Parent’s:How Much Sex Education Propaganda Will You Tolerate ?

Posted on by
Reply

Sex Ed: Education or Propaganda?

By S. Michael Craven | Christian Post Guest Columnist

The last four decades have seen a significant shift in the philosophy behind sex education in America’s public schools. Prior to the sexual revolution, human biology and reproduction, hygiene, and marriage were the focus of sex education. In essence, this approach was grounded in particular moral virtues, namely biblical.

The new emphasis seeks to eliminate these traditional moral distinctions. Instead the student’s “choice” is given the supreme moral authority and the goal of these curriculums is to merely aid in the “safest” expression of the child’s choice.

This follows the vision set forth by Dr. Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, first president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS) and the architect of modern sex education, when she wrote:

A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality – for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance. (Calderone & Johnson, The Family Book About Sexuality, 1981)

However, more and more modern sex education programs are becoming nothing more than publicly funded platforms for legitimizing homosexuality and other deviant and unsafe behaviors—pro-homosexual propaganda presented under the guise of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

As Olivia St. John writing for WorldNetDaily.com points out, “Thanks to public apathy and the efforts of misguided state and federal lawmakers, activist judges and liberal teachers unions, our nation’s schools have become the new red-light district of the 21st century.

Rest of the article here – http://www.christianpost.com/news/sex-ed-education-or-propaganda-30946/

 

The first article was written in 2008. The next article is current news. The sex education propaganda machine has continued unabated over the past four years,and there is no sign that they are letting up.

From LifeSiteNews -

Brand new ‘guidelines’ pushing radical, explicit sex ed agenda on schools nationwide

BY CHRISTINE DHANAGOM

  • Thu Jan 12, 2012 17:44 EST

January 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A group of progressive education organizations in league with the family planning and homosexual lobby have released a new set of sex education “guidelines” that they are pushing on schools nationwide.

The guidelines, published Monday in the Journal of School Health, were authored by the American Association of Health Education, the American School Health Association, the National Education Association – Health Information Network, the Society of State Leaders of Health and Physical Education, Advocates for Youth, Answer, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

The document is being touted as “the first-ever national standards for sexuality education in schools,” and as an answer to what it calls “the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide.”

“Forty individuals from the fields of health education, sexuality education, public health, public policy, philanthropy and advocacy convened for a two-day meeting in December 2008 to create a strategic plan for sexuality education policy and implementation,” reads the introduction. “A key strategic priority that emerged from this work was the creation of a national sexuality education standards to advance the implementation of sexuality education in US public schools.”

While the document does not say what organizations were represented at the meeting, the “advisory committee” and list of “additional reviewers” includes two representatives from Planned Parenthood, a representative from Planned Parenthood’s former research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, and the director of training and curriculum development for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The recommendations begin with a kindergarten to second grade curriculum. They suggest that, by the end of second grade, children should be using “proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy,” be familiar with “different kinds of family structures,” and be able to “describe differences and similarities in how boys and girls may be expected to act, and provide examples of how friends, family, media, society and culture influence ways in which boys and girls think they should act.”

Introduction to sexual orientation would begin in the 3rd – 5th grade, and by 5th grade, students are expected to be able to define sexual orientation as “the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.”

The 6th – 8th grade curriculum calls for an explanation of the correct way to use a condom and an analysis of “external influences that have an impact on one’s attitudes about gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

“Gender identity” is defined in the glossary as a person’s “inner sense of their gender.” The document explains: “most people develop a gender identity that corresponds to their biological sex, but some do not.”

By the end of 12th grade, the curriculum prescribes that students should be able to “differentiate between biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression.”

It also recommends that students be able to “compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including condoms,” and “explain how to access local STD and HIV testing and treatment services.”

Leslee Unruh, President of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, said that the proposed curriculum was an attempt to recruit students for a “twisted worldview.”

“These guidelines undermine parental rights and I am scared for the children and the parents,” she said. “I’m asking for an alarm to go out to parents for them to take charge and to refute these guidelines in the school systems.”

Unruh also said that some of the organizations involved in setting the standards, such as Planned Parenthood, stand to benefit financially from their implementation.

A Victory for Religious Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Which of us has really admitted that God’s goodness can also lead us into conflict. No Rusty Swords-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

5. “Fear God. Honor the Emperor.” 1 Pet. 2:17http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/barmen-declaration.html

Scripture tells us that by divine appointment the State, in this still unredeemed world in which also the Church is situated, has the task of maintaining justice and peace, so far as human discernment and human ability make this possible, by means of the threat and use of force. The Church acknowledges with gratitude and reverence toward God the benefit of this, his appointment. It draws attention to God’s Dominion [Reich], God’s commandment and justice, and with these the responsibility of those who rule and those who are ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word, by which God upholds all things.

We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the State should and could become the sole and total order of human life and so fulfil the vocation of the Church as well.

We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the Church should and could take on the nature, tasks and dignity which belong to the State and thus become itself an organ of the State. (From the Barmen Declaration)

 

From LifeSiteNews-

\UPDATED: Supreme Court unanimously shoots down Obama admin in religious freedom case

BY BEN JOHNSON

  • Thu Jan 12, 2012 18:08 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a breakthrough decision for religious freedom, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that religious institutions have a constitutional right to determine their ministers without government interference.

Although the High Court has long recognized churches’ First Amendment right to choose priests and senior pastors, yesterday’s 9-0 decision marked the first time it upheld the “ministerial exception” for religious schools and other parachurch ministries.

“[T]here is a ministerial exception grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 36-page ruling. “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision.

“Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs…According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”

Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad hoc committee for religious liberty, hailed the ruling as “a great day for the First Amendment.” He said, “This decision makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance of keeping internal church affairs off limits to the government – because whoever chooses the minister chooses the message.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asked the court to overturn the ministerial exception, which was first adopted by lower courts in 1972, a legal precedent that precedes Roe v. Wade. Mark Rienzi, an attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told the radio program Kresta in the Afternoon on Thursday the EEOC’s position “said in essence religion gets no special treatment here.”

The Court’s decision called the EEOC’s view of the ministerial exception “untenable,” “extreme,” and “remarkable,” according to religious organizations no greater rights than those enjoyed by “a labor union, or a social club.” The 9-0 ruling amounted to a “very emphatic rejection of this administration’s very narrow view of religious liberty,” Rienzi said.

The Obama administration sued a Detroit-area Lutheran school for dismissing Cheryl Perich, a teacher and “commissioned minister,” for breaking a church doctrine requiring disputes to be resolved internally. Perich, who was diagnosed with narcolepsy, claimed the school really fired her because of her medical condition. Rather than attend a church tribunal, she filed a discrimination lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) joined in litigation against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School, arguing all church employees other than priests or senior pastors should be able to sue for discrimination.

Douglas Laycock, the University of Virginia Law professor who argued the school’s case, said no court could evaluate whether a minister had been fired under a pretext without first ruling whether his views and conduct were sufficiently orthodox, something forbidden under the First Amendment. The First Amendment forbade state intrusion into church hiring practices, Laycock said, adding that Perich referred to herself as a minister and claimed a ministerial housing allowance on her taxes.

The EEOC argued since lay teachers performed the same duties, and ministry took up only 45 minutes of her workday, Perich was entitled to lost wages, damages, and attorneys’ fees. Justice Roberts ruled, “The issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch.” In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated, “the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones.”

Religious liberties advocates argued the case had far-reaching consequences for church ministries of all backgrounds. Government interference in church personnel decisions could lead to a chilling of free speech not favored by the current administration, argued John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, which filed an amicus brief on the school’s behalf. “When a church is forced to make employment decisions based on a lawsuit rather than spiritual needs, the end result is that its core activities and spiritual message are inevitably altered in order to accommodate or protect against government pressures or expectations,” he stated.

Ken Klukowski of the Family Research Council described the lawsuit as a “profoundly troubling claim of power over churches.”

Proponents of the administration believed the plaintiff’s civil rights outweighed potential First Amendment concerns. Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, stated, “Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces.”

The Obama administration’s lawsuit was supported by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and People for the American Way, American Humanist Association, and several other organizations.

One Catholic organization, BishopAccountability.org, offered an amicus for the EEOC.

Justice Clarence Thomas offered a concurring opinion broadening the ministerial exception and stating the Church should be free to select its ministers entirely free of government regulation. The state, he wrote, should “defer to a religious organization’s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister.” Justices Alito and Elena Kagan added in their concurrence that the term “ministers” should not be definitive, to assure Christian sects and non-Christian religions that have no notion of ordained ministry enjoy the same protections.

The issue is likely to come before the court again, as this ruling did not offer a blanket definition of who qualifies for the ministerial exception, or what other kinds of lawsuits may be allowed. Roberts ruled, “There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.”

The case is Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Ephesians 5:22-23:Sunday School

Posted on by
2

Wives and Husbands

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, 23 for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. 27 He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 since we are members of His body.
31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.32 This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.

Commentary from the “My Study Bible” commentary notes:

5:19-21 The Spirit’s fullness is demonstrated in spiritual understanding, praise, and thanksgiving that are constant and comprehensive. The church that is filled with the Spirit will be characterized by praise and thanksgiving to God. Beyond that there will be evidence of self-control, mutual encouragement, and mutual submission, which is the opposite of rudeness, haughtiness, and self-assertion.

5:21 This verse serves as a hinge to connect what is prior with what follows. Grammatically, the participial phrase (lit “submitting yourselves”) goes with verses 18-20. The content of verses 22-33, however, depends on the principle of submission in verse 21.

5:22 Wives submit directs wives to be submissive to their own (Gk idios; “one’s own”) husbands (cp. Col 3:18-4:1). The distinctive feature here is that the relationship between husband and wife is compared with that between Christ and the church. No verb is in the original language of verse 22. The imperative “submit” is understood from verse 21.

5:22-24 Paul addressed wives first. They were to be voluntarily submissive to their husbands. No external coercion should be involved, nor should submission imply that the wife is a lesser partner in the marital union. The submission is governed by the phrase as to the Lord. Christian wives’ submission to their husbands is one aspect of their obedience to Christ. Submission is a person’s yielding his or her own rights and losing self for another. Submission is patterned after Christ’s example (Php 2:5-8) and reflects the essence of the gospel. Submission distinguishes the lifestyle of all Christians.

5:25 Paul turned to the duties of husbands. The society in which Paul wrote recognized the duties of wives to husbands but not necessarily of husbands to wives. As in Col 3:19, Paul exhorted husbands to love their wives, but Ephesians presents Christ’s self-sacrificing love for the church as the pattern for the husband’s love for his wife.

Husbands are to love their wives continually as Christ loves the church. The tense of the Greek word translated “love” indicates a love that continues. Love is more than family affection or sexual passion. Rather it is a deliberate attitude leading to action that concerns itself with another’s well-being. A husband should love his wife: (1) as Christ loved the church (vv. 25-27); (2) as his own body (vv. 28-30); and (3) with a love transcending all other human relationships (vv. 31-33).

5:26-27 Cleansing her with the washing of water: Paul explains more fully the result of Christ’s atonement for the church: it makes the church holy and pure. The purpose of Christ’s giving himself up for the church is the church’s sanctification and cleansing.

5:28 Since husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, they give up their personal rights for the good of their wives. It is a solemn picture of covenant love.

5:29-30 On first sight, Paul seems to have descended from the lofty standard of Christ’s love to the low standard of self-love when he says no one ever hates his own flesh, but he reminded Christian couples of their oneness, their “one-flesh” relationship. For this reason a husband’s obligation to cherish his wife as he does his own body is more than a helpful guide. His sacrificial love is an expression of the sacred marital union. True love is evidenced when husbands and wives have this spiritual, emotional, and physical oneness.

5:31-32 Paul appealed to Gen 2:24, which is God’s initial statement in the Scriptures regarding marriage. The marriage commitment takes precedence over every other human relationship.

5:31 One flesh means closely joined. It hallows the biblical standard of covenantal heterosexual marital relations and excludes polygamy and adultery. What is primarily a divine ordinance graciously and lovingly is designed for mutual satisfaction and delight.

5:33 Love… respect concludes and restates this section’s theme. The husband’s ultimate responsibility is to love his wife with a Christ like love.

I Peter 3:1-7

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit,which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Gospel Centered Marriage – Tim Chester

If you’re married, then your marriage is to be a partnership of service. That doesn’t mean you always serve together. But it does mean you support one another in your service of God.

“

Introverted marriages eventually shrivel—they become small marriages with small horizons. Your family is part of a bigger family of faith that demands your primary allegiance (Mark 3 v 31-35). It’s great to spend time alone together, but recognize that you can bond just as well through serving together. So hold time alone lightly because serving Christ is the focus of your marriage.

“

Principle : Your marriage is to demonstrate that it’s good to live under God’s reign.

“

the rule of God doesn’t sound much like good news in our culture. We don’t want someone else ruling over us. So how can the rule of God be good news? It’s a lie as old as humankind. It was the lie back in the Garden of Eden, when the serpent portrayed God as a tyrant holding Adam and Eve back. The serpent portrayed God’s rule as oppressive and manipulative. But in reality, God’s rule is a rule of blessing, freedom, love, life, justice and peace. It’s good news. It’s gospel.

“

Because we have rejected God’s rule, we not only get God wrong, we get authority wrong. We take over. And we rule—not like God, but like Satan’s lie about God. We rule in a way that is self-serving and tyrannical. No wonder women resist that. When humanity rejected God’s authority, it radically altered the way marriages work. After our rebellion, God said to the first wife: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you” —or “dominate” you (Genesis 3 v 16, NLT). The wife resists authority. The husband abuses authority

“

In Ephesians 5 Paul says marriage was designed to illustrate God’s relationship with His people.

“

The Bible says: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord … Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5 v 22, 25). Submission and love are very close. Both mutual love and mutual submission are commended within the wider body of Christ (5 v 2, 21). Clearly also, the wife is to love her husband and there is a sense in which it’s appropriate for a husband to submit to his wife as one believer to another.

“

What’s the difference? But submission and love also have their differences, since in Ephesians 5 the relationship between husband and wife is compared to the relationship between Christ and the church. My relationship to Christ is not a mirror of His relationship with me. Christ does not submit to me! Men and women are equal. But equality does not rule out having complementary roles or “headship”—one person being in charge. The place we see this clearly is in the doctrine of the Trinity. The persons of the Trinity are equal in terms of their being (their “God-ness” if you like). But the Son joyfully submits to the Father: He puts the will of the Father before His own (John 5 v 19; 8 v 28 etc.) This is the point Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 11 v 3. “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Or consider how we submit to political authorities or employers (1 Peter 2). We don’t think it makes us less equal or less significant as people. But we do recognize different roles and different authority. So what do submission and love mean in practice? The wife puts her husband’s will before her own. The husband puts his wife’s interests before his own. This captures the similarities in their respective attitudes. But it also captures the differences. It gives the husband a lead role, but a lead role defined by the cross—one which seeks the good of the other rather than self-interest.

“

The big issue here is what it means to exercise authority. Our problem is that we understand authority in the image of Satan’s lie as tyrannical, rather than in the image of God’s rule, which is liberating. Men believe the lie when they abuse authority; women believe the lie when they reject headship. Men abuse authority because they’re self-interested; wives reject submission because they are self-willed.

When I look at Christian wives, I should see what it means to submit to Christ’s authority—not begrudgingly, not with whining, but joyfully and freely. And when I look at Christian men I should see what it means to exercise authority—not in a way that is self-serving, but loving and sacrificial. That’s a high standard—for both sexes! And we might look at this ideal and think: “There’s no way I can live up to that!”

“

Notice what submission does not mean: Submission does not mean agreeing with everything your husband says, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 believes Jesus is Lord whereas her husband does not. Submission does not mean never trying to change your husband, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 is trying to convert him through her godly life. Submission does not mean a wife gets her spiritual strength from her husband, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 cannot gain spiritual strength from her husband. Submission does not mean acting out of fear, for the wife of 1 Peter 3 is told “do what is right without fear of what your husbands might do” (3 v 6, NLT).

“

What then is submission? Paul says: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5 v 22-24). Your husband’s will before your will.

“

But with marriage that changes. God is saying, in effect: “Wives, submit to your husbands instead of just submitting to yourselves.” You have to think about your husband now. You’re not free to do as you wish. This means respecting his God-given authority over you. That’s how Paul sums it up: “The wife must respect her husband” (Ephesians 5 v 33). You’re to submit to your husband in a way that illustrates what it means to submit to Christ. That’s the model for our submission. That means submitting without whining and without manipulating.

“

Some people stress that the two commands are reciprocal or conditional on one another. So the wife is only bound to submit if the husband is exercising his authority with the sacrificial love that Christ models. Others stress submission “in everything” (v 24), saying that wives should submit even if their husband is abusive. Neither view really captures what the Bible actually says, which is that you must submit even when your husband is not perfect. The alternative is a cycle of recrimination in which the wife gradually withdraws her submission and the husband gradually withdraws his love. The result is that the church’s glad submission to Christ is not modeled. What is being modeled is the very worst kind of church—where love for Christ is cold. But neither is submission weak and passive. It should be robust and reinforced with gospel conviction. We should challenge one another, speaking the truth in love (4 v 15). But we don’t do this for our own sake. We do this for the sake of Christ and His glory, and for the sake of our spouses and their holiness.

“

Wives should put their husband’s will before their own, but that doesn’t mean they should put his will first—first place always belongs to Jesus. Both husband and wife have a higher allegiance and a higher purpose: to submit to Christ and to seek His glory.

“

There is one important difference between submitting to a husband and submitting to Christ: your husband is not God. He will make mistakes. He will make bad judgments. And sometimes you will need to challenge him because your top allegiance is to the Lord. You’re to speak the truth in love to him (Ephesians 4 v 15). So the wife puts her husband’s will before her own—but not before Christ’s will.

Obamic Change You Can Count On,Saudi Totalitarianism,and Epigenetic Keys

Posted on by
Reply

Four more years of this ??

Obama Economic Record November 2011

Saudi Security Forces Arrest 42 Ethiopian Christians For Praying…HT-http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/18/saudi-security-forces-arrest-42-ethiopian-christians-for-praying/

The Wahhabi crime fighters strike again.

Washington, D.C. (December 17, 2011) — International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that Saudi security forces arrested 42 Ethiopian Christians at a prayer gathering in Jeddah on Thursday. The location of the detained Christians is unknown.

On December 15, Saudi police and security officers raided an evening prayer meeting at the home of an Ethiopian Christian in the Al-Safa district of Jeddah. Those attending the service were reportedly beaten and threatened before being arrested.

“Security officials broke [into] the house and captured . . . beat and threatened them for death. . . They divided the men and the women and they are torturing them [in prison],” an Ethiopian and Eritrean Christian immigrant community living in Europe wrote in an urgent appeal for help to the ambassadors of European embassies in Riyadh on Friday.

Two Ethiopian fellowships in Saudi Arabia informed ICC that they will temporarily postpone services until the situation calms. Christians in Saudi Arabia, most of who enter the country as foreign workers, are not allowed to practice their faith openly. Saudi police have been known to raid private worship gatherings in homes, arrest and deport congregants, and confiscate Christian materials, including Bibles.

Respect !!

 

By the way,for all of you in the Tampa,Florida area,here is a heads up for what looks like a great conference –

 

 

For more information – http://www.apologetics.org/

Christians,Statistics,and Premarital Sex:Sorting Out the Truth

Posted on by
Reply

There are five kinds of lies -
Lies
Damned Lies,
Statistics,
Politicians quoting statistics
and Novellists quoting Politicians on Statistics.
–Stephen K Tagg

Kevin DeYoung has an interesting article about an important book and an important topic. The article is well worth the read,and it sounds like the book is a good one. Statistics can be quite useful,but only if the research is done with wisdom and integrity. Well meaning people,including teachers,pastors,and even the media will quote various studies without having checked how the study was conducted, if the study was fair and if it was as unbiased as possible. Poor guidelines,slanted questions,and attempting to advance an agenda will lead to inaccurate results.If those results are trumpeted as fact,than a lie is started and perpetuated.

 

Premarital Sex and Our Love Affair with Bad Stats – Kevin DeYoung

Evangelicals love to believe bad things about themselves. And often what they believe about themselves is not true. That’s the thesis of Bradley Wright’s excellent book Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…and Other Lies You’ve Been Told(Bethany House 2010). It’s an important thesis to keep in mind when considering a new and frequently cited article from Relevant magazine.

In the September/October issue you can find Tyler Charles provocative piece entitled “(Almost) Everyone Is Doing It: A Surprising New Study Shows Christians Are Having Premarital Sex and Abortions As Much (or More) Than Non-Christians.” The article has been referenced in numerous places on the web (and in pulpits no doubt), especially the opening paragraph:

Eighty percent of young unmarried Christians have had sex. Two-thirds have been sexually active in the last year. Even though, according to a recent Gallup Poll, 76 percent of evangelicals believe sex outside of marriage is morally wrong.

The article goes on to suggest a smattering of action steps in light of these findings, everything from being more realistic about sexual promiscuity, to talking more about why Christians should wait, to doing more to value marriage. Many reading the article will find reasons to be alarmist (“Oh no, Christians are just as bad everyone else!”) or smug (“See, Christians are just as bad as everyone else!”). Everyone seems to love stats about bad Christians. Non-Christians like to see that we really are fakes. Christians like to think the sky is falling. (Rest of the article here – http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/)

Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites...and Other Lies You've Been Told: A Sociologist Shatters Myths From the Secular and Christian Media

A stats joke for all of you stat lovers -

Dhimmis in the West Curtail Freedom of Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
1984 (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
Winston writing, Part 1, Chapter 7.

The ruling elites have redefined the right to the freedom of speech as to what fits their politically correct agenda. Criticizing Islam doesn’t fit the agenda so the criticism becomes a crime.Here are some articles that illustrate the extent of the problem.

My name is Paul Derengowski, and I was hired by Tarrant County College in 2008 to teach Great World Religions, Bible History I & II, and Introduction to Philosophy.

On November 8, 2011, I gave the second of a two-part lecture on Islam, as I’ve been doing Spring, Fall, and sometimes twice in the Summer, dealing with Islamic history and doctrine, and more particularly Muhammad’s move to Medina. A question had been raised by two Muslim students in the previous the lecture concerning the sources I used to discuss the raid at Nakhlah. At the start of the second lecture I provided my sources (The Life of Muhammad by Haykal and the Qur’an), which included reading Sura 2:216-217. That is when all hell broke loose.

Both Muslim students, for an hour, berated me, my sources, and my credentials. When other students in the class attempted to ask questions or make comments, then the Muslim students would interrupt them as well. Finally, toward the end of the class period, a student made a comment on how “scary” the person of Muhammad seemed to be. That’s when the male Muslim blurted out “you ought to be scared,” and then bolted for the door in a fit of outrage. I subsequently filed a campus police report on him out of concern for the safety of students and myself. The female followed suit as well, claiming later in a libelous email she passed around unbeknownst to me—that is, until one of the students forwarded the diatribe to me later—that she was not going to sit there and listen to me slander her religion, even though all I did was quote from Islamic sources.

Rest of the article here- http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/muslim-students-threaten-force-resignation-of-prof-who-quoted-from-islamic-texts.html

 

In Great Britain the problem is even worse. An article by Daniel Greenfield recounts the Emma West saga -

The Prisoner

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 07:43 PM PST

Few other places turn out dystopian fantasies quite like the United Kingdom and if the United States has never quite become the chrome skyscraper and flying car utopian wonderland of its utopian fantasies, with its ubiquitous cameras and DNA banks, the United Kingdom seems well on the way to its dystopian destination.

 

1984, The Prisoner and V for Vendetta are all a train ride away nowadays. Say the wrong thing and you can expect to be wearing a prison suit and nominated for a national run on Two Minute Hate.
Towards the end of last month, the UK launched a nationwide manhunt or woman hunt, in coordination with online activists, Labour politicians and the police to bring the most feared criminal in the islands to justice. The lady, whose last name is appropriately enough West, will be spending Christmas in prison away from her three children. Her crime was to engage in some abrasive taunts with the denizens of the New Britain complete with obscenities and be videotaped doing it.
West was hunted down, tips were solicited from the public, Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour opposition, who always manages to wear the face of a well-meaning idiot, retweeted the “important appeal” to track down a woman who was threatening the nation by shouting on a tram that the Poles, Nicaraguans and Blacks should go back where they came from.
Needless to say the charming fellows from Hizb-Ut-Tahir, Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades or their associated groups rarely have to spend Christmas or Eid in prison no matter how many poppies they burn or how many slurs they shout. Anjem Choudary is not likely to touch off any morality mobs on Twitter. The same people who desperately sought Emma would sneer at the Daily Mail mentality for even acknowledging good old Anjem.
And around a week or so later the very generous Judge Robert Brown freed four Muslim women who beat a native British woman senseless while shouting racial slurs at her, judging that it was only their inexperience with alcohol that led them to misbehave. The Romans used to say In Vino Veritas, but in New Britain if you’re Muslim and drunk you get a free pass on assault.

Rest of the article here – http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

In an ominous move,the Obama administration is playing footsie with an Islamic group that loves to curtail criticism of Mohammed and Islam.

 

From Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch-

Irony meter melts into a puddle; White House janitorial staff working overtime as Obama admin to welcome OIC to discussion on “tolerance”

When fascism comes to America, it will be waving a “Co-Exist” bumper sticker and telling you to “be nice.”

Which is more disturbing: the notion that the administration is overrun with gullible idealists lost in politically correct fantasies, or that they know exactly what they are doing? Either way, the outcome threatens to be disastrous.

While the Organization Formerly Known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, long committed to crushing free speech, suffered a setback in achieving an international ban on “religious defamation” (or defamation for me, but not for thee) in March, the Obama administration has gone in hook, line, and sinker for the OIC’s game.

Hillary Clinton announced her intentions to coordinate a meeting on religious “defamation” and “stereotyping” in July. At a meeting she co-chaired with the OIC’s secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC, US, and EU agreed to “take concrete steps” to combat “intolerance” and “negative stereotyping.” The measure is supposedly taken in the name of all religions, but would be used as a club by the OIC with which to beat other nations into submission against criticism of Islam. But Clinton also said in mid-July that she believes the US and OIC can come to an agreement on “tolerance.”

The White House is now gearing up for the next round. Even if the OIC does not get exactly what it wants just yet, it will have moved the ball down the field toward the goal line by having its agenda dignified with a response other than “No. We’re on to you, and we refuse to play along.” “Obama Administration Welcoming Islamic Group to Washington for Discussion on ‘Tolerance’,” by Patrick Goodenough for CNSNews, December 9: Rest of the article here – http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/irony-meter-melts-into-a-puddle-white-house-janitorial-staff-working-overtime-as-obama-admin-to-welc.html

Just a few examples of what is happening. It would help if we would start thinking about important issues. One of those important issues is whether we have a real relationship with the Lord.

13But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says

“Awake, O sleeper,

and arise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.

15Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.(Ephesians 5:13-15)

Believing the Impossible:The Obama Administration and Homosexuality

Posted on by
Reply

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 5)

The Obama administration believes many impossible things,before and after breakfast.

  • That funding immorality is somehow moral.
  • That said funding is even possible,given the 16 plus trillion dollar debt that we owe
  • That taxation without representation is not only a good thing,but won’t have consequences in the next election.
  • That their support for Muslim countries won’t conflict with their support of homosexual rights.
  • That mocking God by supporting homosexual unions and attacking marriage will be good for society and individuals.

WASHINGTON, D.C. December 9, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As part of a worldwide campaign to promote global acceptance of homosexuality, the Obama administration has established a $3 million “Global Equality Fund” to fund homosexual political “advocacy” around the world at taxpayer expense. State Department guidelines suggest this could include everything from funding foreign political activists to campaign against legislation that defines marriage as a union between one man and one women, to hosting gay pride parades and concerts by Lady Gaga in far-flung countries.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trumpeted the formation of the group in a speech she delivered in Geneva on Tuesday. “I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world,” Clinton said.

“This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups,” Clinton said.

She noted the administration had “committed more than $3 million” of taxpayer funds to start this organization. The State Department’s website describes the fund as a “public-private partnership” that “will seek partnership commitments from donor governments, corporations, and foundations.”

A State Department fact sheet reveals that its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) will “support programming through the Global Equality Fund.” This will include boosting “NGO capacity to advocate before host governments and in multilateral forums” on behalf of LGBT causes. The DRL asks homosexual groups to assist them in documenting cases of discrimination.

The fund will also pay for international “programs that enhance public awareness and further positive dialogue” about homosexuality, “such as inclusive civic education and cultural activities, and build diverse human rights coalitions around public messaging.”

Lady Gaga performs in Rome.

The fact sheet suggests these could include such events as gay pride parades and concerts by Lady Gaga – the controversial pop singer who raised the ire of Christians earlier this year when she released a video for her song Judas that depicted her at one point dressed as Mary Magdalene, sensuously nibbling Jesus Christ’s ear.

The State Department boasts it “helped convince pop artist and LGBT advocate Lady Gaga to perform at EuroPride Rome in June 2011.”

Obama’s closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett, wrote on Tuesday that she was “deeply moved” by the pop singer’s activism.

The Global Equality Fund is only one small part of an ambitious agenda to recast all U.S. foreign policy to support the LGBT cause around the world. On Tuesday, Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum instructing foreign embassies to “expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct” in their host countries.(LifeSiteNews.com)

I will add that Jesus Christ can set people free from homosexuality,and as Tim Chester says,”change is possible”. I recommend his book for anybody interested in the claims of Christianity and what it means to be changed.

You Can Change: God’s Transforming Power for Our Sinful Behavior and Negative Emotions -http://www.amazon.com/You-Can-Change-Transforming-Behavior/dp/1433512319/ref=sr_1_

What Does Mitt Romney Think About Islam ?

Posted on by
4

Since Mitt Romney is running for president it might be nice to know what he thinks about jihad and Islam. We certainly don’t need four more years of aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Pam Geller did an interview with Romney several years ago. Here is the gist of it-

Mitt Romney: Jihadism Is Not Part of IslamWith Obama’s big speech to the Muslim world in the offing, I asked Mitt Romney in an interview yesterday about a major speech on national security that he gave on Monday at the Heritage Foundation (see above video). In it, Romney referred to Islam only insofar as he referred to “jihadism,” a term he used four times in the address, and to “mullahs” and “ayatollahs.”

I asked Romney how he’d respond to Muslim complaints that his speech characterized Islam in entirely sinister terms. His response surprised me:

I didn’t refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it’s quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world’s great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It’s by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/why-romney-wont-be-president.html

 

Well, that certainly sounds like an Obama quote doesn’t it. It also betrays a staggering ignorance about Islam,(at the very least).

The other day Romney again was asked about Islam. Surprisingly he hasn’t flip flopped,which is a shame as it would have showed he had studied and learned.

 

 

Here is a brief blogging article about what Romney said -

Cedar Rapids, Ia. – Mitt Romney responded today to a call for a tougher stance against Muslims by saying that most Muslims are peaceful people who deserve respect.

The issue came up during a question-and-answer session at a campaign stop here this morning. A man rose from the audience, claimed he had many Muslim friends, but said, “I have never heard one Muslim condemn Islamic jihad or terrorism. I see Islamic jihad as one of the greatest threats to America and the western world. Are you going to continue to give Islam and Islamic jihad in this country a pass like everybody before you continues to do? The only people that call Islam a religion of peace are the Muslims, and they are the most violent religion in the world.”

Romney said radical, violent Islamists pose a threat to Americans and others around the world. However, he said, “they take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.” He noted that he was raised in the Detroit area, which has a large Muslim population. “They are peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.”http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/09/mitt-romney-islam-is-not-an-inherently-violent-faith/

 

 

Obviously this is the politically correct answer to give. But his answer begs the question in numerous ways. Santorum,Bachmann,and Gingrich are all far ahead of Romney in their understanding of the nature of Islam and their willingness to speak out about it.

For those of you who need a quick education on the true nature of Islam and Jihad check out the articles in the Islam category of this blog for a start,and follow the links given-it will be an education.I know Muslims,and although they are not violent Jihadists,they are willing to help the spread of Islam in other ways,and they are willing for Sharia Law to replace the Constitution. Dearborn (Detroit area) Michigan has become synonymous with Muslim intolerance and American dhimmitude. Mitt would be a dhimmi president if his current beliefs were not to change.

 

The Islamic Center of America,Dearborn Michigan

 

Here is an article written by a man who knows Islam,Amil Amani-

Islam And The West Are Incompatible

Western policymakers and elites in government, academia, and the media suffer from an extraordinary ignorance about the true nature of Islam and regrettably, Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among non-Muslims. This ignorance was on display following the murder of thirteen American troops at Fort Hood, Texas by Major Nidal Hasan, a devout Muslim who held the rank of Major in the U.S. Army. Hasan is said to have shouted Allah o Akbar “Allah is Greatest” in Arabic as he gunned down his unarmed fellow troops.
The Muslim population is rapidly burgeoning in America by high birth rate as well as successful extensive conversion in prisons. Even by the rules of probability, a fraction of these Muslims may be deeply influenced by the Jihad preachers and take upon themselves Islamist missions of various severity and destruction. How many Jihadists did it take to pulverize the NY Trade Centers? It took one Maj. Nidal Hasan to take the life of 13 and injure 29 others in an outburst of Islamic peace making. Rest of the article -

http://amilimani.com/2011/12/islam-and-the-west-are-incompatible/

Workplace Violence,Bad Tempers,and Islamic Extremists

Posted on by
Reply

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Special Edition

 

Check out this surrealistic exchange from Wednesday’s hearing, between Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., and Paul Stockton, Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense:

REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LUNGREN (R-CA): Secretary Stockton, are we at war with violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are at war with al-Qaida, its affiliates –

REP. LUNGREN: OK, I understand that. My question is, is violent Islamist extremism at war with us?

MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are being attacked by al-Qaida and its allies.

REP. LUNGREN: Is al-Qaida — can it be described as being an exponent of violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: They — al-Qaida are murderers with an ideological agenda –

REP. LUNGREN: No, I — that’s not my question. That wasn’t my question. My question was, is al-Qaida acting out violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we intend to advance –

REP. LUNGREN: So is it yes or no?

MR. STOCKTON: Can I hear the question again? I’ll make it as clear as I can. We are not at war with Islam. And it is not –

REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t ask that — I did not ask that, sir. I asked whether we’re at war with violent Islamist extremism. That’s my question.

MR. STOCKTON: No, we’re at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.

REP. LUNGREN: Well, al-Qaida — how does al-Qaida define itself? Are they dedicated to violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida would love to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is at war with Islam.

REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t say that.

MR. STOCKTON: That’s a prime propaganda tool.

REP. LUNGREN: Sir –

MR. STOCKTON: And I’m not going to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goal.

REP. LUNGREN: No, no, my question is, is there a difference between Islam and violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: Sir, with great respect, I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.

REP. LUNGREN: I understand that. I never said we were at war with Islam. One of the questions we’re trying to deal with is the radicalization of Islam, is the radicalization of Islamic youth. And if we can’t distinguish between violent Islamist extremism and Islam, then all this stuff about behavioral indicators doesn’t mean anything.

Keep reading…

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/09/obama-dhs-official-not-helpful-to-frame-our-adversary-as-islamic-with-any-set-of-qualifiers-because-we-are-not-at-war-with-islam/

 

Politically correct thinking is what has led to this-

During a joint session House and Senate Homeland Security Committees on Wednesday, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins blasted a letter by the Department of Defense labeling the Fort Hood Massacres carried out by Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who was station at Fort Hood at the time as a case of workplace violence. Major Hasan currently stands accused of carrying out the massacre that killed 13 people (12 of his fellow soldiers, 1 civilian and one unborn child) as well as wounded 29 others on November 5th 2009

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), who is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, states that. “The U.S. Military has become a direct target of violent Islamist extremists based here in the United States.”

In a interview with Fox News before the joint committee meeting, Senator Lieberman went on to further state that the U.S. military services member was increasingly under the scope of terrorists not only just overseas, but within the United States as well.

http://biggovernment.com/kmartin/2011/12/08/obama-administration-labels-the-fort-hood-massacre-as-a-case-of-work-place-violence/

When there is a pattern of behavior by an individual,or by many individuals world wide,or by a particular religion over thousands of years one should take note – it could save lives.

From Daniel Greenfield

Down a wooded stretch of road in Walla Walla, Inmate number 337762 sleeps the long nights away at Washington State Penitentiary. WSP offers educational programs in graphic design, bookkeeping and IT as well as a program to raise pheasants. The Eid feast took place in the dining hall and it’s likely that Inmate 337762 stopped by for a bite.

If some nights when the wind blows cold, Inmate 337762 dreams it is likely that he dreams of his day of glory when he shot six women at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

Naveed Afzal Haq, known in Walla Walla as Inmate 337762, is not the only Muslim serving time at WSP, but he is probably the only successful Jihadist there. Mikhail Jihad, also known as Michael McCright, passed through there after trying to attack a car carrying military personnel. Mike Jihad was in contact with Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Walli Mujahidh who were planning to storm the South Seattle military processing station with automatic rifles and grenades hoping to kill as many recruits as possible. But while Jihad, Abdul-Latif and Mujahidh unsuccessfully went after the military, Naveed Haq picked a softer target: a Jewish community center.

While Naveed Haq sleeps in Walla Walla, Pamela Waechter rests in Givaot Olam Cemetery, on her recessed stone is a single carved flower. Pamela was not Naveed Haq’s only victim, but she was the only who didn’t survive his shooting spree.

The victims were all women, some Jewish, some not. Cheryl Stumbo, the center’s marketing director, stepped out of her office when she heard a disturbance. Naveed Haq had put a gun to her fourteen year old niece and forced her to use the intercom so he could enter the building. He shot Cheryl in the stomach. Shards of the bullet pierced her large and small intestine and lodged in her uterus. When she asked him why he was doing this. Naveed Haq identified himself as an angry Muslim and shouted something about “You Jews”. Cheryl was not Jewish, she just worked there. Rest of the story here-

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/08/in-the-face-of-evil/

 

http://www.amazon.com/Never-Ending-War-Michael-Cappi/dp/142513081X

What About Mitt ?

Posted on by
Reply

So what do you think about Mitt Romney ? HIs misguided Mormon beliefs aside,what about his politics ? A friend sent me this article which sums up what I think about him fairly succinctly. Here is the article :

by Gregg Jackson- http://stevedeace.com/

As a Christian, I could not under any circumstances vote for Willard “Mitt” Romney if he is the GOP nominee because, as a Christian, I won’t, and more importantly, I can’t. My faith will not allow me to do so! Some may say that Romney is the “lesser of two evils” and that by not voting for him we will have 4 more years of the “far more evil” Barack Obama. While one could plausibly argue that in actuality a Romney presidency would be far worse for America than an Obama presidency, the fact of the matter is that the “lesser of two evils” argument at any level is not Biblical but is an inherently pagan and utilitarian construct. As Christians we must never do evil that good may come of it. (Romans 3:8) As Christians we are to oppose evil in all its forms and obey and trust God for the results.

And anybody who single-handedly ushered in same sex “marriage” and $50 tax payer funded abortions to America is, in my eyes, evil. And I cannot and will not consciously support evil in any way regardless of whether the person doing it has an “R” near his name instead of a “D.”

If you are considering supporting Romney in the primaries, ask yourself if his own record below is a track record of righteousness or evil and whether or not as a Christian you could support a man who did these things…

As Governor, Willard “Mitt” Romney:

• Unilaterally, illegally & unconstitutionally instituted same-sex “marriage” falsely claiming the “court ordered him to.” Proof here and here

• Signed the forerunner to Obamacare (Romneycare) into law which includes $50 tax-subsidized elective surgical abortions including late-term abortions into law (3 years AFTER his fake “pro-life conversion.”) Proof here

• Boosted funding for homosexual “education” starting in kindergarten. Proof here

• Opposes a ban on homosexual scoutmasters. Proof here

• Promised the homosexual Republican “Log Cabin Republicans” he wouldn’t oppose “gay marriage” in return for their endorsement. Proof here

• Instituted a quasi-socialist healthcare plan endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and Planned Parenthood that destroyed the Massachusetts’ economy. Proof here and here.

• Forced Catholic Charities, the nation’s #1 adoption and foster care service to place children with same sex couples even though he was under no legal obligation to do so as even former Governor Michael Dukakis has acknowledged.

• Passed over Republican lawyers for three quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he faced and nominated 2 open homosexuals. Proof here

• Criticized Joint Chief’s of Staff, Peter Pace for saying that homosexual acts were “immoral.” Proof here

• Supports passage at the state level of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would force churches and other religious organizations to hire homosexuals and transvestites or face criminal fines and prosecution. Proof here

http://stevedeace.com/

 

 

And then there is the computer hard drive fiasco,which although legal,was unethical.

December 6, 2011-http://protectourfreedoms.org/mitt-romney-aides-paid-97000-to-erase-his-governorship-records/

Before preparing to launch his first presidential bid in 2007 aides for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney paid nearly $100,000 of taxpayer money to order hard drives from his time as governor erased and destroyed.

According to reports Romney’s staff purchased the hard drives of their state-issued computers and then proceeded to wipe out emails from state servers before signing a lease for new computers for the governor’s office, breaking a former lease and costing the state $97,000.

Former Romney representatives say the practice followed all proper uses of law and precedent however the former director of administration for the Governor’s office says the efforts to wipe out all forms of records was unprecedented in her 23 years of serving successive Governors.

Massachusetts state laws have not been updated to include digital records requests which has caused an influx of requests for paper records from Romney’s time as governor, including some documents he failed to destroy before leaving office. In the meantime Romney has argued that a 1997 state court ruling states that governor records in the state are not subject to disclosure, a contention that is being fought against by various public records rights activists.

Full story here -

http://protectourfreedoms.org/mitt-romney-aides-paid-97000-to-erase-his-governorship-records/