Friday, June 12, 2009
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact or http://www.speaker.gov/contact
If the web contact form doesn't work, use this email address:
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
RE: Your use of the word "inclusion".
I am a 61 year-old, white male who, like yourself, has seen many changes in the America we live in. As a young person I was the high school news reporter (AV geek) doing the End of Day Announcements in November, 1963.
As time unfolded there was Bobby, Martin and even Malcolm. I remember Ohio State, Oct.15th on the Mall and being told the hair that merely touched the top of my ears was "too long" by the President of the business college I graduated from in 1970. When he saw my picture on the front page of a newspaper for a peace rally, he called for a school-wide assembly to tell students "war protests were none of our business".
Over the years I traveled throughout the U.S. following a 20 year career of my brother-in-law who was in the Air Force. (His last five with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in D.C.)
I relate this history to put into perspective a losing battle I had in New Hampshire with Liberalism and Feminism in the late 80's and early 90's as Bill and Jean Shaheen kidnapped the state for the Democrats. It was a time when I learned first hand the "legal" concept: "What a man says is taken as a neutral to a negative and what a woman says is taken as a neutral to a positive." Again, I have seen a lot in life.
It was at this time that I first became personally aware of the term "inclusion".
As I made my recovery from a devastating time in my life, I attended a United Church of Christ parish for six years in the 90's. The pastor was a former Irish Catholic, Vietnam chaplain and the standing joke in the community was that the church was a place for "recovering Catholics".
I saw firsthand how forces within the church slowly and methodically took over the focus of the parish's direction, changing the tone of sermons, church hymnals and a variety of sponsored events. The buzz phrase heard more often than not was "We want to be inclusionary." It would have been more honest and much more accurate to say: "We want to throw away tradition and do it our way."
That sea change was not ignored by the senior members of the church as many went elsewhere to worship. It was shameful that "their" church was appropriated by others and they felt too uncomfortable to stay. Isn't that exactly what is happening to American society as traditional mores and beliefs are being thrown under the bus? Powerful people in politics, the media and activist courts continue to kidnap the morals and conscience of our society and the label they use is "Inclusion".
The church experience brought focus to sharp feelings I have as I look back at the previous years in my life. High schools that were filled with pride and tradition in the 60's are now filled with lonely, lost young people. They are the victims of "progressive education" and the changes of the 70's.
Repeated attempts at "New Math" (an effort so that parents could no longer teach their own children), the "Open Classroom" concept (which embarrassed many teachers and destroyed classroom discipline) and the most destructive modality, "Students have the right to fail", all were opening salvos in the NEA and the Liberal Left's war on education. I know first hand because I taught high school at the time.
Hand in hand with the destruction of education was the Liberal movement to "enhance" the rights of minors so school administrators became afraid to hold young people accountable for any of their actions. It's a sad joke today that young people are less afraid to go to a police station than we were to go to the Principal's Office.
When you used the word "inclusion" in your speech Monday night I was crestfallen. It is an ugly term, historically laden with Liberalism, true insensitivity and cruelty. While it may be important to reach out to any voter in the country to support the Republican Party, there has to be a less offensive way.
Thank you for your consideration.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Dr. Marc Lamont Hill --
In a shameful endorsement of mob violence during an interview with Bill O’Reilly on 6/8/09, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill -- an “Education” professor at Columbia University -- openly supported Anarchy in the streets of Philadelphia. His comments were a disgusting diatribe of prejudice and Columbia University MUST FIRE Lamont now!
Professor Hill and O’Reilly were discussing the fact that an openly identified group of individuals -- some of whom where even interviewed on TV following their crime -- were not charged for ruthlessly beating a man on the streets of the city. Their excuse was they “thought he was a child molester”.
O’Reilly pointed out that the man had not be charged or convicted of any crime and for a mob to attack him was clearly out of line and against the law. Hill argued that his city was already in a state of anarchy and it was right for the mob to attack.
Marc seems to think he wears a dress when he goes to work (or out in public) because he has to stand up for women as victims. What he doesn't know or even begin to understand is that females are the fastest growing demographic of the criminal base in America.
He also doesn't know that 86% of the victims of a sexual assault by a female are NOT BELIEVED by authorities when they report the crime.
He doesn't know that MORE MEN THAN WOMAN are raped each year in the United States when statistics from prison or jail assaults are rightfully included in overall discussions.
No mob violence should ever be accepted, encouraged or promoted, yet that is exactly what Marc did in his discussion with Bill.
An apology is NOT ENOUGH. Columbia University must fire Lamont now!
All too often Americans are hearing from the Obama Administration that they are "saving or creating" hundreds of thousands of jobs. Anyone knows that is total BS and the ultimate kind of unprovable spin.
What many people haven't been told is just where this form of treachery came from.
SOME HISTORY --
Thirty years ago some of the bleeding heart liberals were looking around for new ways to tap into the "Evergreen Theory". In a brainstorming session one day (probably held at a Liberal Arts college in the Northeast), a group of hardcore Feminists decided that more of their graduating seniors could find work in Social Services if broader attention was brought to the Sexual Abuse of Children.
"What a fantastic idea!" the group proclaimed. "We can create a whole new kingdom, employ our brainwashed followers and eventually put ourselves into very high-paying positions as the rulers of all the new programs."
It sounded so good and it sounded so easy. Just scare the Hell out of people, appeal to their emotions and get their money. What was an added benefit for the Feminists was the established (false) perception that ONLY men abused children.
They began their campaign setting up "programs", "safe houses", "media blitzes" and the indoctrination of prosecutors by "helping" to interview children who were possibly victims. The Massachusetts case of the Fells Acre Day Care Center comes to mind. The CASA volunteers program is another.
In the Fells Acre Case interviews were done by Social Service workers (not experienced, licensed therapists) which years later were totally discredited as "leading" and "manipulative". Children repeatedly made up exaggerated stories that -- lacking the political firestorm the Feminists whipped up -- would not have been trusted or believed by any judge or jury in the country.
The CASA program to "help and support victims" was similarly discredited when leaders didn't disavow statements made by prosecutors that the program should be funded and expanded "because they help bring more convictions". They were also justifiably criticized because they routinely abandoned "victims" once criminal proceedings concluded. The more the organization was a tool for the government (not the victim), the more the focus and resources changed.
For years these realities were swept under the rug. But there was one immediate problem for those who had visions of both power and control as well as impressive salaries.
Based on available statistics, the numbers simply weren't high enough to create a landslide of support and additional funding. The "mother load" of getting donation support directly from the general public was not materializing.
"How can we fix this?" decried the masterminds. "How can we get more money?"
That's when "Abuse v2.0" was born.
"Let's take the existing (rather low) numbers of reported Childhood Sexual Abuse and concoct a way to dramatically expand them so people will really take notice and be afraid."
And then the stairway to the "Holy Grail" was created.
"We tried combining 'reported' case statistics with our imaginary 'unreported' estimates and the media and the public seemed to buy into that. Why not throw in "abuse" statistics -- again reported and unreported -- to send the numbers into the stratosphere?"
The groups understood that "abuse" was an extremely fluid category and everything from a raised voice to micro waving your children in an oven could be included. They also realized another term would be an additional catalyst: "neglect".
Even taken at reported face value, to add general abuse and neglect numbers to the sexual abuse of children, it would inflate the figures in an exponential manner. Suddenly the term "Sexual Abuse of Children" was replaced by the new terminology, "Abuse and Neglect of Children".
In a pre-planned, effective onslaught on people's fears, the groups kept pounding away on the sexual abuse of children within any discussion using the new "abuse and neglect" approach so in the mind of the public the two became synonymous. What was even more rewarding to the Feminists originators was that, even though as much as 90% of the newly included numbers were acts committed by females, the misperception retained by the general public was that all this abuse was primarily perpetrated by males. Women had discovered the first, true Nuclear Bomb of Feminism!
In this case, compared to the Obama jobs statistics, these are the same people intentionally misleading our entire society for their own political and financial gain. The "Abuse and Neglect" concept could easily have been revealed as a fraud but the media and others never even tried. Obama's claims are harder to disprove but no less distorted and laughable -- IF ONLY THE MEDIA AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD SIMPLY CALL THEM A LIE -- we would be so much better off.