Leave a comment

My Interview With God: Gay Marriage

Today on a very special Blacknright blog we have God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, here with us today. He has agreed to talk my audience about the current events in our country. So let’s get to it.

GodDL:  Hello God, it is wonderful to have you here today. I am so excited about this interview. How many people get to interview God? So what do you want me to call you, God, I Am, Yahweh, Elohim, Heavenly Father?

God: Heavenly Father will be fine. That is what you usually call me anyway, I like it. Thank you for this opportunity to talk to your readers.

DL: So my first question, before we deep into the gay marriage part of this interview, let’s start with the basics? Do you hate gay people?

Gay married couple enjoying wedding receptionHF: (laughing) Of course, Dena. I have an irrational hatred of gay people. Of course, I don’t hate them. They are my children why would I hate them? Yes, I love gay people, but I hate sin.

DL: Okay, sin. Are some sins greater than others?

HF: Yes and no. Yes, if you kill someone I am going to hold you more accountable than if you were just jealous of them. Both are sins and both are commandments but in one you have taken a life, in the other you haven’t. However, the second one can lead to the first one, that is why it is on the list. The no part is all sin has a destructive force to destroy the person. If you are coveting, you can become consumed and act in destructive ways towards yourself and whomever or whatever you are coveting. One thing leads to the other and that is why you can’t play with sin.

DL: Okay, so let’s move on. Gay marriage. As long as two people love each other that is all that matters right?

HF: If that was the case Leviticus 18 would be a moot point. Seventeen of the thou shall not lie with are familial relationships. Now I am sure those family members love each other. I still don’t approve. In fact, though shall not lie with mankind as with womankind is the twentieth one, There are two others that deal with incestuous homosexual behavior but by and large, I outline what heterosexual behavior, whatever that really means, I find offensive.

DL: In the others, you use the words wicked and detestable but with homosexuality you say it is an abomination, why the difference?

JeffHF: Because it is not in accordance to how I created you. The other offenses as repulsive as they are, are a man lying with a woman. While they are wicked and sinful in their nature, a man was meant to lie with a woman in order multiply. He was not meant to sleep with his mother or his daughter or his sister. Those things are detestable. Homosexuality is not about the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying. It is using sex for purposes that are contrary to the Plan of Salvation. I made sex feel good so it would create a bond between husband and wife, it would make you want to stay together and raise your family together. I created Oxytocin to promote family ties, not to get your rocks off.

DL (laughing) I love when you talk like that. But if two men are committed to being together what is wrong with that? I mean if the purpose of marriage is staying together and they are being faithful to each other, what is wrong with that?

old-new-testament_bxp255612HF: I love when you mortals do that, you take the last part of what I said and ignore everything else. Again if staying together was all that mattered then a son could marry his mother and as long as they stayed together and were faithful I would be okay with it. Heck, as long they had a kid or two and raised it together I would be fine, right? Okay, let’s go back to Genesis 2:22-25:

 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 23 And Adam said This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.

 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

If the composition of marriage was irrelevant would I have clearly stated its composition? The purpose is not solely for the happiness of the adults in the marriage. The purpose of marriage is to create a happy, stable environment for the family. In verse 24, I say they say they shall become one flesh. That is not so much a sexual reference as it is describing the family unit. They are one. They are no longer completely separate entities; they are one. When your parents were married, you were the Leichnitzes. You were one. Yes, there were individual Leichnitzes within the family, but to the world you were one unit, you were the Leichnitzes. That is what marriage does, it unifies. Dad is no more important than Mom, Mom is no more important than the kids and the kids are no more important than the parents. Each one provides a unique role and each one is dependent on the other members for their ultimate happiness. Without a Mom, Dad and children, an essential part of that unit degrades and it will deteriorate until there is nothing left That is the point in which you guys find yourselves at.

DL: Come on God, I mean we have free will right? Aren’t we free to do whatever we want as  long as it makes us happy?

HF: Sure you are. You are not free of the consequences though. You are free to rob liquor stores all day long, the jailconsequence of that is you will go to jail. You are free to rape and murder the consequence is that you will have to answer to me. I am even bound by certain things. For instance, if you keep your end of the bargain and follow my commandments I bound to reward you for that. Even if I was like, “Yeah, I know Dena is doing what she is supposed to but I don’t feel like blessing her.” I can’t because I am bound by the promise that as long as you do your part, I have to do mine. What would be the consequence if I didn’t? I would be a liar and since God can’t lie, I couldn’t be God. I would be a fraud. So there are consequences even for me. There certain things even I have to obey because if I don’t I am not who I say I am. And since I am who I say I am then I have to obey.  So if there are consequences for me, why would there not be consequences for my creations?

DL: So what is the consequences of gay marriage?

SCOTUSHF: Let’s look at what happened immediately following SCOTUS’ decision. You had people threatening churches. You had pastors getting beaten up. You had outright hostility to the people who actually helped them get this passed. You saw an eruption of lewd, gay pride parades. You saw evil come out in full force and within a matter of days. Satan works fast. What you will see as time goes on is an increase in immortality and more hostility towards me and my followers. You will see the destruction of children, the denigration of women and more blatant displays of wickedness.

DL: It sounds like you are saying gays are the reason for the downfall of society.

HF: No, my people are. You guys have been cowards. You have been so afraid of not offending anyone, you have offended me. My anger is kindled against my people because they do not listen. You have Israel being bombed pretty much on a daily basis and yet you have certain Jews who vilify my Holy Land. I do not understand that. You are not of my people, I do not know you. Is Israel perfect? No, and I will deal with her sins. But when you turn your back on Israel you turn your back on me. Then you have abortion. My children are being slaughtered and you dare have groups called Catholics For Choice? Abortion is the resurrection of Molech which I have clearly condemned and you dare use my son to justify your sin? Gay marriage is  just one in a long line of the impotency of the Church, you guys have failed. You are here because you refuse to act. And you Dena, you have to get over your fear as well. You are powerful,l but you refuse to use it. I am going to work with you on that and I am going to put you in a  place where you can use it. No more hiding.

prayerDL: Okay I promise we will figure it out. I love you and thank you for talking to us today. Any further questions for God can be asked via prayer.

HF: Thank you for having me here and I hope I wasn’t too scary.

DL:  Nah, you are a big ol’ pussycat. Say hi to Heavenly Mother and Jesus for me.

HF: I will talk to you later.

Leave a comment

Polygamy is Next No Matter What the “Marriage Equality” People Say.

Gay married couple enjoying wedding receptionOn June 26, 2015, SCOTUS decreed that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right and people have been warning that polygamy would soon follow. Of course, the “marriage equality”  are saying that is just nonsense that polygamy is not going to happen and these are their reasons why.

1. The battle for same-sex marriage was won, both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion, by framing the goal as “marriage equality”—that same-sex couples should have access to the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts

Oh because enough people in the public wanted it, it happened. Well, as long as you are so fond of ripping off my history there was no public outcry for interracial marriage. Mrs. Loving did time in jail for marrying her husband. Yeah, we had thearticle-2088040-0F80FD3000000578-782_634x424 Civil Rights movement by the time the 1967 decision came down but that was more about economic and political freedom. When King died he was on his way to deal with a strike concerning garbage men, not the right to marry a White person. Malcolm X well for most of his civil rights career he thought Whites were devils so he definitely wasn’t advocating interracial marriage. Yet despite not having great public support SCOTUS voted in favor of the Lovings. So that argument doesn’t really hold water. Good try though.

So if that is the case, then polygamy could be legalized without overwhelming public support. Especially since the Church can say it is their religious right found in sacred text all over the world and same-sex marriage can’t.

By contrast, the entire existing structure of modern marriage is designed for a dyad. DeBoer argues that there were similar practical objections to same-sex marriage—for instance, having to discard marriage license forms with the words “husband” and “wife” and replacing them with ones that list “Spouse 1” and “Spouse 2.” But this onerous task hardly compares to the massive overhaul multi-partner marriage would require: including revising the rules on post-divorce property division or survivor benefits for three, five, or 10 people instead of two; adjusting child custody arrangement for multiple legal parents; and determining who has the legal authority to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse.

you_may_now_kiss_the_brideSo what? So it gets more complicated why is that a concern of mine? It doesn’t affect your marriage does it? The point is the dyad she speaks of is based on the binary nature of marriage which includes 2 people-a male and a female. The number two by itself has no significance. David had 8 wives. He gained his first wife after defeating Goliath. And those were just his wives we are not counting the hundreds of concubines. Now I am sure keeping track of all those women and their offspring, not exactly a cakewalk but hey we can do it! And by allowing gay adoption, surrogacy and invitro fertilization we have already opened the door to multiple legal parents. Even in heterosexual couples we already deal with that. If I marry my cardiologist, who has three children, I become their legal stepmother. Now they still have a birth mother as well and if she marries another man, he becomes their legal stepfather. So now we have multiple parents with legal custody. The courts already have to figure this out, so that is another invalid argument.

Let’s look at my family. My mother was married to  my sister’s father, had her and got divorced. She met my father and they had my brother, they then adopted my other brother after a two-year battle, finally they adopted me. So technically you have 7 parents involved in creating a family of four. Birth certificates had to be changed, court cases had to be fought, there was a lot of  legal paperwork in creating this family, but the court dealt with it and if polygamy is passed they will just have to learn to deal with it. How they deal with it is not my concern. It wasn’t yours when we had to change all our marriage licenses for you.

3. It’s not just that sorting this out is difficult. The bottom line is that as a practical matter, it’s simply impossible for plural partners to have the same rights and benefits currently enjoyed by two spouses, gay or straight. It’s likely that every group marriage would essentially have to be customized.

Okay, so it is going to have to be customized anyway because the minute you bring children into the marriage, you will have to define if the surrogate mother is going to have any rights to the child, if the couple is gay. Or if you a lesbian couple, you will have to figure out how the sperm donor will factor in. Will it be someone you know or will you use a sperm bank? If it someone you know will he be the father legally? What if you have multiple kids by multiple donors, how will that work? Every gay marriage is going to be customized. It cannot be standardized like a heterosexual union because when you involve kids you HAVE to involve a third party, it is not optional. Whereas, children from a heterosexual are automatically thought to be created from that union alone. So if we are customizing it for a gay couple, why can’t we customize it for those practicing polygamy?

And who says it is impossible for plural partners to have the same rights and benefits-you? This is nothing but contract law.  For instance, if I want to bequeath my entire estate to my cat, I can. Or if I want to split it between my son and my three hot, young  lovers, I can do that too. So let’s say I am married to my three hot lovers, if I want to make one the primary beneficiary and the other two alternate beneficiaries in case something happens to hot stud #1, I can do that. All that is needed for any contract to be valid is a meeting the minds, an offer, acceptance, and consideration. As long as those four things are met I can make a contract for almost anything. So as long as it is not illegal and the person is of age, I am good to go.

Lastly, if this is convoluted it is because the government is involved with marriage.  If the government had it remain a religious institution, you wouldn’t have to worry about this.

4. There is another difference. Attempts to stop same-sex marriage floundered partly because no one could show how male/female unions would be harmed or even affected by same-sex ones. Legalizing multiple spouses, on the other hand, would immediately affect every couple by opening a potential door to new partners in the marriage. Yes, this would presumably require everyone’s consent, but at the very least, those who want monogamy would have to explicitly stipulate this, and even then a monogamy clause could probably be renegotiated later.

So what business is it of yours? What do you honestly think everyone who gets married from this point on is going to all of polygamya sudden want to practice polygamy? That it is insane. You are not just bringing in a new sex toy, you are saying I am going to take care of both of you until death do us part! How many men do you think are going to want to do that? Why do you think hey have mistresses instead of multiple wives? And a lot of things are re-negotiated later, even prenups. So what does it matter to you if down the line, a couple decides to bring in another spouse, how does that affect your marriage? If you guys are happy with monogamy, good for you, why are you bringing your morality into it? It has nothing to do with your marriage and therefore won’t harm it.

How about gay marriage, doesn’t that open up the opportunity for my spouse to leave me for a man and marry him instead? Heck, Netflix has a whole series about that very scenario. Of course, it does, so maybe we shouldn’t have gay marriage since it will encourage abandonment of heterosexual spouses. The idea that every man (or woman) is just going to want to take on the financial and legal obligations of another spouse once polygamy is instituted is sheer lunacy.

5. Some have also suggested that polygamous marriage should have a greater claim to legitimacy than same-sex marriage since it is far more rooted in history. But that argument misses a key factor in the cultural shift on same-sex marriage: gender equality as a central value of modern society. Historical polygamy is strongly linked to male dominance and female subjection—while monogamy arguably formed the basis of the transition from patriarchal authority to companionate partnership that eventually paved the way for same-sex unions.

What? I don’t even know how to address this because it is utter garbage. This is nothing more than saying, it is okay for us but not for you!

And finally, this gem:

6. In a free society, the private sexual choices of adults should not be criminalized. But they are not automatically entitled to cultural approval or societal support systems.

Hold up wasn’t that our very argument about gay marriage? Now you are going to try to use it against polygamists. It doesn’t fly. Again that is nothing more than discrimination against a group they do not approve of.

And now for the kicker: http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Montana polygamists

4 Comments

All Abortions are Forced Abortions

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria ...

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria Feldt (right), President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on the steps of the Supreme Court, to rally in support of the pro-choice movement on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The pro-choice crowd or as I refer to them the “poor-choice” crowd would like you to believe that a woman goes into an abortion clinic, the same way she goes into a nail salon with a smile on her face and a happy tune in her heart. Not only does she walk in that way, she walks out skipping and singing “Skip to My Lou

However, that is almost never the case. We all know Lorena Bobbitt, men quake in fear at the name. The woman who cut off her man’s penis while he slept. How many know the story behind the story though? According to website Green Left: “For months we have been subjected to nauseating, titillating news coverage of the case. Lorena accused her husband of repeated rape and beatings and forcing her to have an abortion.”

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/7369. Green Left is definitely  a leftist site hence the name but even from this tidbit we do see that women are forced into abortions. But even if the Lorena Bobbitt of the world do exist and are forced into abortions that surely does not prove my point that all abortions are forced does it. It just means some are.

How can I possibly all abortions are forced abortions. I say it because no woman truly wants to abort her child, she feels forced into the decision. Whether it is due to circumstances, her significant other or already having prior children, there is a driving force behind her that leads her to believe she has no choice but to commit this horrific crime. There are the relatively few monsters out there that have abortions the way they have their teeth cleaned, with no remorse and relative ease. But they are not the majority, they are not even the minority, they are so few in number as to be an anomaly.

People  think forced abortions only happen in places like China but since a child is dying we are not going to concern ourselves whether or not they actually wanted to abort their child. At least not here in America.  So let’s look at a pro-choice site who has an article about this very controversial subject. Publiceye.org whose tagline is Defending Reproductive Justice had this to say:.

In a national study of women, 64% of those who aborted felt pressured to do so by others.1This pressure can become violent.2 65% suffered symptoms of trauma.1 In the year following an abortion, suicide rates are 6-7 times higher.3

Yet they seem to be the only pro-choice site talking about this phenomenon, since talking about it would cut into the abortion industry’s profits. Now you may be saying, 64% is still not all. It is close but there is still a third that obviously didn’t feel forced. Well, sometimes that force comes internally as well.

Reasons women give for having abortions:

  • Forced by mother
  • Father opposed
  • Husband or boyfriend persuaded me
  • No other option was given
  • Would have been kicked out
  • Loss of family’s support
  • Lack of support from society
  • Clinic persuaded me4

In 95% of all cases, the male partner plays a central role in the decision.5 Of men interviewed at abortion clinics 45% man and woman picturerecalled urging abortion, including 37% of married men.6 Many of these men reported being justified in being the primary decision maker in the decision to have the abortion.6

Okay, now we are up to 95% when it comes to who ultimately made the decision, the man and not the woman. Not only were the men the primary decision maker, they felt justified in being so. At this point, five percent is such a small percentage it is pretty easy to say that all abortions are indeed forced abortions.

So what does this tell us? Iit tells us that we have been lied to. Women are not clamoring for abortion. Men are. That the line pro-choice people try to feed us about women wanting abortion is pretty much an outright lie. After all, who are the majority of abortionists? Men. Who gains the most from the woman aborting? Men. Who is making the most money off of abortion? Men. This was never about women and their rights. It has always about the sexual freedom of men. It has always been about the abandonment of women and the children made with them. It was about men in 1973 and it is about men now.

Betty Friedan did not mention abortion in the early version of The Feminine Mystique. It was Lawrence Lader, co-founder of NARAL, who convinced her that all feminist work-based demands depended on a woman’s ability to control her own body and fertility. Both Nathanson and Lader persuaded Friedan (and NOW) that abortion was a civil rights issue.

So if abortion was such a women’s right why didn’t Betty Friedan mention it in her earlier version of the Feminine Mystique, why did it take men to convince her that it was, if it as plain as the nose on your face? Because this was always about the male agenda, not the welfare of women. Just like Lader and Nathanson forced abortion, as a concept, onto Betty and Betty forced it onto the feminist movement. It has been forced onto women ever since. IN 1973, we gave women the finger and told them we could care less about them and their children. It is time we correct that error. It won’t bring the 61 million lives back but it might save 61 million more.

Leave a comment

Why I Left Liberalism

I haven’t always been a die hard conservative. However, I am the kind of person that no matter what I do, I do 100% wholeheartedly. So when I was into liberalism, I was a hardcore liberal.  But as time went on I realized that I could no longer support the liberal agenda and keep my relationship with God or my sanity. It was going to have to be one or the other.  So I decided that God and sanity had to come first. Of course, those are not the only reason I left liberalism behind.

1. I got tired of being a victim.

VictimsLiberalism runs on the ideology that everyone is a victim and I have spent my life fighting for every ounce of dignity. I didn’t want pity or to be thought of as incapable. You didn’t have to like me, but you were going to respect me. I have fought cancer, lived with epilepsy, survived a triple bypass and having my two valves replaced along with getting a pacemaker. The last thing I was, was weak. No matter what life threw my way from rape to institutionalization, I survived it all. Therefore I was  not a victim, I was a victor. When I had that cognitive liberation, I knew I could no longer be a liberal. I could not give in the idea that my skin made me inferior or that my illnesses were a barrier. I was going to beat it all and I was going to show them who I truly was underneath it all.

2. They promoted abortion.

baby killed by abortion

If you can’t look at this and still promote abortion you are a monster!

As an adoptee, this infuriated me more than anything. How dare they say my life wasn’t worth anything because my birth mother didn’t want me. What gave them the right to sit in judgment of my life or anyone’s life and tell them that they weren’t “viable human beings” because “Mommy” had issues with them? Abortion is never a solution to a pregnancy, but adoption is always is. Adoption is not like it was back in 1970 when I was adopted. We now have what is referred to as open adoption. This allows you to see your child and is not a “closed” adoption. You are even allowed to pick the parents of your child. It is so much more available to prospective birth parents than what was available when I was a baby looking to be adopted, yet the pro-choice crowd still only wants to tell you about abortion being the only solution. It is absolutely abhorrent that the death of an unborn child could ever be seen as a viable solution to an unplanned pregnancy.

3. The liberals have disdain for Heavenly Father.

In 2012, the Democratic National Convention decided to remove the mention of God from their platform. However, when those in the Democratic Party wanted to put it back in, there was a vote and there was an outcry when the amendment that would put it back passed, It wasn’t just the mention of God, however, it was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  Liberals are historically anti-Semitic. Let’s look at UCLA as an example. Just last year a young woman who was Jewish was being denied an opportunity to sit on the USAC (that is the student government of UCLA) as a judge simply because of her faith.

“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do

Rachel Beyda

Rachel Beyda

you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

For the next 40 minutes, after Ms. Beyda was dispatched from the room, the council tangled in a debate about whether her faith and affiliation with Jewish organizations, including her sorority and Hillel, a popular student group, meant she would be biased in dealing with sensitive governance questions that come before the board, which is the campus equivalent of the Supreme Court.

If Ms. Beyda had been Black or a lesbian she would not have been questioned about where her loyalties lie. They would have looked at her impressive  resume and overwhelmingly voted her onto the board. Yet her Jewishness was considered a liability. Things like this  made my decision to leave liberalism so much easier.

4. I like money, trans fat and making my own decisions-good or bad.

I don’t hate the rich, In fact, I admire them. I don’t envy them or want everything they have, but I would like to have  my own little nest egg. I don’t think being rich is some awful sin in and of itself. I think I can learn from them. Conversely, I can learn lessons from “the least of my brethren” as well. I see people as people independent of their wealth. I also like Oreo cookies and if you try to ban them again, someone is liable to get hurt. It should be my decision if I eat them or not. I don’t need the food police. Heck, Dr. Shamsa has been trying to get me eat healthier the whole time I have known him to no avail. But milkunlike liberals, he hasn’t resorted to bullying. He doesn’t tell me that my heart is going to explode next week if I don’t. He just keeps encouraging me. Lastly, it is up to us to make our decisions, not the government. Sometimes I make really bonehead decisions, sometimes I make really good ones. Whatever the decision, the consequences are mine to deal with not anyone else. Sure there are some decisions the government has the right and the duty to step in when I make them, things like murder, rape, theft and the like. Those decisions the government has an obligation to stop people from making. However, things such as drinking raw milk or picking the school your child goes to, the government has no right to prevent you from making.

5. Because I loved society more than myself.

With liberalism, everything is about what makes you happy and you concentrate all your efforts on hedonistic pursuits but I care about society and the impact my decisions have on it. I am for traditional marriage not because it will affect my nonexistent marriage but because I think and believe it is the healthiest option for society. I am for incorporating God into the public sphere not because I get some kind of kickback from my church for every pro religious law that gets passed but because I think the more God  is a part of our society the more moral we become as a nation. I am anti-abortion because it is murder and it will have an impact on our society as the loss of 61 million souls are felt. Sure I have my greedy and  selfish moments but I certainly don’t want to live my whole life like that. I want to live it being the best person I can be and I can’t do that being a liberal

Leave a comment

AB 329: Sexualizing California’s Children

WEBER_HEADSHOT

Shirley Weber, Author of AB 329

If there is one thing that California lawmakers never tire of it is using our children for their social experimentation. This is only another in their attempts to turn our children into sexual irresponsible adults like them. While they talk about healthy relationships and the like, the truth is you can’t talk about something with any credibility that you have never experienced yourself.

In the Assembly right now is a bill that promotes “comprehensive sex education” and while it would be “mandated” for all 7-12 graders, it would go as far as teaching kindergartners about sex. Since when do 5 year olds need to know about how to protect themselves sexually from other five year olds? If anything, five year old needs to worried about liberals who think pedophilia is a legitimate “orientation.”

AB 329, authored by Assembly member Shirley Weber, would update and strengthen existing law to ensure that students receive sex education that is accurate, comprehensive, medically accurate, age-appropriate and inclusive. [You can bet their idea of “age appropriate”  is not the same as yours.] LGBT students are too often made to feel invisible, or worse, stigmatized in health classes. LGBT-inclusive education has been shown to have a positive effect on school climate overall and make LGBT youth feel safer in school. [While I am all for making everyone feel safer in school, this is not the way to do it. It is nothing more than the Gay Elite trying recruit children into a lifestyle that is potentially life threatening.] AB 329 will thus lead to greater understanding and acceptance of Gay married couple enjoying wedding receptionLGBT youth and families. [Basically, this is a way to shut down any opposition to gay marriage, wrapped in “education.” it is dishonest.] Additionally, the bill will update curriculum on prevention of sexually transmitted infections, HIV, and pregnancy. EQCA is co-sponsoring AB 329 with American Civil Liberties Union of California, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, Forward Together, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. 

Basically that last line tells you everything that you need to know when the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are promoting a sex ed bill, you know it is going to benefit their bottom line, not your children. According to Planned Parenthood’s own annual report they did  327,653 abortions during 2013-2014.  The last year they have numbers for. They did only 1,880 adoption referrals to outside agencies. So you know this “comprehensive sex ed” is going to not only promote homosexuality but abortion as well. Planned Parenthood would not be behind this bill if it didn’t.  The real goal of this bill is not to educate anyone, especially our young children on the hazards of engaging in sex before they are ready, mainly waiting until they are married, but to teach them that sex is no more special than urinating or defecating, that is merely just another bodily function to be acted upon whenever the need should arise.

The above video shows you exactly what type of sex education our children will be getting. We cannot afford to be nice anymore, we cannot be afraid to offend, our children’s lives are on the line and it is time we take these sick people down and tell them we will not allow them to infect our children.

2 Comments

I GET Disrespected

Let me start this article by saying, I love UCLA, I really do. I think it is definitely hands down the best university out there. Heck, we even beat out Yale in terms of Dream Schools.The True Bruin Statement says the following: As a Bruin, I Commit Myself to the Highest Ethical Standards

Integrity: I will conduct myself with integrity in my dealings with & on behalf of the University.

Excellence: I will conscientiously strive for excellence in my work.

Accountability: I will be accountable as an individual & member of this community for my ethical conduct.

Respect: I will respect the rights & dignity of others.

Service: I will make an impact in our global community through public service.

I take that code seriously and every day I try to uphold those standards laid out in the True Bruin Statement. That being said, it doesn’t mean you get to disrespect me when I come to you seeking your assistance. This wasn’t some cashier who might be stressed out over finals having a bad day, this is correspondence sent on the university’s behalf done in such a childish and rude manner that I couldn’t believe it. It was so bad that even my 11 year old son was appalled by the letter. I petitioned to see if I could get my IGETC certified and I gave them a list of reasons why it should be, this is what I got back from the university:

You cannot have it both ways. You either have full/partial IGETC certification from your community college -or- you are held to all of UCLA’s GE requirements. Your DARS indicates a UCLA-based GE science lab transfer credit but your community college evaluated the two science courses that you took as *non-lab.* The committee understands your circumstances but cannot make an exception. If taking a fifth class in S15 is nota an option, you are advised to find a transferable GE-science with lab credit from a community college or other transfer school. As such, please make plans (financial, logistical, family, degree term) accordingly. You are on an IGETC-1 contract: (1) Complete one applicable GE-science lab (from the UCLA GE list or a transfer school). (2) Earn a letter grade only of minimum “C.” After satisfying the conditions, please return to Window 2, A316 Murphy (M-F 8:30am-4:30pm) so we can update your record.

This is the actual transcript. There was no addressing me by name (and yes, I understand it would be under my record so it is not like anyone else would read it, however if you are professional you still start all correspondence with someone’s name out of courtesy and respect.)  The tone was arrogant and flippant-you can’t have it both ways. Really? Why not tell me to go jump off a bridge?  A more professional person would said “We regret to inform you after much consideration and deliberation that we are unable to grant your petition for fulfilling your IGETC.”

I don’t know who wrote this but it shows a lack of character and professionalism. I am 45 I don’t need nor want to be coddled, I just don’t want to be treated like I am something from the bottom of someone’s shoe either. It wasn’t about the denial, I could deal with that. What I wonder about is, is this unprofessionalism a symptom of larger problem at UCLA? If you can’t write a simple denial letter without being rude and condescending, how is UCLA being represented in the academic arena when these same people have to interact with the public? There is already enough public relations problems at UCLA.  About a month ago, the USAC didn’t want to appoint a Jewish student to the judiciary because SHE WAS JEWISH and they felt she would be biased. This is the same USAC that wanted to divest from Israel and has continually shown anti-Israel/Jewish bias.

Obviously, whoever wrote this thinks it is acceptable to be uncivil and discourteous to students, just as USAC thought they were in their rightst to be discriminatory towards a well qualified Jewish student. UCLA really needs to tighten up their public relations image and instead of trying to teach the students about diversity, maybe hold a few courses on basic respect for both students and administrators. At the very least teach them about the True Bruin Statement because obviously they do not know what it is and  they are failing quite miserably at upholding it.

2 Comments

UCLA’s Hidden Population-Student Parents

This  past weekend I attended the Parents Weekend at UCLA but I had to do so under the stealth of night because truthfully I was not even supposed to be attending. You see as a student parent, Parents Weekend is not for me. It is for the real parents of UCLA, not student parents. In fact, if you look at UCLA student parents are treated no more than your average club, not a real population.  Now if I was gay and attending UCLA, I would have at least 20 different organizations to join that promote my choice in being gay. From BlacQue to TransUP and Queer Alliance, I would have a real voice in how things are done at UCLA.

For instance, even though 15,849 women attend UCLA and make up 55.3 percent of the campus, [http://www.aim.ucla.edu] it is important to have transgender bathrooms because we can’t have a small fraction of people using the facilities that correlate with their biological sex, that is just not fair to the 0.5 of the population who feel like they are “women.” After all, it is not like sexual assault exists at UCLA and it is not like some sexual predator will use such a ruse to sexually assault women. Granted a sexual predator doesn’t need an excuse to victimize women but let’s  make it easier all the same. So why do transgenders have such a more powerful voice than the untitledwomen? It is because they have aligned themselves with the burgeoning gay community on campus and therefore have more of a say.

Now try to find 2o student parent organizations, it is not happening. There is just one-Students with Dependents. Before the weekend I asked for the demographics for the student parent population. They had none. About 300 students are a part of the program. There are 166 members of their Facebook page. Beyond that there was not much they could tell me. There are 3.8% or roughly 1100 Black students at UCLA. The average age is 21 at UCLA and 6% is over 25 at UCLA.  Given that I am  a Black 44 year old woman, I am used to being the minority. However, to have absolutely no statistics on the student parent population is downright disgraceful especially for a school that prides themselves on being “diverse.”

10696208_10204329945600749_866766391504023180_n

Dr. Kamran Shamsa and me.

Let me  preface all this by saying no one loves UCLA more than I do. Let me give you my back story. I arrived on the UCLA campus during the Fall of 2012. I was a transfer from LACC (By the way the transfers are 29 percent of the population and now have a new representative on ASUCLA) but as the quarter progressed, I began to get sicker and sicker. So I went to the Ashe Center to see what is wrong. If you take nothing else from this remember this: ALWAYS opt in for USHIP, ALWAYS!!! At the Ashe Center I met my guardian angel, Fara Anzures. After examining me she saw I was seriously ill and sent me to 100 Medical Plaza across the street for further tests. There I met Dr. Kamran Shamsa, the world’s greatest cardiologist if ever there was one. He became my advocate and fought for me to get surgery on my heart. I would require a triple bypass and have my aortic and mitral valves replaced. The surgeon who performed the surgery was none other than Richard Shemin, the best in the country when it came to this kind of complicated heart surgery. So I owe my life to these three angels. It is therefore with a heavy heart that this episode of feeling rejected by the same people who saved me-UCLA-leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

So now back to the Parents Weekend. When I filled out the  form for Parents Weekend I had to lie and state that my 11 year old son was my guardian. Now remember when you apply to UCLA you give them information about your parents. I told them that my parents were deceased, yet I still receive letters that read to the parents of Dena Leichnitz. Why do you even ask the question, if you are not going to utilize the information? In any case, my son was my surrogate “father.” I paid the money and then on Friday I went to the dinner. Being that I was a parent, I had to pick up my son from school before I could attend. So that meant missing out on all the activities that take place on Friday, which is basically everything. Nothing really happens on Saturday.

The day I picked up my badge and other parent weekend necessities, I went through everything and put on my badge. Initially, I wore it with a certain amount of pride until I realized everyone who was a student had a badge that read their name and was followed by UCLA College, Los Angeles. Mine said Dena Leichnitz, Los Angeles, California. The parents badge had written their name UCLA Parent, I had nothing. Not UCLA College, not UCLA Parent, nothing, I might as well been a party crasher and considering that is how I felt, it cut deep. It sounds silly but I wanted to cry. I wasn’t even being credited as being part of the school. So I wrote in big letters STUDENT AND PARENT. It was my outward sign of defiance.

My 11  year old son/father

My 11 year old son/father

On Saturday I attended one event. My son during this whole time was on the computers in Powell Library. After all, this wasn’t his idea no need to make him sit through a history class on a Saturday. On Sunday, he did sit through the Parent’s Council and once again I was told the higher ups would do what they could to have student parents on the Parents Council. I signed up my name as being interested in that was that. Even when I talked to Chancellor Gene Block, who was cordial overall, when I brought up how wrong it was not have student parents be a part of this thing I was blown off. “Well this is more for parents who are visiting out of town, we have other things for our diverse population.” And if that is not a verbatim quote, it is close enough.

 As a right wing zealot I should be the last one giving people a lesson in “diversity.” After all, no one is more for tradition, no more for mothers being called mothers and fathers being called fathers. No one is more for protecting the traditional family and marriage than I am. So then how did I become the one who has to be the one to tell the university that it is not okay to discriminate against a whole group of parents just because they do not happen to be a parent of UCLA student but ARE the UCLA student. How then am I then the one saying, your idea of parent needs to change? The whole thing seems surreal. I guess the lesson for UCLA is twofold, start paying attention to your student parent population, we are here and we matter and two next time you give someone a new heart be sure you don’t inflame a new passion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 222 other followers