NEVER TOLERATE TYRANNY!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.

DEFENDING MARRIAGE

The Mind of a Con Man

-Diederik Stapel

Stapel was an academic star in the Netherlands and abroad, the author of several well-regarded studies on human attitudes and behavior. That spring, he published a widely publicized study in Science about an experiment done at the Utrecht train station showing that a trash-filled environment tended to bring out racist tendencies in individuals. And just days earlier, he received more media attention for a study indicating that eating meat made people selfish and less social.

THE SCIENCE OF FRAUD....

FALSE STUDIES USED TO PROMOTE A HIDDEN AGENDA...

"At the end of November, the universities unveiled their final report at a joint news conference: Stapel had committed fraud in at least 55 of his papers, as well as in 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students. The students were not culpable, even though their work was now tarnished. The field of psychology was indicted, too, with a finding that Stapel’s fraud went undetected for so long because of “a general culture of careless, selective and uncritical handling of research and data.” If Stapel was solely to blame for making stuff up, the report stated, his peers, journal editors and reviewers of the field’s top journals were to blame for letting him get away with it. The committees identified several practices as “sloppy science” — misuse of statistics, ignoring of data that do not conform to a desired hypothesis and the pursuit of a compelling story no matter how scientifically unsupported it may be."

From Phyllis Schlafly:

“The U.S. Supreme Court is right now holding in its hands the issue that can make or break America. Within a few weeks, the Court will hand down its decision on the definition of Marriage, and it is expected to be binding on all our 50 states. The Court has before it two cases. In one case, the homosexuals are asking the Court to declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. It was passed by overwhelming majorities of Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. It simply declares that in all reference in federal law to marriage (of which there are more than 1,000), marriage means the union of a man and a woman. The other case came from California. California voters, in a statewide referendum, passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The homosexuals got two federal courts to declare that referendum vote unconstitutional, and Prop 8 sponsors have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the vote of the people.”

“Let me tell you a little history. You know I fought the Equal Rights Amendment for ten years against incredible odds. The most decisive vote in those ten years was in the Illinois State Legislature in 1980. The ERAers had announced that the ERA would pass that day and that would end the fight. All the media, all the TV networks, were in the balcony of the Legislature expecting to film their victory. We had done all our lobbying, but we knew we were still short of votes. Illinois votes electronically, and it was very tense as the votes lit up the board. That day, God brought us two votes from Chicago Democrats who had never voted with us before, and we won. ABC immediately put the feminist leader, Eleanor Smeal, in front of the TV camera and said, “You told us that you had the votes. Why didn’t you win?” She replied, “There was something, very powerful against us, and I don’t mean people.” That’s right. We had something, Someone, very powerful on our side who delivered the two votes we needed.”

“That’s what we are asking God to do for us now. Find and deliver the votes we need to preserve your definition of marriage. We need His help. And we need you to ask Him for help. And we need you to go to your pastor and ask your pastor to ask his congregation to pray that the Court upholds Marriage.”

“We must pray for God to enlighten any swing votes to persuade them to uphold marriage the way the Lord ordained it. But we do have to give some thought to what we will do if the Court throws out traditional marriage and opens it up to any people who want to live together. I don’t like thinking about that possibility, but we probably should. For guidance, I suggest we look at Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, where he dealt with the worst Supreme Court decision in history, the infamous Dred Scott decision. The Supreme Court ruled wrong in that case, holding that a man who traveled to other states had to be protected in his property right of owning the slave, named Dred Scott.”

“Abe Lincoln was eloquent. He first of all admitted that a Supreme Court decision would be binding on the parties to a case. But then he said that we should consider such an erroneous decision limited to that particular case and never let it become a precedent for other cases, with the hope that it may one day be overruled. Then he made this important pronouncement: ”If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in person actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

“In other words, if the Supreme Court makes such an erroneous decision on such vital questions as slavery, or the definition of marriage, we will no longer be a self-governing people but a nation ruled by “that eminent tribunal.” And that, we cannot allow to happen.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

California ‘Bathroom Bill’ Mandating Schools to Allow Boys in Girls’ Restrooms Approved By Assembly

Sacramento, California – A bill in California that would mandate schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identified with the opposite gender has been approved by the state’s Assembly Education Committee.

AB 1266, also known as the “Bathroom Bill,” would serve as an amendment to the Education Code and would require all schools in the state to comply with its mandates.

“A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,” the legislation reads.

It was approved to move forward in the legislature by a vote of 5-2 on Wednesday. It will likely now advance to the full Assembly, House and Senate for consideration.

We were heavily outnumbered by transgender folk, transgender activists, the ACLU and teacher’s unions,” Matthew McReynolds, staff attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), told Christian News Network of the hearing that took place prior to the vote.

He advised that representatives with an organization called Gender Spectrum were also present, a group that teaches that there is no such thing as gender per se — but that some have more male or female traits and inclinations than others.

McReynolds had an opportunity to speak on behalf of PJI.

“I urged the committee to consider the private implications for all of the parents and students who were not being represented at the hearing,” he said. “The implications [of the bill] are pretty astounding.”

“Basically, any responsible adult has their hands tied so they can’t step in on behalf of the 99 percent,” McReynolds advised. “I fear that many parents are going to to find out too late.”

He explained that the bill would not only pertain to school restrooms, but would also entitle students who wished to identify with the opposite sex to be allowed to play on sports teams of that gender. Girls who identified as boys could play on male football teams, and boys who identified as girls could play on ladies’ tennis or swim teams. Coaches would then be required to allow that individual to change in the locker room with all of the other students of the opposite gender.

“Our sports and athletics [groups] here … they do have some policies in place, [but] this bill is so sweeping, it will likely override the existing safeguards that are in place,” McReynolds stated.

He said that although there were two committee members who voted against the furtherance of the bill, they “were not willing to stand up” and say anything to the contrary of the activists gathered.

Therefore, McReynolds urges parents in the state to be a voice on behalf of the children.

“We need tens of thousands of parents to call their legislators,” he said. “Sometimes it takes a catalyst like a committee vote [to get people mobilized].”

As previously reported, parents in Washington state became outraged last year when their young daughters, who participate in their local swim club, discovered a male sitting naked in the sauna “displaying male genitalia.” However, police and school representatives alike remarked that they could do little about the situation because of state law.

“We have to follow a nondiscrimination policy with the state,” Evergreen State College spokesperson Jason Wettstein outlined to reporters. “State law doesn’t allow us to ignore gender identity as one of the protected classes.”

SUPPORT THIS SITE

REAL CONSERVATIVES

CLICK HERE:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/raymond-athens/right-side-up/ebook/product...