Chuck Norris Endorses Christendom College

No joke.  Chuck Norris for Christendom College!

Well, I guess all that clamor about Christendom being a rotten rape-tolerating school hasn’t gotten around to Chuck Norris.  Or maybe that no one’s taking it seriously.

Norris, a New York Times best-selling author, warned students and parents about the progressive transformation of colleges in America, calling many of them “one-sided” in their educational offerings. Rather than blindly assuming that any college will do, Norris recommended that parents and graduates look at private and Christian universities instead.

“I’m asked just about every year to give a commencement speech somewhere. I couldn’t accept any invitations this year due to being outside the country, so I’ll state here what I want to say to every student who is graduating and their parents. It’s a warning and a call for wisdom. … And there’s more you can do…. To counter so much progressive indoctrination in American culture, you can also have your graduates consider attending a private, conservative or Christian college or university, such as Liberty University, Biola University, Hillsdale College, Christendom College, Westmont College or Grove City College,” wrote Norris.

Read more here

Advertisements

Environment, Hormones, and What Happened to Real Men and Women

Some possible reasons for the increases in feminized men and masculine women:

A Brave Woman

Moira Greyland is a very brave woman to have written this bookThe Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon (especially considering when asked how she’s doing, she says “I am not good”)I do not think I have the stomach to read the book.  Reading about the book is hard enough.  LifeSiteNews interviewed Ms. Greyland (Read the whole thing here)

This section deals with a very un-PC view of homosexuality and its genesis, sheds some light on the whole Milo episode, and illustrates how critical it is to protect children (and how incredibly evil this whole thing is).

LifeSite: The homosexual movement has a long history of association with organizations and groups that are sympathetic to pedophilia or promote it outright. Your father was a homosexual activist and an open advocate of pedophilia. For decades the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) marched in homosexual “pride” marches, and major homosexual organizations, like the International Gay and Lesbian Association, used to have NAMBLA as a member. Do you see the embrace of pedophilia as a natural outgrowth of the homosexual movement?

Moira Greyland: In my father’s book, Greek Love (J.Z. Eglinton, 1962), he explored at length the fact that pedophilic and pederastic relationships are the historical norm, and peer-to-peer gay relationships are a modern phenomenon. Where I completely deny my father’s contention that pederastic relationships do anything positive for young men, I do believe that nearly all gay men were initiated in this fashion as boys by older men.

Attempts to sanitize these “initiations” of younger boys by older men are ongoing, including in the recent movie “Call Me By Your Name” which Hollywood gushed over, despite its appalling content.

Since the reality of gay culture depends on these initiations, there are only two choices: keep the reality of the genesis of a gay identity secret, or yank it out of the closet and risk the outrage and hatred of the general public.

Here is the trouble: screaming “homophobia” at anything which has a problem with homosexual conduct will only go so far.  As soon as our children are endangered, and their seduction praised, the torches and pitchforks rightfully come out.

After all, this is the Big Secret, and the truth behind a gay identity.  Father-son porn is the number one topic of all gay pornography.  Why is this the actual reality?  In male nature, there is the need to pursue, to vanquish, to conquer.  This is much easier with a young, vulnerable, hairless and helpless male.  They can be manipulated into adoring an older male, putting up with darned near ANYTHING for his love and approval (read: fathering) and they submit.  Always in male homosexual relationships, there is the top and the bottom, the giver and the receiver, and these roles are predicated on age and the ability to project masculine dominance.

This is the conclusion I reached, not only from knowing far too many young boys seduced by my father, but also reading the words of former gay men like Joseph Sciambra and Robert Oscar Lopez.

Male homosexuals know, and count on the fact that a young man who does not have a present, protective father in his life will be much easier to seduce than either a masculine boy who obviously has a strong father, or an older man who might well beat or kill them for a sexual overture.  They seek out boys who are unsure or effeminate, precisely because of those qualities.

How can they persuade those they persuade?  Boys tend to be perpetually sexually frustrated, and know that vanishingly few girls will go along with their advances at that age.  Predatory male homosexuals take advantage of this knowledge, and offer porn and intoxicants to lower the inhibitions of their target.  Once the sexual assault has taken place, even involuntary arousal on the part of the male victim is used as “proof” that the boy is actually gay.

This attitude assumes that being gay is a physical, inevitable reality which other gay men can “see.”  But the truth is that the first sexual experience will usually create an indelible impression, a longstanding change to a male fantasy life, deliberately imposed.  These raped and molested boys are not “gay,” they have been forcibly imprinted with a sexual act meant to permanently alter their fantasy life.

Claiming the involuntary arousal suffered by the boy “proves” they are gay is like claiming that bleeding as the result of a stab wound proves the victim wanted to be stabbed.

In any case, the raped boy is destroyed three times.  Once by the betrayal of the sexual assault, even if they end up going along with it, once by the permanent alteration to their fantasy life, and once by the forced imposition of a “gay” identity which is made to seem inevitable and indelible.

Without pederastic relationships, there would be no adult gay men.  But as it is the Big Secret, don’t expect any admissions about this.  When Milo joked about his own initiation at thirteen, he was demolished in the press.  Shortly thereafter, he admitted on video that he actually had been raped, and it actually was a horrible experience.

It is no joke. When I see a man who identifies as homosexual acting out in a flamboyant way, I see the thirteen year old boys in my house screaming with rage: “I meant to do that!  You did not hurt me, I am no victim, and you will not own me, you BASTARD!”

 

 

The Solution to Violence in Schools?

With the most recent school shooting in Florida, all the “gun-control” arguments will be rehashed on the news and by celebrities and politicians.  Maybe some proposed laws will be put forth.  Lots of crocodile-teary-eyed liberals yelling about republicans, especially Trump, and the NRA having “blood on their hands!”  Lots of exaggerating about the problem and prevalence of “gun violence” and “school shootings” in our country.  (See this article for a debunking of some of the claims: No, there have not been 18 school shootings so far in 2018)

Sigh.  Here we go again.

It is a tragedy that kids were killed.  What the shooter did was horrible and evil.  The grieving families deserve our prayers.  But how can anyone be genuinely surprised?  Or honestly, even feel much of anything?  The constant tragic, compassion-triggering news cycle has had the effect of making me un-shockable and compassion-numb.  Before anyone starts wondering if I’m secretly a psychopath, let me assure you that in real life I often truly feel for people I know and care about, even people I don’t know sometimes.  Their pain causes me pain.  I cry with them and for them.  But people I don’t know?  Not so much.  My ability to feel compassion over distant events and people has been exhausted by mainstream media manipulation and selective reporting and twisting of events to serve their narrative.  If you can’t trust the story-teller, you can’t trust the story.

While “gun-control” will be the focus of the day (or week, or month), with well-deserved side-notes about mental illness and psychotropic drugs, and maybe even a mention or two about “problems in our culture,” no one will point out the surest way to stop all school shootings.  All sensible and honest people know that even if you made all guns illegal, it wouldn’t prevent crazy and/or evil people from acquiring them and shooting up schools.  Murder is already illegal.  Schools are already “gun-free zones.”  The shooter at the Florida school had already been expelled and banned from campus.  Laws don’t discourage or prevent people from committing crimes as much as we wish they did.

President Trump seems to get that and appears to be referencing all those predictable attempts to “fix” the problem with gun laws.  From a statement he gave following the Florida Shooting (my emphasis):

Later this month, I will be meeting with the nation’s governors and attorney generals, where making our schools and our children safer will be our top priority. It is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference.

Since out-lawing guns won’t do it, what is the surest way to stop all school shootings? Abolish schools.  It would be more effective than “common-sense gun laws.”  That might sound insane to people who think the public school system is necessary and good, but it makes a lot of sense if you understand that the public school system is NOT necessary or good, and is probably impossible to “fix” (just look at the decades of legal attempts and massive amounts of money dumped into the schools with no positive effect).  It is ineffective at truly educating students.  It is out-dated and doesn’t train them to succeed in the current world or job market.  It is often just a tool of indoctrination for the liberal agenda.  And it’s a damned dangerous place to send your kids, even if they’re never victims of a school shooting.

As Vox Day so aptly puts it: Homeschool or Die.  After quoting a victim’s mother who blames Trump for the shooting, he has this to say:

While one has to make allowances for a distraught mother (assuming she is not a crisis actor, which is far from a certain assumption), the idea that the President of the USA can do anything to prevent people from shooting up schools is absurd. Why not simply have him ban poverty, drugs, and teenage pregnancy while he’s at it? It’s not like there is a law against murder or anything, right?

The truth is that there is only one solution to the problem of school shootings: homeschool.

Although not putting boys on psychotropic medications would probably help.

The way schools handle boys and frequently put them on medications (like Ritalin and an assortment of anti-depressants and anti-pyschotics) has been suggested as a possible factor leading up to school shootings.  But schools are bad for all children and cause plenty of problems that are less obvious than the “going off the deep end” school shooter type (which most likely have multiple contributing factors).  Unfortunately, so many parents still don’t understand this.

I was recently horrified to witness a conversation between several Christian parents.  It went something like this:

Parent 1: Look at this example in the news about a teacher being beaten up by a student.  This terrible student behavior, disrespect for adults and lack of Christian morals in schools and in our culture is part of the reason we choose to homeschool our kids.

Parent 2: Oh, that’s just a rare extreme example given to stir things up.  Those sorts of things don’t happen here.  My kids are in the public school system and have great teachers!  They’re doing really well and growing up to be good Christian kids.  They have plenty of nice friends.  I’m sure they’re not being exposed to anything bad.  I’ve never heard anything from the kids about anything bad here [continues defending the public schools for some time & several other parents chime in with similar arguments].

My mental response: Ha! yeah… even if your kids end up with good teachers (and counting on that is like playing russian roulette), you have no idea what the other students are exposing your kids to and the teachers will never know.  And your kids might never tell you either.  Or they will, but it will be too late.

Just because you think your kids are having a good experience doesn’t mean that school isn’t a physically and morally dangerous place for kids to be.  I know a few things about the particular school system in which Parent 2 is placing so much trust.  Yes, it’s ok compared to some places and probably not as SJW infested as many, but I personally know several people working in the elementary schools whom I would not trust with my children, people who are gay, gender-confused, leading immoral lives and/or very supportive of these sorts of lifestyles.  I do not have children in this school system, and I know these things.  Why does no one else notice?  Or care?

Need another example of why you should take your kids out?  Jonathon van Maren writes for Lifesite News:

If the progressive Left can claim one cultural victory that is nearly total, it is their infiltration and conquest of the public education system. Public schools across the Western world—especially Canada, the United States, and Great Britain—now serve as purveyors of post-modern ideology, replete with “social justice” classes and sex education that is designed to mainstream a wide variety of alternative lifestyles. The latest news on this front is out of the UK…

“Announcing an ‘LGBT-inclusive’ update to all of its products, education giant Pearson has launched a guide to pushing ‘social justice’ activism in every part of the school curriculum…  

Organised by subject, the guide lists suggestions to ensure LGBT visibility across the curriculum, for example recommending teachers set questions which reference homosexual relationships in maths and science, and introduce terminology specific to the lifestyles of sexual minorities in foreign language lessons. One example given is to begin a question with: ‘Two women would like to have a baby together, and the doctor recommends they use In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)’ …

In history lessons, pupils should “study the links between different social justice movements”, while art teachers are urged to “explore the way that art has been, and is being, used to effect social and political change, including LGBT equality, race equality and tackling climate change”…

There has been some backlash, of course—not that it will be heeded: UKIP education spokesman David Kurten stated that… “Maths should be about maths, it should not be about sexualizing children,” he told Breitbart London, warning the new textbooks will make it significantly more difficult for parents “to protect their children from the malign influence of left-wing identity politics.”

***

We can all expect the curriculums of public schools to change and evolve as fast as the LGBT Alphabet Soup is—and we can all expect parental protestations to be ignored.

If you don’t want your children to be indoctrinated, take them out of the public school system. It’s the only choice you’ve got.

An increasing number of parents are making that choice, and turning to homeschooling, perhaps for many of them for these reasons.  According to the National Home Education Research Institute:

  • There are about 2.3 million home-educated students in the United States (as of spring 2016). This is up from one estimate that there were about 2 million children (in grades K to 12) home educated during the spring of 2010 in the United States (Ray, 2011). It appears the homeschool population is continuing to grow (at an estimated 2% to 8% per annum over the past few years).

  • Homeschooling – that is, parent-led home-based education; home education – is an age-old traditional educational practice that a decade ago appeared to be cutting-edge and “alternative” but is now bordering on “mainstream” in the United States. It may be the fastest-growing form of education in the United States. Home-based education has also been growing around the world in many other nations (e.g., Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Japan, Kenya, Russia, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, and the United Kingdom).

There are many things over which the government shouldn’t have so much control or influence.   Education is one of them.  Choosing to homeschool could mean saving your child’s soul, and possibly life.

 

Identity Politics = children who are crying out to belong?

I’ve wondered about the connection between identity politics and un-met needs to belong and to be part of a “tribe,” a community, but I hadn’t yet followed that train of thought far enough back.

In The Primal Scream of Identity Politics, Mary Eberstadt provides as assessment of  identity politics and our culture that takes us back to the foundation: the family.  She examines several other authors’ analyses of identity politics (and our cultural climate) and concludes that while some have noticed important factors, no one has gone deep enough in their questions and conclusions.  The whole thing is worth a read.

“Mine! Mine! It’s mine!” The manifest panic behind cries of “cultural appropriation” is real—as real as the tantrum of a toddler. It’s as real as the developmental regression seen in the retreat to campus “safe spaces,” those tiny non-treehouses stuffed with candy, coloring books, and Care Bears. In social science, the toddler’s developmental “mine!” is called the “endowment effect”—the notion that humans ascribe extra value to possessions simply because they’re theirs. Some theorists consider it a subset of another human proclivity: loss aversion.

Maybe that cultural scream of “mine!” is issuing from souls who did have something taken from them—only something more elemental than the totemic objects now functioning as figurative blankies for lost and angry former children. As of today, less than 65 percent of American children live with both biological parents, even as other familial boughs have broken via external forces like the opioid crisis, criminality and incarceration, and globalization. Maybe depression and anxiety have been rising steadily among children and teenagers for a reason. Maybe the furor over “appropriation” unveils the true foundation of identity politics, which is pathos.

Did anyone really think things would turn out otherwise—that the massive kinship dislocations of the past 60 years wouldn’t produce increasingly visible, transformative effects not only in individual lives and households, but on politics and culture, too?

After all, it defies common sense to believe that the human surroundings during one’s formative years have no effect on the life to come. There’s also a library of social science, now over half a century in the making, tracing the links between fatherless homes and higher risks of truancy, criminality, psychiatric trouble, and the rest of the ledger suggesting that ripping up primordial ties hasn’t done society any favors. It’s all there, no matter how many of us have deep reasons for wishing otherwise.

One irony is certain. While identity politics has become an object of conversation in the left-leaning circles of Anglo-American and European political thought, deliverance from today’s disfigurations cannot come from the same quarter. The reason is simple. Not only identitarians but also liberals and progressives who are now anti-identitarian or identitarian-skeptical all agree on one big thing: The sexual revolution is off-limits for revision anywhere, anytime. It is their moral bedrock.

No-fault divorce, out-of-wedlock births, paid surrogacy, absolutism about erotic freedom, disdain for traditional moral codes: The very policies and practices that chip away at the family and drive the subsequent flight to identity politics are those that liberals and progressives embrace.

Then there are related family-unfriendly social realities that they also deem benign. Pornography, which once upon a time some feminists objected to, is now the stuff of their full-throated enthusiasm. Prostitution has been re-defined as the more anodyne “sex work.” And, of course, abortion is—in the unnervingly theological modifier applied to it by Hillary Clinton and many others on the left—“sacrosanct.” In the end, asking liberals and progressives to solve the problem of identity politics is like asking the proverbial orphan with chutzpah who murdered his parents.

Yes, conservatives have missed something major about identity politics: its authenticity. But the liberal-progressive side has missed something bigger. Identity politics is not so much politics as a primal scream. It’s the result of what might be called the Great Scattering—the Western world’s unprecedented familial dispersion.

Anyone who’s ever heard a coyote in the desert, separated at night from the pack, knows the sound. Maybe the otherwise-unexplained hysteria of today’s identity politics is just that: the collective human howl of our time, sent up by inescapably communal creatures who can no longer identify their own.

My very simplified conclusion after reading all of The Primal Scream of Identity Politics is this: maybe all the immature, hysterical acting out going on in this country really can be traced back to the destruction of the family or put more personally, mommy and daddy weren’t there to provide a stable, loving childhood.  Today’s adults were yesterday’s children who were spoiled rotten in many ways, but not given what they really needed to be able to grow-up into mature human beings.

Rest in Peace Charlie Gard

Little Charlie Gard passed away last week.  He died in the hospital because his parents were not permitted to take him home to die in the peace of home.

What kind of evil is it that claims to be magnanimously keeping an individual’s best interests at the heart of its decisions, but won’t let that person be cared for by the people who love him most in all the world — his parents?  Won’t let that person seek alternative care elsewhere, even when it has been offered by more than one hospital and doctor, and generous strangers have donated over million dollars for his care?  Won’t let that child and his parents have the comfort of having clergy visit and pray with them?  Won’t let him, in the end, die at home?  All this in the name of doing what is good and right for that person.  We know best… your wishes, your family’s wishes, are irrelevant… we are the ones with power… you will submit…

Jenny Uebbing had this to say about Charlie and what happened to him and his family (a good summary of which can be found here):

But, but, he was going to die anyway. Extraordinary means! The Catechism says! Etc. Etc. Etc.

True. All true. And yet, his parents wanted to pursue further treatment. His mother and his father, the two human beings who, entrusted by the God with whom they co-created an immortal soul, were tasked with the immense, universe-altering task of making decisions on his behalf.

It’s called parenting.

And when the state steps over the bounds of parental interests – nay, tramples upon them – insisting that government knows best what is best for it’s citizens, (particularly when government is footing the medical bills as is the case with the socialized NHS) then we should all of us, no matter our religions or our socioeconomic statuses or our nationalities, be alarmed.

Charlie Gard was a victim of the the most heinous sort of public power struggle: a child whose humanity was reduced to a legal case and an avalanche of global publicity. And no man, not the President of the United States or the Pope himself, could do a thing to turn the tide in little Charlie’s favor once the momentum was surging against him.

The British courts and the Great Ormond Street Hospital, convinced of their own magnanimity and virtue, ruled again and again against the wishes of Charlie’s parents, frustrating at every turn their attempts to seek a second option, to try experimental treatments, to spend privately-raised funds to secure care for their child not available in their home country.

To no avail.

Charlie Gard, baptized earlier this week into the Catholic Church, went home to be with Jesus today. His innocent soul in a state of grace, we can be confident of his intimate proximity now to the sacred heart of Jesus and to the sorrowful heart of Mary. May his parents feel the comfort of knowing that they fought the good fight, and that they brought their child to the font of eternal life by baptizing him into Christ’s Church and surrendering him into heaven’s embrace as he passed from this life.

And may they find, through the powerful intercession of their little son, now whole and free from suffering, the grace to forgive his tormentors and executioners here on earth.

Charlie Gard, pray for us.

Courts create “a duty to die” for those deemed not worth saving

Wesley J. Smith writes about the difficult and heart-breaking Charlie Gard case and the potential ramifications of the UK court’s decisions.  The precedent being set in this case (and similar cases discussed by Smith, including ones in the USA) is chilling regardless of whether you think you’d make the same decisions as Charlie Gard’s parents.  Read the entire article at First Things.

… the parents of “Baby Terry”—also born after twenty-three weeks gestation—faced a similar ordeal. The ethics committee at the Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Michigan weighed in on August 9, 1993, opining that to honor the parents’ desire to continue Baby Terry’s treatment “would be contrary to medical judgment and to moral and ethical beliefs of physicians caring for the patient” (my emphasis). In other words, when it came to choosing between the values of the parents—based in large part on their religious faith—and the values of doctors and hospital bioethicists, the state argued that only the latter matters.

On that basis alone, a judge found Terry’s parents unfit to make health-care decisions for Terry and stripped them of their parental rights. He awarded temporary custody to the maternal great-aunt, who had previously stated her willingness to obey the doctors. Before that could happen, the infant died in his mother’s arms, aged two-and-a-half months…

… Charlie’s, and many other similar cases I could recite, involving profoundly ill people of all ages, are examples of what is known in the bioethics trade as “futile care” or “medical futility”—or, as I call it, futile-care theory. FCT authorizes doctors to refuse or withdraw wanted life-sustaining medical treatment over the objections of family and patients when the doctors and/or a bioethics committee believe that the patient’s quality of life makes that life not worth living—or, lurking in the subtext, not worth the resources required to sustain it.

A couple of important points need to be made: We are not talking about an intervention without a potential physiological benefit to the patient—a medical determination. Rather, FCT constitutes a value judgment. As bioethicist Dr. Stuart Youngner once put it, “futility determinations will inevitably involve value judgments about: 1) whether low probability chances are worth taking; and 2) whether certain lives are of a quality worth living.”

Worse, FCT empowers strangers to make medicine’s most important and intimate health-care decisionsDeciding whether to accept or reject life-sustaining care is one of the most difficult medical choices. Under FCT, a patient’s decision—whether it be the desire of an infant patient’s guardians or written in an adult patient’s advance directive—matters less than institutional and professional opinions.

Given all that, Charlie Gard’s heartbreaking situation is not surprising. However, until Charlie’s case, the patient or family has always had the option of finding alternative care. The hospital refusing Ryan’s dialysis did not seek to prevent his transfer. Neither did the hospital in the Baby Joseph controversy.

This is where Charlie Gard’s case is breaking new and even more authoritarian ground. Not only are doctors and judges forcing Charlie off life-support; they are also declaring that their ethics rule over Charlie’s life, even if the parents—Chris and Connie Gard—find alternative care. As far as I know, this is unprecedented in futile-care controversies.

Chris and Connie have raised more than $1 million through crowdfunding to pay for Charlie to be flown to the United States for an experimental treatment that has shown some potential in other mitochondrial conditions. If that course proves impossible, they just want to take their baby home so he can die there instead of in a pediatric ICU. But the hospital administration refuses to permit Charlie to be discharged! And the courts have agreed, based on a determination of what doctors and lawyers believe to be Charlie’s “best interests.”

The only silver lining in this tragedy is that a very sick baby’s life still has the power to move hearts. Not only have Chris and Connie received tremendous popular support internationally, but they are also being backed by two of the most visible leaders in the world: Pope Francis and Donald Trump.

The refusal to allow Charlie’s parents to remove their baby boy from the hospital is an act of bioethical aggression that will extend futile-care controversies, creating a duty to die at the time and place of doctors’ choosing. And that raises a crucial liberty question: Whose baby is Charlie Gard? His parents’? Or are sick babies—and others facing futile-care impositions—ultimately owned by the hospital and the state?

The UK medical center fought in court to disallow the parents to take Charlie elsewhere for care when at one point he was offered care in the USA, and Congress offered them citizenship to do so, AND they raised $1.5 million for his care.  The UK medical establishment and courts wouldn’t even let the parents take Charlie home to die in the peace of his home if death were going to be the only option allowed to him. In these difficult cases, it can be very hard to know what is the right thing to do.  BUT having the medical center and court overrule the family’s (or individual’s) choices and force someone to die?  And die in the hospital too?  It is sickening.  And terrifying.