Producing Replacement Participants For Perversion

The press-release from the Buffalo Division of the FBI, which had been forwarded to me, stated “Former Teacher Sentenced To 30 Years In Prison For Production and Possession Of Child Pornography.” (http://www.fbi.gov/buffalo/press-releases/2012/former-teacher-sentenced-to-30-years-in-prison-for-production-and-possession-of-child-pornography?utm_campaign=email-Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=buffalo-press-releases&utm_content=100702)

Reading the report, I tried to think what it must be like for children who are violated in such a destructively evil way. I tried to think about what it must be like for their families. In the end, the only thing I could conclude is that evil exists and thrives amidst us because we are wantonly blind to the truth that evil of any kind cannot be supported on the one hand and found worthy of prosecution on the other. Evil, debaucherous behavior must be condemnable on every level.

But perversion and homosexuality activists have been successful in deceiving many people into believing the nexus between perversion and normality is to be viewed as normal as snowfall along Lake Erie in the winter. The truth, however, is that heinous perversions are not normal. Portraying them as natural doesn’t change the truth in spite of how avant-garde it makes those inclined to view it as such feel.

I am not making the argument that child pornographers are necessarily all homosexuals, but I am saying that the nexus between the two forms of perversion is that they are both sinful. I am saying that it is criminally insane to believe that children who are coerced and/or forced into these behaviors are not harmed, and in most instances the harm is irrevocable. It must also be pointed out that the goal of child pornographers and homosexuals is to engineer replaceable participants for their depravity.


In 2003, I wrote the following syndicated column. It was about a school that the overwhelming number of New York taxpayers were unaware existed–much less aware they were paying for it. It is my belief that it is the same today. I refuse to be convinced that these children are not being harmed in the most dispiteous ways. But there is one thing all those wanting to control the minds and behavior of society know and that is that said social engineering begins with a strong presence in the schools.

STALIN KNEW, MAO KNEW, HITLER DEFINITELY KNEW: (WND.com; 8/5/03)
New York City has proposed a high school that is exclusively for homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgender children. It is to be an expansion of a two-classroom alternative school that has operated for years. The principal of the school says, “This school will be a model for the country, and possibly for the world.”

I say this is an egregious example of social engineering. Most children at one time or another question and /or are confused about their sexuality – this is not abnormal. But for an agenda-driven group to seize upon adolescent confusion and engineer it into something it may not become on its own is criminal. It is a draconian plot to create a cadre of extremists with one goal in mind – to countermand society as we now know it. This is the time-tested methodology of despots since Hitler.

I will go on record as saying, that with very, very rare exceptions, there isn’t a parent alive who longingly dreams of their little boy or little girl growing up to be a homosexual or lesbian.

My postulations have nothing to with homophobia, exogamy or xenophobia. They have nothing to do with my convictions of faith. They do have everything to do with being a parent and common logic.

One need not be a child psychologist or rely on psychological studies, etc. to support my position. Nor need one reference a study to argue against my position. Honest parents will look at their children and weigh in balance their hopes, dreams and aspirations for them – and upon doing so, I firmly believe the desires for their offspring will be those to which I have alluded.

The question that begs an answer is if the overwhelming majority of parents desire something other than transgenderism for their child, why is a near financially insolvent city spending $3.2 million of taxpayers’ money for renovations on a school that will cater to approximately 100 homosexual students?

Answer: Because of the agenda of groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and various pro-homosexual youth-advocacy groups, in conjunction with their sworn ally the Department of Education.

The principal of this proposed school asserts it “will be an academically rigorous school. It will not be a touchy-feely situation.” (A Freudian slip, I am sure.)

But reasonable minds must logically echo that which has already been asked: “Is there a homosexual math? Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? How does one teach history from a transgender or lesbian perspective?”

It is an unfounded lie that teachers and students en masse go out of their way to ridicule effeminate males, or girls exhibiting masculine behavior. That is not to say that at some point said child is not going to be teased or bullied – but what child hasn’t been?

Logically speaking, if the Catholic Church was unable to protect altar boys from homosexual priests, how does one propose the safety of the supposed homosexual student in an exclusively homosexual environment? Or isn’t that a valid concern? What boundaries will be set in place to protect the weaker children from sexual exploitation and /or assault by predatory schoolmates or from the teachers themselves?

Oh … silly me … I forgot that is a question only a bigoted homophobe would entertain. Such behavior only occurs in public schools – it would never happen in a school exclusively for homosexual, lesbian and bisexual children. (Sarcasm intended.)

Which socially stigmatizes a child more: being called a sissy by a dimwit classmate or being the only child on the block to attend a school for homosexuals?

Exclusive homosexual environments for children are not the equivalent of television sit-coms depicting homosexual families – which are designed to anesthetize us to the dark realities of same.

In the most definitive expose on the homosexual agenda and public schools, Marjorie King of the Manhattan-Institute writes, “No compulsory public school system can be justified unless what it teaches is a worldview that the taxpayers who fund it can support. For schools to try to indoctrinate children in a radical, minority worldview like that promoted by [the homosexual and lesbian activists] and their allies – a vision that will form those children’s values and shape their sense of selfhood – is a kind of tyranny, one that in addition, intentionally drives a wedge between parents and children and, as queer theorist Michael Warner boasts, ‘opposes society itself.’” (“Queering the Schools,” City Journal – Spring 2003).