Iran
PerfectlyAble
After the Iranian Revolution the Mullahs accepted help to
build peaceful nuclear power under an agreement that
meant they would giveup acquiring such weapons.
Now we're told that Iran is build a nuke, or putting
enough infrastructure in place to rapid up-arm (in
the event its attacked by a nuke).
So we basically handed over the technology so they
wouldn't build nukes, and then we support enemies
of Iran who threaten to use nukes on them.
Israel needs a defence against Pakistani nukes,
So Iran needs a defence against both of them
and Saudi Arabia to the south who are buddies of
the US nuke magnet.
We've helped armed the region and tell Iran that it can't have
nukes, so it does the next best thing and builds everything
ready for a missile program to launch nukes besides
actually doing so.
Now we have a standoff, the US and international
community, who don't trust Iran (who would) want
to control Irans peceful nuclear program. When all Iran really
wants is a military alliance that states if Iran is
hit by a nuke then whoever launched it gets eye
for an eye.
If Iran is an honest broker then this shouldn't be
impossible to deliver. If Iran isn't honest then we
can never trust anything this state does and must
declare war immediately and unreservedly.
Dithering either way just makes us all more unsafe.
But then Bush never dithers he just shoots himself
in the foot and calls it a victory, leaving the world
to get on without insight or leadership from the US
(effectively dithering anyway).
Patriot Games
news:1172212215.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> When all Iran really
> wants is a military alliance that states if Iran is
> hit by a nuke then whoever launched it gets eye
> for an eye.
Cite?
the_blogologist
> When all Iran really
> wants is a military alliance
What Iran wants......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA
> that states if Iran is
> hit by a nuke then whoever launched it gets eye
> for an eye.
1.5 billions Muslems VS 5 million Jews.
No doubt they want an eye for an eye.
> If Iran is an honest broker
Iran has been counterfeiting US currency for 20 years.
> then this shouldn't be
> impossible to deliver. If Iran isn't honest then we
> can never trust anything this state does and must
> declare war immediately and unreservedly.
You are a nut case.
PerfectlyAble
the_blogologist wrote:
> PerfectlyAble <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > When all Iran really
> > wants is a military alliance
>
> What Iran wants......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA
>
> > that states if Iran is
> > hit by a nuke then whoever launched it gets eye
> > for an eye.
>
>
> 1.5 billions Muslems VS 5 million Jews.
Oversimplification.
>
> No doubt they want an eye for an eye.
>
> > If Iran is an honest broker
>
> Iran has been counterfeiting US currency for 20 years.
You honestly believe that the secret services of every
nation don't know how to do that and wouldn't bat an
eyelid to do so if national security were at stake.
Look Iran sucks but you surely jest if you believe the US
is a shinning night, Bush invaded Iraq based solely on
obvious unaccountable lying.
> > then this shouldn't be
> > impossible to deliver. If Iran isn't honest then we
> > can never trust anything this state does and must
> > declare war immediately and unreservedly.
>
> You are a nut case.
Look closer to home, a nutbar lives in the Whitehouse,
he believes he's got a called from God.
the_blogologist
> the_blogologist wrote:
> > PerfectlyAble <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > When all Iran really
> > > wants is a military alliance
> >
> > What Iran wants......
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA
> >
> > > that states if Iran is
> > > hit by a nuke then whoever launched it gets eye
> > > for an eye.
> >
> >
> > 1.5 billions Muslems VS 5 million Jews.
>
> Oversimplification.
>
> >
> > No doubt they want an eye for an eye.
> >
> > > If Iran is an honest broker
> >
> > Iran has been counterfeiting US currency for 20 years.
>
> You honestly believe that the secret services of every
> nation don't know how to do that and wouldn't bat an
> eyelid to do so if national security were at stake.
What the hell does that mean? lol
> Look Iran sucks but you surely jest if you believe the US
> is a shinning night, Bush invaded Iraq based solely on
> obvious unaccountable lying.
You mean this lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk
> > > then this shouldn't be
> > > impossible to deliver. If Iran isn't honest then we
> > > can never trust anything this state does and must
> > > declare war immediately and unreservedly.
> >
> > You are a nut case.
>
> Look closer to home, a nutbar lives in the Whitehouse,
> he believes he's got a called from God.
If God exists, then you are the nut.
Topaz
C. E. Carlson
The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote "Democracy in America"
when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In
ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength
and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of
morality... even with the abundant church attendances he observed in
America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this
familiar quote: "AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, and if America
ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have
known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its
churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.
First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful
young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to
commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an
attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the
traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author
Gordon Ginn calls "The final Apostasy", began with a small very
wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream,
and the American churches stood in its way.
The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves,
had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though
most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not
any land would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that
American Christians called "the Holy Land." But if these Zionists
read "Democracy in America" or any of the journals of any of America's
churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that
Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self proclaimed Jews, they were,
according to the Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ
and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion.
America's traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand
for a Jewish occupation of Jesus' homeland.
World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its
religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal
was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I.
Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected
European book publisher The Oxford University Press.
The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and
promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's
role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting
Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters,
and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used
Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed
such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield
Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it
became a best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90
years.
The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation,
subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a
revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King
James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new
worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet
exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed,
well-funded authors of World Zionism.
Scofield's support came from a movement that took root around the turn
of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it
considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of
these "reformers" were later to serve on Scofield's Editorial
Committee.
Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of
whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His
mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated
with the Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical
trips to the US selling what is today called "Darbyism". It is from
Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian Zionist
theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of the Scofield
Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield's interest in Darbyism
was shared by Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford
University.
The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield Reference Bible" from
the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and Scofield stated he
received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford's advertisers and
promoters succeeded in making Scofield's bible, with its Christian
Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in
Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has
been published in at least four editions since its introduction in
1908 and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but
worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the
first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance
to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the
fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study
Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students
from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from
Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts.
These invariably teach forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their
theory, to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.
Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases
recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge
Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World
Zionism's crowning achievement.
Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby
and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James
Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy to read footnotes at the
bottom of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of
the KJE becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of
readers, students become increasingly dependent on the modern language
footnotes...
Scofield's borrowed ideas were later popularized under
the labels and definitions that have evolved into common usage
today pre-millennialism," "dispensationalism," "Judeo-Christianity,"
and most recently the highly political movement openly called
"Christian Zionism."
Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the
questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It
reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a
political animal with the charm and talent for self promotion of a
Bill Clinton. Scofield's background reveals a criminal history, a
deserted wife, a wrecked family, and a penchant for self serving lies.
He was exactly the sort of man the World Zionists might hire to bend
Christian thought, a controllable man and one capable of carrying the
secret to his grave. (See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by
Joseph M. Canfield).
Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed his
original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views.
Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian
Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics.
(http://virginiawater.org.uk/christchurch)
We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our
own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction,
focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions
and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to
Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations
have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the
Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what Schofield would
have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted
the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against
the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian
mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders. We
thank God for the exceptions.
It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition
deifies--makes a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did not
even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This
writer believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race
hatred promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the
Gulf War nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have
occurred, and a million or more people who have perished would be
alive today.
What proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to
control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that
were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel
was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words
tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to
misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of
America.
There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much
about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in a
close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York
lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and
most powerful World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the
unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a
password and a common watering hole, and it appears that Untermeyer
may have been the one who provided the money that Scofield himself
lacked. Scofield's success as an international bible editor without
portfolio and his lavish living in Europe could only have been
accomplished with financial aid and international influence.
This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work
of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues
to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads
connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it
would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is
significant that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after
Scofield's death, Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death
of its original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has
gone through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added
to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield's most significant notes
from the original editions were removed where they apparently failed
to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the
title, "The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I.
Scofield." It's anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an
enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in
genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.
The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the
Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the content of the
notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These
notes are the subject of this paper.
Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967, at the time of
the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to
the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the
Palestinians' land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the
Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and
outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:
"FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE
JUDGMENT." (page 1920, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our
emphasis
added)
This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief
Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism.
But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition
of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American
churchgoers and students and is used by their leaders as a source for
their preaching and teaching...
All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being
really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects and furthers
the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of
creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is
considered "anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate crime"
punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian
Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have
written this footnote...
It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the
lack of logic in Scofield's theology, which has led followers of
Christ so far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various
Bible references given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But
we will resist the temptation to do this, because others have already
done it quite well, and more importantly because it leads us off our
course.
It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past as Canfield has
done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable pathological
liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is not in
Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent
people who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual
war.
Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these
1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the
text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to
support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the
Palestinians and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose,
Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more
recently labeled "Christian Zionists," have remained mute during wars
upon Israel's enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and
elsewhere. It is past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some
of it Christian blood...
And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists
who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?
The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider
Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be direct
descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son and older half-brother of
Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as "Israel." Many
Arabs believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham's
promise, and they correctly believe that present day Israelis have no
Biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also
speaks of Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter
how Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent
Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.
The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in
the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect,
substitutes the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish people and
Ishmaelitish people," as Scofield originally wrote it. The
Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the
Zionists want to claim the Arabs' part of the presumed birthright
right now! Read it again; "all Jews are natural descendants of
Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity."
And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford bible. On the
same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note
referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37.
"(2) 8:44 THAT THIS SATANIC FATHERHOOD CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE
PHARISEES IS MADE CLEAR IN 1Jn3:8" (note SRB 1967 Edition, P1137 to
John 8:44)
Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus is
speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his
day, and to no one else:
"YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUST OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL
DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKEST A LIE, HE SPEAKEST
OF HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT." John 8:44 King
James Ed.)
Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what
Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they
inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred
text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It
seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but
they do not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by
themselves. Now here's the text of the verse to which Oxford refers
in order to try to solve this problem:
"HE THAT COMMITETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH FROM THE
BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED, THAT HE
MIGHT DESTROY THE WORK OF THE DEVIL." (1Jn3:8.King James Edition)
Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers in a speech
about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford's argument that Jesus
was not talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he
called them "Sons of Satan" in John 8:44. It is a different book
written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical
Christian Zionist diversion.
To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must read the rest of John
8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only
one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name and
in many cases addressed them as "satanic" and as "vipers." Oxford
simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes
at all, and the Christian Zionists go along without question.
(The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today.")
These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have
shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful religious
subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls them, or
the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or
the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe
themselves. Today's Mid-East wars are not caused by the
predisposition of the peoples, who are no more warlike than any human
tribes. Without the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is
carried out by this subculture--the most vocal being the celebrity
Christian evangelists--there would be no such wars, for there is not
enough support for war outside of organized Zionist Christianity.
Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church, England
is perhaps the most dedicated new
scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as
Christian Zionism. He has quipped, "Judging Christianity by looking
at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by
watching Benny Hill."
Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is
Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting
inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was
speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the
American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star
Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing,
"We are on God's side," speaking of Palestine. He shouted, "This is
not a war between Jews and Arabs. It is a war between God and the
Devil." Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a
blood war in which the Israelis are "God" and the Palestinians are
"the Devil."
Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who
have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in
unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many
of Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from
his knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from
whom he seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian
Zionists--do not shrink at his words, because they have been
conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept
Christian persecution, even burning alive, under Nero. Several
evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn "the
line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and
evil."
An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the
fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James
Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not
as shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist
Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of
conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of
branding all Muslims as devils, but he attacked their leader and
Prophet and stated that, according to Baptist Bible interpretation,
the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in Palestine.
(see note)...
Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy in the entire
history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its leaders:
they have already brought the blood of untold numbers innocent people
down upon the spires and prayer benches of America's churches.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
the_blogologist
PerfectlyAble
Topaz wrote:
> WHY JUDEO-CHRISTIANS SUPPORT WAR
> C. E. Carlson
>
> The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote "Democracy in America"
> when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In
> ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength
> and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of
> morality... even with the abundant church attendances he observed in
> America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this
> familiar quote: "AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, and if America
> ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
>
> De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have
> known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its
> churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.
>
There has never been a state church in America, so any attack
on Christianity would be impossible. Christian aren't owed anything.
They don't have to be paid to startup, they sure as hell aren't
owed a living. If they aren't relevent they only have themselves to
blame.
> First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful
> young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to
> commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an
> attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the
> traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author
> Gordon Ginn calls "The final Apostasy", began with a small very
> wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream,
> and the American churches stood in its way.
Churches have always
stood in the way of progress, which would you rather of had?
Topaz
>
> Churches have always
>stood in the way of progress, which would you rather of had?
>
"Progress" could mean anything, even this according to some:
Homosexual activists are exploiting their agenda through "safe school"
laws across the nation - and California is their latest laboratory.
It's 1 o'clock in the morning and 27-year-old Lybe Crumpton is
standing alone, shaking and on the verge of tears. No, she hasn't been
robbed. She's a fifth-grade teacher who's afraid her students might be
harmed by the homosexual agenda.
A petite brunette with large brown eyes, she has just watched her
school board approve the idea that classrooms like hers play a video
called That's A Family!, featuring 9- and 10-year-old children lauding
the benefits of living with two moms or two dads.
My dads are gay, and gay means . . . two men or two women love each
other, says one smiling girl in the video. It's sort of like having a
mom and a dad love each other, just that it is a man and a man.
But that's not the worst of it. The video which also portrays
children of divorced, single and even jailed parents comes with a
teachers handbook including a crossword puzzle for elementary kids
using words like
transgender and discussion questions such as, What did you learn from
this video about families with gay parents? What else would you like
to know?
It was five hours ago that Crumpton slipped unnoticed into the back of
the Novato, Calif., school board meeting and heard gay-rights
activists warning the board it had better allow tolerance lessons like
this video or risk lawsuits.
That upsets Crumpton because she doesn't think elementary-school kids
are ready to discuss sexual lifestyles, especially one as physically
and spiritually devastating as homosexuality.
They're not worried about who is sleeping with whom, she says. They
worry about who's the best at soccer.
They are just opening a Pandora's box, Crumpton told Citizen moments
after the vote.
Exploiting Danger
What's happening in Novato, an affluent Bay-area suburb in Northern
California, has become increasingly common across the nation as
homosexual activists use safe school laws and concerns over school
bullying to advance their agenda.
It works like this: First, homosexual activists tout hate crimes those
sad but rare incidents in which students are harmed because they are
gay and then they push for laws protecting homosexual students. Once
those laws pass, activists persuade schools to adopt curricula that
promotes not just student safety, but acceptance of homosexuality.
Making schools safe . . . is strongly tied to ensuring that classrooms
are inclusive of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] themes,
said the Web site for one of the nation's largest homosexual lobby
groups the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
GLSEN's executive director, Kevin Jennings, made no secret of that
strategy while extolling homosexual activists inroads into
Massachusetts schools a few years ago.
We immediately seized upon the opponents calling card safety, he
said. We knew that, confronted with real-life stories of youth who had
suffered from homophobia, our opponents would automatically be on the
defensive. . . . This allowed us to set the terms of the debate.
So far the tactic is working; at least eight states have passed safe
school laws to protect gay and lesbian students, and five more
(including Florida and New York) are considering similar legislation.
But it's California schools that have taken the lead.
Over the last two years, legislators in Sacramento have cranked out
laws requiring curriculum to reflect appreciation of different sexual
lifestyles and adding sexual orientation to school discrimination
policies.
Those laws leave schools that resist homosexual pressure vulnerable to
lawsuits, explained Jeff McAlpin, a Novato school board member who
voted against pro-homosexual curriculum.
The state of California has put us in a very difficult position, he
said. We don't have a choice in terms of providing protection [for
homosexual rights], so then the question becomes how far do we go?
It puts you at some level of risk if they can prove you didn't have a
safe environment. And that risk has cast the door wide open to
homosexual activists wielding the threat of lawsuits.
The Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSA), for instance a group that
openly pushes for the normalization of homosexuality through student
clubs has issued a fact sheet urging activists to think of AB 537 [a
California safe school law] as a tool and use it as leverage to work
to change the school climate.
Apparently, members took their marching orders seriously.
After homosexual students in Visalia, Calif., complained of
harassment, their district was punished with a federal court
settlement under AB 537 that forced teachers to receive mandatory
gay-rights training. This year, the district's ninth-grade students
also will attend court-ordered classes taught by the GSA.
While the case does not directly apply to Novato, said McAlpin, It was
clearly a shot across the bows of all school districts that [safe
school laws] had an impact on one district . . . and other districts
better be careful.
Part of the Price?
If the California education system is the latest gay-rights
laboratory, then the Hayward Unified School District is its most
successful experiment. Unlike Novato, with its Victorian homes and
white picket fences, Hayward is an industrial town on the south side
of the Bay filled with cinderblock buildings and windowless factories.
But just like Novato, Christian teachers in Hayward feel forced to
promote a political agenda.
Our backs are against the wall, said Matthew Freschi, a physical
education teacher at Hayward High School. We feel the need to step
forward. Enough is enough.
What pushed Freschi into action was the 2-4-6-8 Are you sure you're
really straight? sign he discovered on his gymnasium door, as well as
the staff meeting he attended at which teachers were encouraged to
assign students library books about homosexuals. Both incidents were
billed as the school's effort to foster safety for gay and lesbian
students.
I agree that no student should be abused or battered for any reason,
Freschi said, but to me that's not protecting anybody; that's
promoting something.
Indeed, Hayward is the perfect case study of how safe school laws
create special privileges for some and oppression for others.
Just ask Monica, a Spanish teacher who had her pay docked last year
for refusing to attend a seminar endorsing homosexuality.
When Hayward school officials ordered teachers to attend sensitivity
training on April 8, Monica and three colleagues at Tennyson High
School requested permission to opt out.
We didn't want to sit and be indoctrinated for four hours, said
Manriquez, who'd already suffered through previous sensitivity
sessions. I have no problem with being sensitive, but what they mean
by that is that we have to be pro-gay in our classrooms.
After the principal denied their request, the teachers sought help
from the Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento-based Christian legal
organization, which argued that civil-rights laws protect religious
freedom in the workplace.
But school officials claimed safe school laws trumped those rights, in
a letter stating that the District has an obligation to ensure that
its employees are properly trained in applicable law. A few days
later, the teachers received notice their pay would be docked for
missing half a day.
These teachers offered to work [in their classroom], so the issue was
not their willingness to work, said Brad Dacus, chief counsel for the
institute. The issue was the intolerance of the school district . . .
that would force teachers to compromise their convictions as
Christians.
That wasn't the end of their troubles. Dubbed The Tennyson Four by
media, the teachers were derided in local newspapers and ostracized at
work. These four teachers are out of touch with the standards of our
community, wrote the Hayward Daily Review in an editorial. It's
possible that some public school students in Hayward are being
assigned to a teacher who hates them. . . . Their human rights should
outweigh teachers religious rights.
Nobody would talk to us for a while, added Monica. But that's part of
the price.
As the Hayward school district quietly trampled on religious freedom,
it drew national attention for a resolution granting homosexual
teachers the right to declare their homosexuality without fear of
reprisal and bring up homosexual relationships in class without
parental consent.
Once again waiving the safe school banner, the April 10 resolution
asserted that a crisis exists in Hayward and called for ongoing
sensitivity training and curriculum that provides positive images of
GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] people in the classroom.
In a newspaper interview, Tennyson drama teacher Kelsey Hartman
expressed relief that she could now talk about her lesbianism and have
students read a play featuring two women falling in love without fear
of punishment: Now I know we have support, she said. If I'm ashamed,
it shows the students there's something wrong with it.
But Christian teachers don't have the same protection. At previous
sensitivity seminars, Monica said she was told our religion is not to
be brought up. We are to talk about our culture, but not our religion.
Courage Under Fire
Another Christian teacher who did attend the April 8 training, Cynthia
Huggett, says Monica was right to stay away.
When Huggett arrived, the first thing she saw was a display of
newspaper articles about The Tennyson Four. There was a lot of
negativity toward them, Huggett remembered. I heard comments . . .
like they couldn't understand why those teachers couldn't be here. . .
. What's their problem?
I was kind of wondering myself, well, why are these four people
refusing to go?
She soon found out. During sessions led by educators from area
schools, religion was constantly ridiculed, said Huggett. In a seminar
video called Teaching Respect, for instance, a presenter
matter-of-factly listed people homosexual students could go to for
help, including parents and teachers, but when he got to the word
pastor, he stopped. He paused, and he looked at the audience to get a
laugh out of it like, Right . . . Christians hate gays. . . . If
anything it would be somebody that they would not trust. That was the
gist of it, said Huggett, a Tennyson math teacher. She recalled her
shock when other teachers laughed:
I was thinking, Why are they laughing? Here this was called
sensitivity awareness. . . . First you start with joking, you break
the ice by saying we can make fun of these people now.
According to Huggett and others , the video also claimed that biblical
references about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God were used to
discriminate against left-handed people.
They used Scripture to point out the fact that . . . Christians have a
history from the beginning of bashing homosexuality and people who are
different because God said so, said Huggett. I thought, How dare you
say I can't stand up and talk to my kids about what I believe and
bring out the Bible, but you can go ahead for your purposes and
actually misquote [the Bible]?
By the time the lunch break rolled around, Huggett was too distraught
to stay, so she sought comfort at home in a daily devotional book. To
her surprise, Hebrews 12:2, a verse that describes Jesus sitting at
the right hand of God, was referenced on that day's page.
To come home and see it in my journal . . . it was one of those
moments in my Christian walk that I felt was the closest thing to God
just opening his mouth and talking to me, Huggett said. It was like,
Yes Cindy, you are right. . . . You see what's going on. You see the
evil in it. You understand it. And I'm going to let you know by
Scripture.
Emboldened, she spoke her mind a few days later at a faculty meeting.
I strongly feel that if I don't say something, this will continue and
Christians will be bashed again and again, And I'm not going to let
that happen. I will not stay here if that is going to happen. I will
lose my job and wash dishes if I have to.
Cinderfella
So what does coercing Christian teachers into attending seminars that
belittle their religion have to do with teaching homosexuality to
kids? The answer is simple: To advance their cause, homosexual
activists must first undermine beliefs that categorize right and wrong
behavior.
We've seen the same pattern emerge over and over, said Scott Lively,
who as director of the Pro-Family Law Center has tracked homosexual
infiltration into Vermont, Oregon and Massachusetts school districts.
The gay agenda is first pushed to teachers, then they are trained how
to get it in the classroom. They are being trained that it is
acceptable, even expected, to trample on the private beliefs and
values of the students in their care.
Handouts from the Hayward sensitivity seminars over the past two years
illustrate this agenda. A What You Can Do list distributed at one of
this year's seminars, for instance, suggested that teachers say the
words often lesbian, gay, bisexual in a positive way and identify
gay, lesbian, bisexual contributors throughout the curriculum.
Another handout encouraged schools to bring in openly gay, lesbian,
bisexual adults as resources in classes and assemblies and identify
staff who are gay-friendly and to whom questioning students may go for
advice.
Demonstrating blatant disregard for parental control, yet another page
entitled If a Student Comes Out to You told teachers if trust and
openness exist, sexual behavior could also be addressed.
For teachers in need of more indoctrination tools, a Resources list
distributed at a 2001 seminar recommended several gay-rights
curricula, including Preventing Prejudice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender Lesson Plans for Elementary Schools.
A copy of Preventing Prejudice includes a lesson plan for first- and
second-graders entitled Who Loves Whom LGBT Relationships. The plan
encourages teachers to introduce the lesson on Valentine's Day to
broaden the definition of love that is associated with that holiday
and to ask students to rewrite stories that involve heterosexual
relationships, e.g., fairy tales like Cinderella, substituting LGBT
relationships.
A kindergarten lesson included in the same curriculum called Jesse's
Dream Skirt tells a story about a little boy who is praised for
wearing a dress to school.
According to Hayward district spokesperson Kim Hammond, those lesson
plans, as well as books like Heather Has Two Mommies, are available to
all staff in the district.
What disturbs me most, said Huggett, is that once you say this should
be part of our curriculum, [teachers] will have to appear to believe
that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle.
Given the pressure on teachers, the only hope for public education is
parental outrage
There will be no resistance [to pro-homosexual curriculum] from within
the system, from the administration. There might be individual
teachers who object, but the union is lock-stock in step with this. As
a matter of fact, much of the leadership is controlled by these
people anyway.
When one school had a gay-pride day, there wasn't a peep of protest,
an anonymous administrator said. If the phones were ringing off the
hooks the day after they did that . . . saying, How dare you? believe
me, it would have empowered the staff to say, You know this is really
taking things too far. But the great masses just seem to be, I don't
know, asleep.
PerfectlyAble
Topaz wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 16:47:16 -0800, "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Churches have always
> >stood in the way of progress, which would you rather of had?
> >
> "Progress" could mean anything, even this according to some:
All your example does is prove my point. That religion clouds
what progress means. That Religion exploits social wedge issues
to stay relevent even if obviously anti-social. Basically if a TV
company can show a family with same sex 'parents' then
a school would have to be able to answer questions and
talk about it. But the TV companies, run by religious droids
anyway, know that to actually discuss the issue of same-sex
marriage would diffusion the power of the wedge issue for the
extreme right. Fact: a human baby needs a human Ova and
a human Sperm to begin the path to life. Therefore same-sex
couples are not the same as mixed-sex couples, they cannot
have the same rights to fertility. We know Christians want kids
too and they have no real moral or ethical restrictions on changing
the law in the face of commonsense, e.g. the US coinage. We
know they let women takeout sperm from a sperm bank designed
to help male reproductive problems NOT women's. We know its
wrong. But you see Religion is on the side of wrong, because
they need traction, they need wedge issues to stay interesting,
if the problems of poverty, of good governance, of sexual harmony
are achieved, the religious would all be out of a job. The louder
the religious shout about an issue the more likely they've found a
gap in the culture that won't do right, and are forcing more wrong
into the debate to get bums on seats, money in coffers, and junkets
to Rome.
Topaz
>
>All your example does is prove my point. That religion clouds
>what progress means. That Religion exploits social wedge issues
>to stay relevent even if obviously anti-social. Basically if a TV
>company can show a family with same sex 'parents' then
>a school would have to be able to answer questions and
>talk about it.
We should outlaw homosexual perversion.
By David M. Bresnahan Š 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
"You shouldn't have done it. It ruined our lives," cried one of
several boys from the back row of a Medina, Ohio, courtroom last week.
Michael Maggy, 35, a former Boy Scout leader, had just pleaded guilty
to rape and sexual battery, and the poignant comments from his victims
were brought home by a sentence of life in prison issued by Medina
County Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. Collier. "I know what I have
done to you," Maggy said to his scout victims, as reported in the
Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I can't apologize enough." Confessing that he
too had been sexually molested as a boy, Maggy said he had lacked the
courage to seek help. "I did not get counseling or even talk about it.
Look where it got me," he said.
Crafting 'gay' children
Many homosexuals are attracted to young boys, they fantasize about
young boys, they frequent websites about young boys, they cruise the
streets for young boys, and they volunteer as Boy Scout leaders in an
attempt to have sex with young boys, according to a world-renowned
researcher and author.
Dr. Judith Reisman, formerly a research professor at American
University, veteran pornography researcher and expert witness before
the attorney general's commission on pornography, is the author of
"Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences." Having extensively researched the
homosexual lifestyle, Reisman and other experts have reached some
disturbing conclusions. Contrary to the popular view that there is
little crossover between homosexuality and pedophilia, she says
homosexuals are anxious to recruit young boys-a practice that is
becoming easier thanks to sex education and "diversity programs" in
schools that teach children to consider homosexuality as both
acceptable and normal.
In one of the major cultural battlefronts of the year, the Boy Scouts
of America has taken the legal challenges to it before the Supreme
Court and won the right to deny avowed homosexuals entrance as adult
leaders. Nevertheless, ever since the BSA's founding early last
century, it has been plagued with a constant undercurrent of pedophile
scout leaders preying on the vulnerable, trusting boys they "lead."
Greg Shields, Boy Scouts of America's national spokesman, says
homosexuals cannot serve as examples to young boys because they do not
live by the Scout Oath to be "morally straight." Although painfully
aware of the problems BSA has had over the years of men preying on
boys, Shields takes a somewhat corporate and elusive line in
separating the organization's homosexual policy from its child sexual
abuse policy.
"Unfortunately, child molestation can come from anyone. We are
teaching boys character values. Everyone knows where we stand on this.
We have never accepted homosexuals as leaders and we never will," said
Shields. But Reisman says what 90 years of police blotter statistics
prove-that young boys are in real danger of sexual molestation, and
that the BSA has sound reasons to ban homosexuals.
Reisman conducted two recent scientific studies that challenge the
popular mantra of homosexual activists who insist that: 1) they are
"born that way," 2) homosexuals make up 10 percent of the population,
and 3) youths should be able to have sex at an early age.
"Crafting 'Gay' Children: An Inquiry into the Abuse of Vulnerable
Youth Via Establishment Media and the School Room" and "Partner
Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation," are
continuations of the work Reisman began with her study, "Kinsey:
Crimes & Consequences."
(Regarding her book, Charles E. Rice, professor of law at Notre Dame
Law School, notes, "Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that
Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and
misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives
credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of
duty.")
Since the Supreme Court's June 28 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts,
activist attacks on the 90-year-old organization have increased
dramatically.
Homosexual political organizations have gone into overdrive, lobbying
and threatening corporate sponsors to discontinue their support;
President Clinton has been urged to step down as honorary president of
BSA; a few members of Congress even tried-unsuccessfully-to revoke the
organization's honorary charter. And Clinton even signed an executive
order, which was followed in lockstep by a Justice Department memo
designed to evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands and facilities-on
the grounds that the organization illegally discriminates against
homosexuals. All this, in spite of the Supreme Court's favorable
decision three months earlier.
Although homosexual activists claim they are no more likely to
sexually molest children than heterosexuals are, Reisman says research
proves the opposite. "They're claiming that homosexuals are not
looking to have sex with boys, yet you have this massive number of
boys out there prostituting themselves. And how do you have all these
Internet sites if they're not looking for boys? This is not
heterosexual. By definition, when you're having sex with someone of
your own sex, that's homosexual," Reisman said.
Based on data from a study of non-incarcerated child sex offenders,
Gene G. Abel, M.D., has found that homosexuals "sexually molest young
boys with an incidence that is occurring five times greater than the
molestation of girls."
A professor of psychiatry who has taught at several medical schools,
including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Abel
is currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and
Morehouse School of Medicine. He has been a research scientist in the
field of sexual violence for 25 years, and the National Institute of
Mental Health has awarded him funding for six long-term studies to
investigate sexual violence and to design new ways to stop it.
Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average,
150.2 boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender, whereas
only 19.8 girls are molested per heterosexual pedophile offender.
Incredibly, homosexual offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7 acts
of molesting boys.
Reisman's research in "Crafting 'Gay' Children" determined that the
total population of homosexual men in America was no more than 2
million in 1991. During the same year, "U.S. Population, Statistical
Abstracts" show that 6-8 million boys under age 18 were sexually
abused.
Meanwhile, the population of heterosexual men in the U.S. was
approximately 86--88 million in 1991, and an estimated eight million
girls were sexually abused that year.
Based on the government's own statistics-the "Statistical Abstract of
the United States, 1992, Data on Boys and Girls," published by the
U.S. Commerce Department-Reisman cited the following for that year:
Of 86 - 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8
million girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls.
An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men
victimized 6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 - 24
percent of all boys.
Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually
molested per homosexual adult male.
Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male,
which is to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males
victimizes a girl under 18.
Within the child protection establishment, sexual abuse is defined
simply as an adult having sex with a juvenile under age 18 -- whether
"consensual" or not. When dealing with children, "consensual" is not
the legitimizing criterion it is for adults. Indeed, almost
invariably, sexual predators defend their "loving" physical
relationships with children as being "consensual," when in reality the
seduction and manipulation of children- resulting in their
"consent"-is both an art form and the stock in trade of pedophiles.
The Simon and Schuster book "Homosexualities," by Alan Bell, reports
that 25 percent of homosexual men admit to having had sex with boys
who are 16 or under.
Further corroborating this well-hidden homosexual proclivity for
targeting younger males are the following findings published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association:
50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male
by the age of 16. 20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an
adult male by age 10.
"The Advocate," a popular homosexual newsmagazine, conducted a survey
of its readers. Of the 2,500 responses obtained, 21 percent admitted
that an adult man committed a sexual act with them by the time they
were 15.
'The ideal situation' Boy Scout camping trips provide a perfect
setting for homosexuals to pursue their forbidden desires, according
to Reisman, who added that any organization that provides
opportunities for homosexuals to spend time with young boys will
become a magnet for homosexual child molesters.
Of all the various youth groups today, "the Boy Scouts provide the
ideal situation" for men to find young boys to molest, according to
Reisman.
The BSA has strict rules designed to prevent child abuse of all kinds,
said Shields. Rules include "Two-Deep Leadership," which requires a
minimum of two adults to be present with boys at all times. Another
basic rule is that adults may not be in the same tent as boys (except
their own children).
Shields told WorldNet that when the rules are followed, there are no
problems. "Each incident (of abuse) took place when the leaders were
not trained or the rules weren't followed," he said.
Despite the BSA training and rules, the incidents of reported child
molestation have been on the rise. The scouting organization
attributes the increase to greater awareness because of the training
given to boys and to a record number of boys in the program-about 5
million. BSA statistics and various media reports over the past 20
years show a near-tripling of sexual abuse cases-from about 70 cases a
year then to about 200 annually now.
Reisman expressed concern that the BSA rules may not go far enough.
The ideal situation, she said, is for fathers to go on camping trips
with their sons. Fathers should stay in tents with their own sons, and
boys who are not related to them should not sleep in their tent. She
recognized, however, that not all boys have a father to go with them.
She also advised that young, single men should never be permitted to
camp with boys, but that it would be ideal, rather, if leaders are
married and have children participating in the program.
The 'helping hand'
In Gilbert Herdt's book, "Gay and Lesbian Youth," Douglas Feldman, a
medical anthropologist and a member of the homosexual activist
community, is quoted as saying, "These kids are our future and we must
invest in them." Feldman states that teen-agers are "very susceptible
to sexually transmitted diseases," and that sexually abused boys "have
about a 1 in 4 chance of developing AIDS in approximately five years."
Herdt speaks of adult male homosexuals as "coaches" and "guides" who
should help young boys overcome their heterosexual "victim" status by
"coming out" into homosexuality.
Reisman blames the nation's public schools and lawmakers for granting
various protections to such "coaches" and "guides" within the nation's
schools. "They teach confused children about tolerance, sexual
diversity and such. They like to tell young boys that 'at least one in
10 of you are gay.' Anyone who objects is immediately labeled
homophobic," she said.
In his study, "The Role of Adult Advisors" (as quoted from Herdt's
"Gay Culture in America"), homosexual advocate Frederick Lynch says,
"What has not been brought out fully in some other coming-out studies
is the role of the guide, teacher or 'helping hand' in either the
signification state, the coming-out stage or both ... the often benign
and helpful role that older, more experienced homosexual men play with
regard to younger (males)."
Reisman is concerned that educators have embraced the homosexual
agenda and now encourage boys to have sex with each other at an early
age. One of the places such experimentation could easily take place is
in a tent during a Boy Scout camping trip, she said. Boys who have
been told that experimentation is acceptable may also be willing to
accept the advances of an adult male or older boy, she added.
"They tell these impressionable kids that if they feel different,
confused, strange, or if they are questioning, that they may be gay,"
she said. "What child isn't confused at that age, anyway? These kids
don't know what to think, and then they're told it's OK to experiment
to find out."
> But the TV companies, run by religious droids
>anyway, know that to actually discuss the issue of same-sex
>marriage would diffusion the power of the wedge issue for the
>extreme right. Fact: a human baby needs a human Ova and
>a human Sperm to begin the path to life. Therefore same-sex
>couples are not the same as mixed-sex couples, they cannot
>have the same rights to fertility. We know Christians want kids
>too and they have no real moral or ethical restrictions on changing
>the law in the face of commonsense, e.g. the US coinage. We
>know they let women takeout sperm from a sperm bank designed
>to help male reproductive problems NOT women's. We know its
>wrong. But you see Religion is on the side of wrong, because
>they need traction, they need wedge issues to stay interesting,
>if the problems of poverty, of good governance, of sexual harmony
>are achieved, the religious would all be out of a job. The louder
>the religious shout about an issue the more likely they've found a
>gap in the culture that won't do right, and are forcing more wrong
>into the debate to get bums on seats, money in coffers, and junkets
>to Rome.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com