
Massachusetts (’08)
Pennsylvania (’09)

Initiatives:
California (’08)
Florida (’08)

(Bolded states went for Kerry in 2004. Proving that voters may be confused about liberals, but not about marriage.)

Thank you (foot)notes:

The Cumulative Chart is the work of David E. Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute. A family policy council that counts.

Human Resource Management Tip: Hire the homosexual? Maybe, but be slow to award "partner" benefits. The public and, I dare say, stockholders, prefer traditional marriage.

Posted at 7:47 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Point/Counterpoint in the New York Daily News
Charmaine Yoest: Equal rights or radical fems?

Treaty too radical for life in U.S.

Charmaine wrote a column back in 2002 warning the country about an insidious United Nation's program (yes, that is redundant, I know) the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The liberal Democrats (again redundant, I know) are working to Eliminate US Soverignty. Here's how.

New York Daily News

By CHARMAINE YOEST

Radical feminist activists are engaged in a stealth campaign. Unable to pass their social agenda domestically, they are attempting to impose it using the weight and influence of an international treaty. The Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is a massive international Trojan horse, a threat to U.S. sovereignty, cloaked as an effort to protect human rights.

Resurrected from well-deserved political dormancy by Sens. Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer, the treaty narrowly passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week. Next stop is a vote in the full Senate.

Presented as an elevated tome enshrining principles of timeless truth, the guts of the treaty are a leftist utopian wish list: government wage-setting, paid maternity leave, nationalized child care, free maternity-related health care, gender-blind military service and quota-determined political parity for women.

For ratifying countries, these mandates are overseen by an obscure tribunal known as the CEDAW committee. The United States would be required to report to the committee. That way, Cuba's human-rights expert on the committee can provide oversight of America....

Continue reading at the jump.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Originally published on July 31, 2002