A good initiative:

October 25-November 1, 2009, is White Ribbon Against Pornography Week (www.moralityinmedia.org). The State of Tennessee proclamation encourages citizens to recognize WRAP Week by wearing or displaying white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and to show support for the enforcement of obscenity laws. White ribbons may be purchased at www.wrapfamily.com.

An excerpt from the Tennessee proclamation can be read here.

Our friends at the Witherspoon Institute have organized a research project on "The Social Costs of Pornography" which has 3 simple goals:

1. to establish the social costs of pornography
2. to increase public awareness of these costs
3. to encourage public policy

We will continue to update our readers on this important social issue.

Ben Anderson recently sent a letter to his congressman (Eric Massa - D, NY29) about Kevin Jennings using our APIA "Expel Jennings" action site.

Here is the letter Mr. Anderson received back from his representative - I've number the paragraphs for clarity:

1) Thank you for contacting me to express your concern with the appointment of Kevin Jennings to the position of Deputy Secretary for the office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Mr. Jennings' role is to ensure that all students in America can get an education free from bullying, and I stand by this position and the actions needed to support this goal, including the input and guidance of local school boards.

2) I do not condone the mistakes that Mr. Jennings made when he was a teenager. That being said, I do believe that past mistakes should not disqualify one from a position of power-in fact, I can name many prominent public and private figures that have either tried or struggled with drugs and alcohol and gone onto significant and dignified careers of public service.

3) Additionally, for gay and lesbian students, I feel they are entitled to the same basic human right of pursuing an education, free from harassment or bullying in a classroom environment.

4) I will closely monitor the job Mr. Jennings is doing and I will urge his removal if he is behaving irresponsibly.

Sincerely,

Eric J.J. Massa

I have some responses to make to each paragraph:

1. Jennings is charged not just with safe schools, but drug-free ones, and yet Jennings has never apologized for his own admitted recreational drug use. And I disagree that Jennings is even fit to ensure that schools are safe (continue reading).
2. The issue here is not only what Jennings has done in the past, but how he has not even accounted for his past actions in the present. He has only expressed that he wished he had done things differently. Well, what things would he do differently now? Considering he has the responsibility of setting up policies for teachers, he should be able to articulate this policy to us clearly. And yet he maintains a stony silence.
3. I absolutely agree with this statement, but unfortunately the methods that Jennings has chosen to pursue this worthy aim are completely unacceptable and only result in children being taught inappropriate things that violate their innocence.
4. This is a most unsatisfying conclusion because Jennings has already proven himself to have behaved irresponsibly and we here at APP have been detailing at length the policies which he has made his legacy at GLSEN that clearly reveal his "philosophy". Jennings already has proven himself to be an unacceptable choice for his office.

It is good to see, however, that Rep. Massa will be monitoring Jennings closely. 

But what does it say when you have to "closely monitor" the individual who is himself charged with closely monitoring the schools?!

You may wish to join our Facebook group to protect kids from Kevin Jennings' plans - the group has almost 500 members now!

We encourage you to write about Kevin Jennings yourself! Please help us spread the word.

From their press release:

Earlier this month, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins received an invitation [from Education Secretary Arne Duncan] to participate in a discussion of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) scheduled to take place today.  Perkins declined the invitation and instead sent a letter which includes detailed recommendations and specific concerns about the office, its programs, and its leadership. 

[A sample from Perkin's letter:]

"Surely we can agree that all students deserve to attend 'safe schools' that are free of violence. Therefore, I urge you to reject initiatives such as the model legislation proposed under Mr. Jennings' leadership at GLSEN--namely, to create special categories of protection...We should extend protection to all students based on the nature of the victimizing conduct, rather than the characteristics of the victim.

[See the PDF of the full letter here.]

As part of our ongoing campaign to oppose the nomination of Chai Feldblum to the EEOC, we're watching the news feeds to see what other individuals are saying about her.

Ken Blackwell at The Patriot Post:

"...aggressive EEOC action only promises to get worse. President Obama’s latest appointee to EEOC is Georgetown University Law professor, Chai Feldblum. A longtime activist for radical gay and lesbian causes, Commissioner Feldblum has openly acknowledged that gay liberation trumps religious liberty wherever they collide."

Gary Bauer at Human Events:

“Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach.”

With those words to gay activists at the annual Human Rights Campaign (HRC) fundraiser this month, President Obama again signaled -- with the wink-and-a-nod style with which he is so adept -- his support for same-sex marriage.

Few people believe the president when he insists he opposes gay nuptials. But the more significant issue is not whether the Obama administration’s “destination” on marriage is same-sex marriage. It clearly is.  The key issue is whether, based on who the president surrounds himself with, the administration will put us on the slippery slope toward the end of government recognition of marriage altogether.

Consider Chai Feldblum, Obama’s commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She is an avowed supporter of polygamy. In 2006, she signed a manifest titled “Beyond Marriage,” which advocated “legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families—regardless of kinship or conjugal status,” including “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” 

You may wish to join our Facebook group opposing Chai's nomination.

We encourage you to write about Chai Feldblum yourself! Please help us spread the word.

Some dizzying statistics:

It runs more pages than War and Peace, has nearly five times as many words as the Torah, and its tables of contents alone run far longer than this story.

The House health care bill unveiled Thursday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. With an estimated 10-year cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word. .

And for some members, that may not be enough.

A “robust” public option can’t be found in the bill. Neither can the word “doctor” – save for a few references to degrees. No “cost curve” is bent. No “blue pill” is dispensed.

“Death” and “taxes” are both in there, but “death panel” is not.

The text defines dozens of words and phrases, including “family” (“an individual and . . . the individual’s dependents”), “health insurance coverage,” “exchange-eligible individual” and “Indian.” (Politico)

Do you agree that a family should be described as "an individual and ... the individual's defendants?

Of course, we should also keep in mind that this price tag is the minimum estimate of the total measure's costs. Government programs have a solid track record of costing more than initially thought.

Kim Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state for international organizations and vice president at the Heritage Foundation, on the connection between sound economic policy and national security:

For Americans, our nation's great power status is not an option; it's a necessity. There is no other great power to bail us out if we get into trouble.

If you think this is an exaggeration, think again. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that just 10 years from now, the president's budget would nearly double our national debt, to more than 82 percent of what the economy produces every year. Interest payments on this debt alone will amount to $100 billion more than the entire budget for the Defense Department. Just imagine what those numbers will be by 2035.

Now imagine the pressure that will put on the defense budget. In 1965, mandatory spending consumed over a third of the federal budget. Today, it eats up approximately two-thirds. At this rate, if nothing changes, in just 19 years there will be nothing left over in the discretionary budget - and that's where we get funding for our armed forces.

In a very real sense, the safety of every American, and their freedom to vote and live their lives unmolested from foreign threats, depend on our country's sustained ability to project power against our enemies no matter where they are. It's truly the only thing that completely sets us apart from other nations. (WaTimes)

Props to the Associated Press for performing a real journalistic service:

An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, or one in six, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced. {source}

And these are the same people who claim they can "save" health care?!

An updated press release on our ongoing efforts to halt Chai Feldblum's nomination went live this morning on the PRNewswire-USNewswire:

American Principles in Action Calls on Senate to Reject Extremist EEOC Nominee:

Today, American Principles in Action urged concerned Americans to contact their Senators over the impending confirmation of Chai Feldblum to a five year post on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). [You can also access the press release archived here on our APP website.]

Please visit our APIA action page and tell your friends! We are already having an impact.

Fair's fair:

To the Left, however, the profit motive is visible only on the anti-regulation side. Liberal MSNBC host Maddow recently ran a segment titled "Net Profits" pointing out that John McCain, who has proposed a bill to block the FCC from creating net neutrality regulations, was "the single largest congressional recipient of campaign contributions from the telecom industry" over the past 30 months.

But at least one politician has outraised McCain from this industry over this period: Barack Obama. Maddow also omitted that Obama's No. 5 source of funds during the 2008 campaign was Google, the lead lobbying force for neutrality regulations, giving him more than $800,000, about 40 times what McCain raised from the company. From Amazon employees and executives, Obama outraised McCain 13-to-1.

So Obama is pushing federal regulations that would profit companies that generously funded his campaign, but when Obama's chums at the Center for American Progress wrote about it, they described McCain as a "long-time friend of" the networks while omitting Obama's coziness to Google and crew.

This one-sidedness is typical in regulatory battles: Businesses that lobby for and profit from big government are given a free pass, while those who oppose regulations as damaging to profit are assailed for their corrupting influence.

There's money on both sides. The only question is whether the flow of money will be determined by the market or by Obama's bureaucrats. (WaExaminer)

Cap and Trade is horrible news for the US economy if it passes:

A key Democratic senator said Tuesday that he could not support the Senate's global warming bill in its current form, even as President Obama praised the legislation and Democrats moved to push it through committee.

Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, said at the start of a series of hearings in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he had "serious reservations" about the climate change bill's target of a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. He also said the bill should not allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions.

Mr. Baucus, who also chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee, became the first Democrat on the panel to object to the bill, which was released Friday in revised form by committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, California Democrat. (WaTimes)

Chuck Donovan at Heritage Foundation's The Foundry:

... advocates of greater ballot secrecy measures are taking active steps to protect the names of campaign donors. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and American Principles in Action (APIA), which support Proposition 1 in Maine, have filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Maine’s requirement that donors, including individuals, register in the state as “ballot question committees” if they spend more than $5,000 in relation to a ballot issue. The suit argues that the requirement is unconstitutional under a previous federal court ruling that found Maine’s political action committee law could only be applied to entities whose major purpose was ballot measure advocacy.

A history of and potential for personal retaliation against ballot voters who take part in controversial policy questions argues strongly for the broadest protection of their right to privacy in this context. The peaceful resolution of disputes on heated questions of public policy is a civic value of the highest order.

American Principles in Action is our sister c4 organization.

Earl Grinols writing today over at the Public Discourse:

The real health-care debate isn’t whether we should have reform, but which type of reform to pursue: good reform versus bad reform. A senior economist explains how we can make high quality health-care available to all.

In America, the real health-care debate is whether Americans’ health care will look like Ted Kennedy’s or Joe Taxpayer’s. The issue, therefore, is not about reform or no reform. It is about good reform versus bad reform. How can every American’s health care look like Ted Kennedy’s? The answer is: “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.”

Imagine that every American has good health insurance, appropriate to his or her circumstances, and is the conduit through which payment is made. Imagine that doctors and hospitals post prices, can charge what they want but compete with one another for patients, and charge everyone who they do treat the same price for the same service on the same terms. Only then will every American be in charge of his or her own health care and be treated as the respected center of all decisions about their own bodies.

This system need not rest in the imagination. It’s possible in the here and now with just a few minor reforms. Here’s how.

Chai Feldblum is one of the drafters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Penna Dexter discusses some of the measure's possible implications, and where Chai Feldblum fits into the picture:

Some people call ENDA a 'gay jobs quota bill.'  It's to be enforced by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission whose latest appointee is Chai Feldblum, currently a lesbian activist Georgetown Law Professor.  When asked about the rights of employers to follow their religious beliefs in hiring people, she replied, "Gays win; Christians lose."

This is not about righting economic wrongs. Homosexuals tend to be more highly educated and to have, according to some surveys, higher disposable incomes than heterosexual couples.  Many companies court gays for hiring.  The government does not force them to hire Christians.

Americans for Tax Reform announced they are starting a series of ads aimed at encouraging Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to oppose the Senate healthcare bill on the grounds that it violates his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Here at APP we support efforts to encourage Senators to keep promises they have made to their constituents, especially in cases like this when it gives them an added reason to make the right decision.

Andrea Lafferty on "Chai Feldblum Will Threaten Religious Freedom":

I was on CBN this morning with David Brody to discuss the views of lesbian lawyer Chai Feldblum who has been picked by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

As I explained to Brody, Feldlbum has some very troublesome views about sexuality, marriage, and religious freedom.

She's on record clearly saying that the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) political agenda trumps religious freedom issues.

... [Chai] will ruthlessly enforce her own views about morality as an EEOC commissioner.

... She should be soundly defeated when or if she is granted a hearing by the Senate.

Thus it is all the more important to contact your Senators through our APIA action item.

Matthew Schmitz, writing at Public Discourse, takes up a very important issue - the future of "social conservatism" in America:

The focus of social conservatives on family and human dignity is as necessary today as ever. Even if today’s hot-button issues fade, social conservatism will still be a force in our political life.

Conservatives sometimes seem more like they are part of a family than a movement. They look up to the same political father figure—Ronald Reagan—but share little else other than a desire to fight over his inheritance. Last week, Princeton University invited four guests to its campus—Ross Douthat, Daniel Larison, Virginia Postrel, and David Frum—and asked them what the future of this sometimes fractious movement will be.

One of the most interesting disagreements between the panelists was what the future of social conservatism should be. David Frum, a former staffer in the Bush White House, argued that a successful GOP would need, among other things, to “turn down the volume” on social issues in order to appeal to an increasingly secular electorate. Would it really be a good thing if social conservatives turn down the volume, or even tune out by disengaging from politics altogether?

Read the full article here.

From our APP/APIA press release:

Today the American Principles Project and its sister organization American Principles in Action urged concerned Americans to contact their Senators over the impending confirmation of Chai Feldblum to a five year post on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The full press release is available online here.

We have also written a "Simple Case against Chai Feldblum" laying out the case for why we oppose her nomination. Please join our efforts and take action in opposing her nomination here at American Principles in Action.

There is also a Facebook group to help spread the word. Please ask your friends to join.

Chai Feldblum has been gaining wider attention as her Senate confirmation hearing approaches and her public record becomes known.

Here are a partial list of news outlets and organizations which have expressed concern over Chai Feldblum's nomination:

• LifeNews (and Focus on the Family)
• David Brody at CBN News
• Lee Cary at American Thinker
• Deal Hudson at Inside Catholic
• Candi Cushman at Citizenlink (attached to FRC Action)
• WorldNetDaily
• Catholic News Agency

If you have written on Chai Feldblum, please post a comment or send us an email.

APP has previously written on Chai Feldblum:

• Video: Obama appointee says Government should promote "gay sex is morally good"

Others have discussed the support of Kevin Jennings and his organization GLSEN for the short film "It's elementary", which was produced to convince teachers why and show them how to discuss a variety of LGBT issues to children as young as kindergarten (including gay marriage and the equality of homosexual relationships to heterosexual ones).

Lori Roman writes about her first experience of this type of aggressive marketing of LGBT issues to schoolchildren:

"I first became aware of Jennings and his organization GLSEN when I ran a school board association for school board members who were proponents of parental rights and fiscal responsibility. Shortly after I founded the group, GLSEN began sending me mailings. One of the first I received was a video called “It’s Elementary”. The mailer promoted use of the video in elementary school classrooms, including kindergarten. The video was pure indoctrination to encourage children to accept and celebrate homosexuality.  Because many of my school board members were concerned about school curricula that subverted the values of parents without giving parents an opportunity to view materials, I passed along information as it came to me."

Because video is more powerful than the written word, I've found two videos promoting this program "It's elementary." Both feature Kevin Jennings, who endorsed the program this way:

"It's Elementary is the most important film dealing with LGBT issues and safe schools ever made. It took a topic that was mystifying to many people and made it real, inspiring an entire generation of educators to see how they could make a difference... No other film has had a bigger impact on LGBT issues in the schools." (source)

Here is the promotion short for "Its Elementary - Talking About Gay Issues In Schools":

And here is a short promo for  a documentary on the controversy generated by the video - remember, this is how supporters of the movement to teach about LGBT issues in schools want their activities to be perceived by the mainstream:

The American Family Associated responded to this initiative by marketing a reality-check video called "Suffer the Children, Answering the Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools":

Suffer the Children looks beyond It's Elementary's slick packaging and engagingly scripted comments which purportedly came naturally "out of the mouths of babes," in order to highlight the film's subtle indoctrination of the homosexual lobby's radical agenda. The AFA points out that, although It's Elementary portrays itself as a video that merely teaches children to "respect" differences, it depicts adults, especially Christians, as the wellspring of ignorance, bigotry and homophobia. Christians are portrayed as hate-filled bigots who advocate the "torture" and death of homosexuals. The film leads children to falsely believe that any disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle is an attack on the persons themselves, and suggests that persecution and violence are the inevitable result. It tells children that there is "no right and no wrong answer" with regard to homosexuality, while clearly teaching that the "right" answer is to celebrate homosexuality as a legitimate and even desirable lifestyle. (source)

Do you want Jennings to fulfill his plan of making all public schools follow the vision of It's Elementary?

If not, please consider joining our efforts at www.expeljennings.com and on Facebook.

CNSNews.com has a very thorough list of the various reasons to oppose Kevin Jennings' vision of education, especially for schoolchildren as young as in Kindergarten!

One episode in particular bears reposting:

In a 2000 speech at a GLSEN event Iowa, Jennings argued that students as young as kindergarten should be taught to respect people “regardless of sexual orientation.”
The Washington Times has posted an audio of this speech on its Web site.
 
“Our curriculum at kindergarten, and first grade, and second grade--every grade until students have graduated should be ‘you must respect every human being regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender identity, regardless of race or religion or any arbitrary distinctions we make about people,” Jennings said in the 2000 speech. “If we cannot teach this very basic lesson in our schools we will be very surprised at how hard it is for these students to learn French or English or math.”
 
In a February 2000 speech, Jennings predicted at a GLSEN conference that the cause of making homosexuality acceptable would succeed in elementary school. “Homosexuality will become more acceptable to students, especially elementary ones,” he said, according to an article in The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y. “We are at a new moment in our history.”

He begins:

The president of the United States — a man who successfully campaigned as a post-partisan healer who abjured the partisan backbiting that he said characterized Washington's politics — has either ordered or permitted a hyper-political PR blitz against a major news outlet, Fox News. (NRO's Media blog)

And ends:

... Fox News is being made into an example by a vengeful, deeply ideological White House.  Gone is the "bringing people together" blather of the campaign trail.  Here to stay is Obama the Aliskyite.  This administration has learned well from the Godfather of community organizing.

In its escalating hostility toward the network, the Obama White House is checking all of those boxes, and doing so with the smug assumption that no one will call them on it.