Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Consequences of Homosexual Parenting

Z: This is a post by Mustang which I think is important because we are all asked to buy into information that's not often correct, just to be politically correct.   While we might feel differently or wish this was all wrong, this is pretty compelling stuff.   And yes, as Mustang says below, we'll now hear all sorts of reasons that the FACTS are wrong, but.......they're not.   And yes, straight couples mess their kids up, too.   This information, however, is compelling and important if for nothing else but to set the record straight in its comparisons, etc.  I want to thank Mustang for another post of a lot of good information and thinking: 

Raising children in homosexual households is no different from raising children in straight households; anyone who says otherwise is a liar, or perhaps a Bible-thumping homophobe, or both.

This is the argument, of course. It is concise, illustrative of the studies produced by pseudo scientists from the most liberal colleges and universities, and (it appears now) utterly false.


Sociologist Mark Regnerus (University of Texas, Austin) has recently completed a study of children raised by homosexual parents. His data overturns the “conventional” academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. The study, published in the journal Social Science Research, followed the most thorough, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted.

Do children who are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in comparison to children raised by traditional familial structures? The answer is a resounding and unqualified yes. The leftist argument to the contrary is false. So let’s just take a look at some of the findings:

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

So now let’s all take a deep breath and wait for the screaming, wailing, gnashing of teeth, the accusations that all conservatives have multiple fathers, and of course the ever-present charges of racism. Clearly, what we will not hear from the left is that children deserve better. We won’t hear anyone forming a conclusion that if homosexuals wish to pursue their hedonistic perversions, they should do so without also screwing up the minds of young children.

Source: Family Research Council

—Mustang Sends


Louis H. said...

Sacre bleu! Il peut être politiquement correct en Amérique, mais il est néanmoins une très grande mascarade. Bon Mustang!

JonBerg said...

"Consequences of Homosexual Parenting"

I'm glad that I won't be around to see the [ultimate] "Consequences"!

Thersites said...

The Left listens to No studies performed by the FRC... because only the "right" wing is "biased".

Always On Watch said...

There is no reasoning with those promoting the gay agenda.

And there is no satisfying the promoters of the gay agenda, either. Just yesterday:

WASHINGTON -- First lady Michelle Obama's speech Tuesday evening at a private Democratic National Committee fundraiser was interrupted by a protester, who demanded equality for gays and lesbians.

About 12 minutes into Obama's 20-minute speech, a woman standing at the front of the crowd began yelling for an executive order on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights....

cube said...

For along time I have said the jackboot fits best on the left foot.

JonBerg said...

What's next;North American Man/Boy Love Association rights?

Waylon said...

Interesting article and easy to see why it would be an issue embraced by "progressive" leftists, since the goal line they want to reach is a dejected submission to the dictates of "those who know better"—i.e. the bureaucratic state.

Some points cited in the article that lead to that conclusion:

" • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual.

Sounds like the long term plan of a conspiratorial communist agenda.

Thersites said...

You are 100% correct about there being no satisfying the promoters of the gay agenda, for theirs is the "ethics" of following the drive. It knows no "limits".

Z said...

And isn't the point that we're asked to believe all the favorable 'stats' but any time something points against the politically correct, the message is hidden?

Louis, tu as raison!

Always, did you see Michelle's response? I'd have bravo'd any Republican First Lady who spoke up to the protester but hers was MEAN and NASTY. My gosh! You don't want to mess with Michelle Obama....very very testy. Most of them have learned to restrain in the face of that kind of pressure.
She threatened to leave!

Constitutional Insurgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Constitutional Insurgent said...

*edited for spelling error*

I don't get too concerned with the various and competing studies which people use to justify their political agendas.

This one in particular doesn't raise my eyebrows, given the state of heterosexual parenting today.

Finally, there's never a 'so what' with the promulgation of these studies. What's the viable solution, while still engendering liberty?

Robert Sinclair said...

Is it possible to inquire into the nature of human behavior without an agenda? It must take a cynical mind to contrive such a thing, or perhaps one sans genuine interest in producing a better society. And childish, too, I think. “Homosexuals are rotten parents too … so there.”

Of course, there are so many variables; no one can say for certain there is but one cause of this, or that behavior. And as suggested above, there is nothing to be done about this. If there were, then we might have already prevented straight parents from having children on account of the fact that they are complete idiots. This was tried once, with limited success —on the Jews.

And remember too, the numbers are quite small; we have plenty of room in our prisons for these offspring. The question is not whether queers can parent children; the question is, should they? It is a question that can only be answered by queer couples.

Ema Nymton said...


"While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number.

Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, ..."
(How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
by Mark Regnerus Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin)

Ema Nymton

Sam Huntington said...

It was conveniently lost on the left that priestly assaults on little boys were more than pedophilia; it was homosexual. So I think JonBerg asked a relevant question. How long before the NAMBLA crowd begin to assert their rights to engage in sex with little boys? Our trend appears to be this: today’s perversion is tomorrow’s civil right.

Anonymous said...

" My gosh! You don't want to mess with Michelle Obama....very very testy."

Well...that huffy little dare she....don't they know I'm the new
reigning queen with 21 ladies in waiting?

Me and my awesome BBA with chrome bumpers are just gonna can kiss the two cub scouts under my pup tent that I strapped on Goodbye!

Always On Watch said...

Sam said: today’s perversion is tomorrow’s civil right.

That's where we're headed, all right.

Z said...

CI, I get concerned; if we don't start getting the whole truth in America, we're done...I don't frankly care WHICH side has it.

Ema, only this new America would suggest that a married, happy couple wouldn't do better raising children than any other sub-section. Congratulations.

Robert..thanks for the reminder. My logic doesn't work like yours does and I'd have never considered that "gays can be bad parents, too" concept. We're SO swept away with PC that it honestly hadn't even occurred to me to mention that...
Odd, isn't the media sways us. Every gay couple seems HAPPY HEALTHY PERFECT...when NOBODY REALLY IS :)
Thanks for your reminder.

JonBerg said...

Just a question:

What sort of social interaction do children of, so called, "gay" parents have with children raised in a conventional household? That is, of course, assuming that there still is a "conventional household".

Ducky's here said...

Response in Scientific American

Mentions some of the points Robert Sinclair notes.

So let's assume the study is completely accurate (HUGE assumption). What does it tell us? It describes a situation but what are the causes?

Gays use poor parenting skills?
Children react negatively to gay parents?
Children of gay parents have to put up with the bigotry similar to that displayed here in some posts?

We don't know and there are several here who don't want to know. So first we are forced to deal with the bigotry before we can clearly see the issue.

FreeThinke said...

Well, Ozzie and Harriet were not what they seemed to be, -- look at how THEIR poor kids turned out -- and neither were any of the other old-fashioned "family "sitcom" shows from the early days of TV -- like Make Room for Daddy, Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, The Brady Bunch, et al. -- honestly true-to-life. The relationship between Lucy and Ricky may have been sweetly hilarious on TV, but in real life it was downright hideous.

But that's all "show biz," so I guess it doesn't really count, right?

So why mention it at all?

Because I think the ideal visions we like to believe of ourselves are rarely any truer than the fantasies of stability, constancy and perfect harmony currently presented in the media as typical of life in the so-called Gay Community.

I have no idea who was interviewed for the study cited, what cross section of humanity they were drawn from, or how many were consulted, so I can't possibly pass judgment in any direction. I'd have to know a lot more to be certain of anything, but do tend to agree with CI about the suspect tendentiousness of any "study" from any particular faction.

I do believe, however, that human beings have a strong tendency to trust their FEELINGS and thus to believe whatever they WANT to believe. That too certainly works from and to all directions depending where one's "heart" is placed.

At any rate, I wish Mr. Regnerus -- or was it Doctor Regnerus? -- had done equally thorough studies of children raised in

1. orphanages

2. a series of foster homes

3. legally adopted

4. raised by one or two grandparents

5. raised by single mothers who never married

6. raised by divorced mother

7. raised by a divorced or widowed father

8. raised by someone of a different race

9. an ethic Jew raised as a Christian by Christian adoptive parents

10. raised in a commune or kibbutz

11. Asian war orphans adopted by American parents

12. Kids from the former Soviet Bloc adopted by American couples.

13. Children born to unwed welfare recipients

14. Children born to deaf and dumb or blind parents

15. Children born to mentally retarded parents

16. Children born to heterosexual "swingers"

In my work as a teacher I ran into many examples of most of the domestic situations cited above. From what I was able to gather the very worst domestic situations were those where children of wealthy professional, heterosexual couples who had no time to spend with their children, and no real personal interest in them -- couples who hired indifferent "nannies" to look after their kids. Fresh, bratty, disobedient, sullen, recalcitrant, incorrigible -- you name it -- THAT's what THOSE children were like.

On the other hand I had black and Puerto-Rican kids from New York's ghettos in my classes who had parents I could only describe as LOVELY -- involved, concerned and appreciative of what our school was trying to do.

I'm not sure from the considerable experience I've had in life that it's really possible to generalize about any group of people and be completely fair.

Ed Bonderenka said...

@ Robert Sinclair:
"the question is, should they? It is a question that can only be answered by queer couples."
I am not a queer couple and I can answer that question, like we historically answered that question:
I know someone very dear to me whose ex went "gay" and she left when he wouldn't stay monogamous.
He wanted visiting rights and got them.
Then her son ended up in a two queer household for weekends with the other guy who was a pedophile while "dad" went to work.
She got the court to stop that.
The answer is emphatically "No".

Z said...

Ducky, can cite where BIGOTRY occurs here.

The POINT OF THE ARTICLE is that we can't constantly be believing the politically correct leftwing media's stupid and irresponsible.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I do believe at least all sides should be known.

FT, man...where to start:

obviously, there is no study that is perfect; it can't exist.
Again, please read my comment to Ducky and why Mustang wrote and I posted this information.

We're not arguing children can come from any type of parentage and be perfect or perfect wrecks, we're arguing that we tend to be only given 'statistics' and 'reports' which paint the average American family (and that does exist) as incapable and hateful, and the non typical American family as perfection based simply on their non-typical status.

Robert Sinclair said...

Ms. Z … I meant to write above, “Heterosexuals are rotten parents too … so three,” vice “Homosexuals are rotten parents too ….” Sorry for the typographical error.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Let me clarify.
In a gay household, absolutely only one of the "parents" can be biologically attached to the child.
And there are hetero's who have molested opposite sex stepkids, or their own kids.
I know gays who wouldn't hurt a fly or act inappropriately with children.
But the study Mustang referred to shows that there is a problem and to deny is damaging to children.

Always On Watch said...

Apparently, others "think" that the way that Michelle Obama handled the heckler was just fine and dandy:

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Michelle Obama responded "brilliantly" to a heckler who interrupted her speech at private fundraiser.

Z said...

Why use the term "queer"?
To me, that's like ''

Ed, that story's tough to awful for those children.

I think it just proves what most of us are saying, one can't generalize; all gays aren't pedophiles!, but I guess this world just has to get back to the "crap happens" place and stop expecting perfection and legislating perfection, etc...

Z said...

Robert, thanks. I agree with both. Typo or not, your "homosexuals are rotten parents, too" shouldn't be ignored. I think I'm right in my comment above to suggest that we get the picture that if only all straight parents who screwed their kids up could have given them to gays to raise, all would have been wonderful; do you get my drift? This is the kind of message we get in advertising, etc., and THIS IS WHY I WANTED TO POST THIS EXCELLENT PIECE MUSTANG WROTE FOR US.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I haven't gotten the sense from any source, that homo parenting is any better than hetero parenting.

All I've seen from informed and sensible sources, is that both dynamics have successes and failures where it regards children becoming productive and law abiding citizens.

Sam Huntington said...

Ducky is correct, of course … we can never discuss meaningful remedies to social problems unless, or until we accept the left’s holy grail that sexual deviancy is actually a normative behavior.

Here we are, about 40 years into the LBGT refrain, “Being queer is actually normal,” which, when repeated often enough, eventually leads them to conclude that they are actually morally relevant in a predominantly heterosexual society. And, as expected, we have now embarked on an even newer mantra, “queer parents can raise healthy children.” Except that it probably isn’t true.

Of course, the left can spin it any way they want … but to most people, the assumption that raising children in depraved environment produces healthy adults defies logic. No, the results are not rock solid, but the indicators are disturbing and should sound alarm bells. Not among leftists, though.

BTW Z ... the word queer is apropos; it means odd. The word "gay" does not reflect homosexual behavior; the word queer does. There is no correlation between the words queer and nigger. Part of our problem in this country is our hesitance to call things what they are.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Z said...

Sam, I knew someone would say that about 'queer' and I understand.
But we all know that some words have come, through hurtful intentions, to mean something altogether different and cruel, and that's one of them. But, that's just me, I guess.

Your first paragraph cracked me true.!! :-)

CI, I think it's clear that my point was that gay parenting is painted as just 'the other white meat'...instead of fraught with a built-in situation that hetero couples, no matter how screwed up they are with their kids, simply don't have. I've seen this a lot; if I say I'm more sensitive to it, you'll say it's because I'm more agenda-driven than you are, and that's simply not the case on this subject or most other subjects.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - Mostly concur with what you last wrote, I tend not to include random internet comments when I try to assess an issue like this, so I may not get the same perceptions as others.

I also see no reason to muddle the underlying issues at stake with emotional reactions like 'depraved' and 'perversion'. It's no better than what the left engages in.

Z said...

everyone who used the word, of course.

Please, I'm not going to argue this here..I just don't like it; and I suppose I'm allowed not to, right?

I'm going to lunch.
see ya'll later.

Z said...

CI, I believe random internet comments represent a big slice of American thinking.

I think my readers, as a slice of life, have every right to feel certain behaviors are perversions but it can block discussion in certain ways ...

Anonymous said...

"Why use the term "queer"?
To me, that's like ''

Who's that meant for?

Oops...I'll take Sams's spot on and accurate.

" Part of our problem in this country is our hesitance to call things what they are."

And hair "stylist"...calls himself 'queer'...and laughs about it. And is happy to live in a condo in Ft. Lauderdale.."surrounded by queens and queers" as he calls it.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - You're correct, but I think you would agree that much of that big slice of thinking is comprised of reactions and counter-reactions about an issue, but ultimately irrespective of the issue itself.

Many comments, OpEds, LTTEs, etc represent emotional reactions that require little logic or sourcing. Some rise to eloquent analysis, but most are chaff.

That's my admittedly cynical take anyway.

Pris said...

I believe that the ideal for children is a mother and father. Of course there are always exceptions, but, I'm talking about the ideal.

Now, no one is perfect, but, there is a hard wired difference between men and women. The ideal is a combination from both, giving a child a better understanding between the two sexes.

JonBerg said...

Corrupting the original meaning of the word "gay", into no more than a euphemism to masquerade perversion*, in no way changes reality.

* "A deviant sexual practice."

American Heritage Dictionary

Z said...

a LOT of Black folks call themselves ''...
and that's almost endearing to THEM. But we all know how it feels for them to hear it from us.

I think we all know how it feels for a gay man to be called "you queer"..or read gays called queer.

But, hey....this is my blog but I allow most everything here...
You're all adults, say what you will. Just don't let yourselves think that expression isn't without negative weight to a LOT OF PEOPLE including straights.

JonBerg, are you saying that dictionary defines GAY as THAT?

JonBerg said...


Well stated and in my mind difficult, if not impossible, to rationally debate.

FreeThinke said...

This from The Weekly Standard Online :

FLOTUS and the Heckler

Most notable part of the event was an interruption from a protester about 12 minutes into the 20-minute speech. A pro-LGBT-rights individual standing at the front began shouting for an executive order on gay rights. (We did not hear exactly what.)

"One of the things I don't do well is this," replied FLOTUS to loud applause. She left the lectern and moved over to the protester, saying they could "listen to me or you can take the mike, but I'm leaving. You all decide. You have one choice."

Crowd started shouting that they wanted FLOTUS to stay.

"You need to go!" said one bystander near the protester.

The protester was then escorted out, shouting "...lesbian looking for federal equality before I die. ..." (The rest of her remarks were not caught by the reporter.)


Frankly I'm more in the First Lady's corner on his than I am the protester. I am glad Mrs. O did what she did. I realize that this is seen as "hypocrisy" by the Right, because Democrats are supposed to be unqualified, wildly enthusiastic supporters of ALL "deprived and abused minorities" and their asserted Civil Rights. I also realize that protest is legally protected under the blessed First Amendment, HOWEVER, I firmly believe there is a proper time and place for everything, and I, personally, have always found rude, "in-your-face public" confrontations at public performances or formal presentations -- of ANY kind -- to be obnoxious and objectionable in the extreme.

Such people should spotted well in advance, accosted by armed guards and firmly escorted to the nearest paddy wagon BEFORE they can make a scene.

You want to protest?


Go hire a hall on your own, invite the public to hear you, then bitch, moan, whine, shriek and roar till the cows come home. Just stay away from OTHER PEOPLES' events.

JonBerg said...

"JonBerg, are you saying that dictionary defines GAY as THAT?"

Look again; the defined word is "perversion".

Ed Bonderenka said...

Sam +1.
And "perversion" and "depravity" aren't slurs, they are objective terms.

Mustang said...

The word "gay" was invented to avoid the words "queer" or "homosexual." As if pretending to be gay in any way substantially changes the fact that someone prefers same sex relationships. Which is damned odd if you ask me.

I seriously doubt if anyone here calls out to other people, “Hey … you queer.” Most of us have greater respect for others than that. But that doesn’t change what they are, which is nothing to do with “gay.”

Z said...

the point is that people HAVE said "hey, you queer"..not that you and I do it, Mustang.
Fine, if nobody thinks it's a hurtful term, you are all more than welcome to your opinion.
All I said was it's a tough and could be a hurtful term and I think we all know that.

FT...I don't think she had to threaten and I think the look on her face was horrifying.
As you know, I wouldn't take that kind of behavior from anybody in any group I spoke to , either, but I'd have handled it different. I don't threaten. I think that's childish and hubristic, too.

Ed, if you happened to be homosexual, I doubt if you'd think PERVERSION was a term that you felt was objective.

I hope we're all careful because sound byte/quick blog comments like ours can be taken wrong...and with no tonal inflection or faces to see, I hope we're all mindful of the fact that our friendship comes before our opinions!

KEep on, McDuff...this is interesting!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"And "perversion" and "depravity" aren't slurs, they are objective terms."

This is only true if a single individuals concept of morality is to be taken as objective.

What constitues the definition of morality differs even within societal groups of the like-minded.

Jack Whyte said...

An Army master sergeant was punished after he hosted a promotion party and served Chick-fil-A sandwiches in honor of the Defense of Marriage Act. The unidentified soldier was investigated, reprimanded, threatened with judicial action and given a bad efficiency report, according to the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

Sounds similar to the tactics used by the IRS. Do we have too much government, yet? Bad enough we are attacked by moslems, now our soldiers are being attacked by PC police, as well, who are wearing strikingly similar uniforms.

Ed Bonderenka said...

If I was a pedophile, I'd feel "perversion" was not objective, but it would be.
Perversion means the twisting of normal into abnormal...

Z said...

Ed, I think that definition stopped when "he's a PERVERT!" became common, don't you? PERVERSION started to mean something more pejorative than abnormal.

Jack, that is the most DISGUSTING story I've heard in a while.
I'll bet nobody'd get in trouble for hosting a "GAYS CAN BE OPEN NOW IN THE MILITARY" party, huh?

You see, it seems, more and more, that ONLY Christian/Conservative/Traditional values seem to be under scrutiny these days....
We're simply NOT ALLOWED to hold our viewpoints.

FreeThinke said...

Z, far be it from me to "correct" you, but your understanding of the term "queer" is not in accord with today's official thinking. I've never particularly liked the term " queer" either, BUT if we're going to make public statements, we MUST be aware that all over the country college courses in QUEER STUDIES are being taught with a syllabus created and exhibited mostly by openly-homosexual psychologists, psychiatrists, and college professors of both sexes with earned Ph.D's, et al. now consider "Queer" The Term of Choice not of opprobrium.

It's very much like all the other leftist incursions wrest control of the language by declaring long-established polite, respectable, perfectly acceptable terms suddenly VERBOTEN.

1. Afro-American, then African-American, and "black," instead of Negro

2. Native-American instead of Indian

3. Ms instead of Miss or Mrs.

4. Beijing instead of Peking or Peiping

5. Asian instead of Oriental

6. Mumbai instead of Bombay

7. Myanmar instead of Burma

8. STD instead of Venereal Disease

9. Physically Challenged instead of Crippled

10. Intellectually Challenged instead of Mentally Retarded

And on and on. There's no end to the PC influence on language.

I'm certain it's a very DELIBERATE attempt to confuse and disorient the Old Guard and cause greater division between the generations. "They" get control of the culture this way, and most aren't the least bit aware of.

It's a MESS.

Anonymous said...

"I doubt if you'd think PERVERSION was a term that you felt was objective."

But it is...and that's their entire change the agenda...and the truth to fit their definition of...well...sodomy as somehow, being just a benign ...."gay" activity.

Z said...

THanks, FT....don't worry, I don't need "correction" make good points and it's still a pejorative term to me because of how I've heard it used.
And, as I said, if homosexuals want to use it, FINE.
If straights want to use it, FINE.
Not me...that's all.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ironically, sodomy is not an exclusively gay activity.

Ducky's here said...

Let's see what's happening here.
A single study promotes what the right accepts as truth so it is presented as absolute fact.
No questions raised but we don't expect the fringe right to be very inquisitive, do we?

Then we go completely off the tracks with Sammy prattling on about what he considers normal.

Meanwhile back on earth:

"It’s unclear who provided Regnerus with this media training guide, but the document reveals a clear intention to distort the data. The largest flaw is that it compared broken homes in which a parent had a same-sex relationship with intact opposite-sex homes. Only two of the individuals in the study were actually raised from birth by committed same-sex parents, hardly enough to draw any conclusions about the outcomes of same-sex parenting. In these talking points, “same-sex household” and “intact families” are presented as mutually exclusive, ignoring the many intact same-sex families and broken opposite-sex households."

Please note the the author of the study himself admits issues with his selection process.
It's all out there but this thread seems quite happy to simply accept whatever conforms to their predetermined world view.

Z said...

CI.....I"d hesitated to say that, but that is true! :-)

Ducky, you still don't get it, do you.
It's important to see studies from all sides. Of COURSE you have a problem with this one, it's not your agenda, and not the agenda of your media or values gods, either.
And Gee, the author of a study dealing with human beings admits it's not perfect?
holy COW...alert the media.

You can't GET perfect statistics; these are PEOPLE, DUCKY....even if you are a leftwinger and want everyone in Mao jackets, identical in appearance and income, that's not the real world. People are variable, they are different in a billion ways; studies are done to open conversation to looking at things from all sides...Or used to be; now they aren't and you've become used to one viewpoint (yours), so this one that does bothers you . I get that.

Sam Huntington said...

Well Ducky, I never made this a personal contest by mentioning your gay parents.

Ducky's here said...

No, I get it just fine, z.

Mustang posts this study up as absolute truth.

Research uncovers serious problems.

The study was 100% funded by a fundamentalist think tank and the professor has a history or political activism against gay marriage. None of this appears in mustang's post.

Now that the whole think is exposed you start walking it back.

I understand just fine.

Ducky's here said...

That was a terrific comeback, Sam.

Ducky's here said...

Sam, was that you on the Orange this morning?

JonBerg said...

IMP said...

"that's their entire change the agenda...and the truth to fit their definition of...well...sodomy as somehow, being just a benign ...."gay" activity."

Yes,and the "truth" isn't always nice but it's always the TRUTH!

Z said...

Ducky, who's walking what back?
I'm standing by that study JUST AS you'd stand by studies YOU like.
Don't be ridiculous and please stop the smug thing, it's not becoming.

Ever seen a liberal post or article in your media that reminded readers that the author is a far leftwinger or that what he's talking about could be skewed? :-) (ya, right)

I've had to say this nearly every comment because you still don't get it: This is just as valid as anything you quote. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid.

By the way...go ahead; prove to us that an intact family of mom and dad (female and male, by the way) isn't better for any child.
Start now.
You could get some pointers from Pris.

Ducky's here said...

z, you ever read the Daily Howler?

Happens quite often.

Eschaton is often critical of loopy lefty theory.

Meanwhile, back in you Mao jacket (I hated those things).

Anonymous said...

"sodomy is not an exclusively gay activity."

No...but it's a singular choice for gay's...there is no other...for gay "men" that is.

Anonymous said...


"he "truth" isn't always nice but it's always the TRUTH!"

Pesky, irritating little fact, isn't it?

Z said...

Ducky, One site's crticial..hurrah!

That might help you, Ducky.
You see, they attacked from all viewpoints...a better study.
Regnerus is a respected sociologist...don't make up the rules.

Z said...

and, by the way, if you think I literally mean Mao Jackets, you're either ignoring the obvious metaphor or just don't get that, either.

Anonymous said...


"intact family of mom and dad (female and male, by the way)"

I find that having to spell it out that way utterly bizarre and indicative of how far we've fallen.

Bob said...

Mustang, thanks for posting the link to the Regnerus study. I read this study several months ago when some other blog referenced it, and was please to revisit it.

@Ducky: " It describes a situation but what are the causes?" If you read the study, it makes no claim of identifying causality.

Where did you get the idea that the study was funded by a right-wing think tank? I think you may have assumed that, but I would truly like to know about the funding.

The study was not initiated to just find our about children in same sex marriage homes, it was structured to build a database of family related information for several types of studies.

From their random sample of 3000 people, they found many young adults who had been raised in same-sex homes, and compared their outcomes with other young adults from the same sample who were raised in heterosexual homes, good or bad.

Saying a study is BS is one thing, but doing actual intellectual work to show otherwise is not easy. It takes work, and understanding the methodology of the study.

I would advise you read at least the first couple of sections. You should learn a couple of things about how some studies are done.

Cheers - Bob

Kid said...

How about lesbian couples in California allowed to put "their" male child through sex changes at very early ages. You can find the story of tommy/tammy who was started into the process at 8 years old. What happens if and when he finds out he got into this through over-encouragement from 2 female parents. You know how kids Instinctively try to be like their parents. Children that young can be easily swayed. Especially if he hadn't even found a good use for his equipment yet. Let's be honest here with elements that are part of the picture.

This is insane.
8 years old. Unreal. I don't care what [they claim] the kid says.

In any case, children need as unbiased an environment as possible, at least. 2 females, or 2 males ain't gettin it most of the time is what I'm thinking.

Homosexuals are not equipped to produce a child naturally.

There are elements that argue against homo parents.

Having said that, I do believe there are same sex couples who would certainly provide a much more nurturing loving environment than the vast majority of Foster home which are predominately pedophile environments. I've heard people testifying to this.

No sex changes until at least 18. No beer until 18, or 21, so no sex changes.

The last thing I read about homosexuals is that there is a gene level imbalance that produces the body of one and mind of the other. If anything can be classified a medical condition, I'd say it's this gene deficiency/defect. Why not fix that instead.

Robert Sinclair said...

Well, there goes Kid again trying to interject logic and common sense into the middle of leftist squawking.

Anonymous said...

OT but...this is relative to the IRS, Ap, Benghazi fiascos and the lying corrupt 'transparency" of this fascist administration... a sampling:

"It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

The court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the Obama administration's surveillance activities.

For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on "secret legal interpretations" to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be "stunned" to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.

At the conclusion of that investigation, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho who chaired the investigative committee, warned: "The NSA's capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter."

So maybe the FEMA camps...the billions of rounds of ammo and all...are beginning to make some sense?

Kid said...

Robert Sinclair, Sorry, it's a gene defect... I mean, it must be.

Thx though :)

Bob said...

@Ducky : "Only two of the individuals in the study were actually raised from birth by committed same-sex parents,"

I see you went to the Think Progress website, and had a gulp of their intellectually vacuous KoolAide. You would do much better by READING THE DAMNED STUDY YOURSELF! The "committed same-sex parents" argument is a strawman, and has nothing to do with the study.

The study tag line reads, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study"

There is a subtle difference, there. GHEEEZ!

Kid said...

IMP, Ok, you did OT, so I can do OT.

Folks, In What Freakin Universe do people get blown up in Boston by Chechyn Immigrants living large on Welfare, who were specifically Called Out by Russia to Our Intelligence people who are all under one homosexual (see there is a tie in) Roof, called DHS and janet, using decades old terrorist tactics (unattended luggage and
Let alone does this incredibly transparent FAILURE from the top to the bottom rung of terrorist attack security responsibility get mentioned in the media.

Let's see.
administration democrat - check
massachewsits democrat - check
Bahston democrat - check

We ain't bringing THIS shit up in the news !

How many people realize this? 1 in 2 million?


Constitutional Insurgent said...

Bob - "Where did you get the idea that the study was funded by a right-wing think tank?"

FWIW, the study was funded by the right -wing Witherspoon stated by the author.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - I can tell you that the underlying problem with the Boston bombers, is that derog information wasn't anywhere near sufficient to warrant further discovery. They were watch-listed in TIDE, which was appropriate.

The sheer amount of people who we maintain foreign IC tip reports on, is such that we would have to recruit nearly every able bodied American to try and follow up and continuously track them.

That paradigm has nothing to do with any Administration, the same issue was present under the last. I work under that same 'homosexual roof' [see, I tied it in too!].

Anonymous said...


I see that we've been going straight to hell with these gender bender, AA, species, making our lives much more dangerous:

Susan going to the NSA? Jesus Help us. and of Benghazi lying for 2 weeks fame..gets a promotion?

K. Sebellus..."some live and some die"

H. Clinton..."what difference does it make?'

Nappy Big Sis bull dyke...billions of rounds to the DHS...stopping border security....telling us we've never been more secure.

V. Jarret...who's really running the GD bling bling in the WH.

Kagan...nuff said. Probably secretly married to Bog Sis.

Sotomayor...probably is the worst nominee appointment to the SC..soley cause we needed Salsa and Latino flavors in the court?

( See a pattern here yet? )

Preceded by Madeline Halfwit Not too Bright as the first in the female experiments to see who could destroy foreign policy the fastest.

Don't we see that this...DOES NOT WORK?

Just like's's never worked.

Anonymous said...

@Kid...get this..

The disinformation that has accompanied the investigation and reporting of the Boston Marathon bombing has been nothing short of spectacular. Perhaps there is no greater example than Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s comments in the wake of the event.

When TheBlaze first began to dig deeper into the story of the Saudi national, who was once considered a ‘person of interest’ in the bombing investigation before being downgraded to a ‘witness,’ Napolitano refused to even entertain questions about Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi. She called Rep. Jake Duncan’s inquiry into the matter “so full of misstatements and misapprehension that it’s just not worthy of an answer.”

Well, apparently Napolitano had a change of heart because during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration reform yesterday, she responded to questions about the Saudi national posed by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

GRASSLEY: With regard to the Saudi student, was he on a watchlist, and if so, how did he obtain a student visa?

NAPOLITANO: He was not on a watchlist. What happened is — this student was, really when you back it out, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was never a subject. He was never even really a person of interest. Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watchlist, and then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.

The inconsistencies in this comment are truly unbelievable. First, Napolitano denies Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was on a watchlist, only to then confirm he was on a watchlist – but only because he was a witness and they didn’t want him to somehow get away. To further complicate matters, she then admits he was considered at least somewhat suspicious because it wasn’t until they “determined he had nothing to do with the bombing” that his name was removed from the watchlist.

Do you follow that?

“That doesn’t even make sense,” Glenn said exasperatedly on radio this morning. “Now, she’s trying to get you to believe that this Saudi Arabian national wasn’t a person of interest, they put him on a watch list because he was being interviewed. And once they discovered he wasn’t involved, this person who of course they knew she just said wasn’t a person even of interest, then they removed him.”

Kid said...

IMP, I hear you loud and clear. Too damn loud and clear.

Z said...

Robert, I was waiting for that exact thing from Kid. He never lets us down!

Bob...I, too, thought the first few paragraphs of that study (I linked it directly to those paragraphs in a comment above) threw Ducky's theory right out the door.

Imp, talk about all those billions of rounds of ammo the gov't bought recently: A friend said his brother's in the Army in AZ and they can't do any target practice, etc, because there "is no ammunition". What the...?
BILLIONS of rounds and we're not practicing ?? are they nuts?

CI, Regnerus is Right when he says "Yes. And the Ford Foundation is a pretty liberal one. Every academic study is paid for by someone. I’ve seen excellent studies funded by all sorts of interest groups. I don’t waste too much time worrying about the sources of funding, so long as the research questions are compelling and the data collection methods solid. Funding is hard to get these days. Witherspoon had nothing to do with the study design, or with the data analyses, or interpretations, or the publication of the study. To me, I treated it the same as if the funding came from NICHD or NSF."

I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about the funding, either, if you've got researchers who are really doing research and not just kissing up to their funding source.

It'd be so nice if we heard "lefting think tank" when they do reports, but that doesn't happen too often.
There isn't anything toxic about 'right wing'....but the left's made it as if there is.
That is what we have to stop. and we need to get back to news being given,not just the opinion of the messenger. That's what Breitbart was fighting so hard for.

Ya, I'd say "who cares who funded it to Ducky AND you"...the facts are there.

Anonymous said...


Since we buy the line that "not every mooslem is a terrorist"...but every terrorist so far has been a mooslem....I think it's clear who has to be...watched, flagged, bugged or sent home.

Z said...

CI, what is TIDE (not the leftwing TIDE FOUNDATION, right?)

Imp, I want you to watch CNN on and off the next few days. They're not covering the IRS scandal for more than a few minutes a day and have completely forgotten F&F, AP and Benghazi.
They've covered cruise ship problems, interviewed everybody's second cousin who was hit in the tornado, talked about the most inane things fill the space between ads. It's remarkable. Hearings are going on and you'll barely, if ever, hear about them there.

Kid said...

CI, There were no terrorist attacks resulting in deaths on the USA between 9-12-2001 and obama taking office.

There may be something there.

What we do know is that there WAS security assigned to the boston marathon. That they missed unattended luggage is inexcusable. We can argue over who's fault it was.

We'll have to because no on else is going to bring it up !

But it is pathetic. I traveled through Heathrow 4 times in 1990. I'm here to tell you if you left luggage unattended, it was taken away and blown up.
This tactic has to be #1 on any security detail's watch list.

Especially at the finish line. Let's see, where would I leave an explosive device at the marathon....

This was an incredible failure and it is being ignored, and we know if romney was in office - yes, it may have happened then too, this would be front and center and everyone with even a radio would know exactly what I'm talking about.

Anonymous said...


"A friend said his brother's in the Army in AZ and they can't do any target practice, etc, because there "is no ammunition". What the...?
BILLIONS of rounds and we're not practicing ?? are they nuts?.."

Seeing as how he's in AZ...Jan is probably under orders ( since the DOJ is suing her for enforcing Fed Immigration law ) not to make a racket as it scare the illegals crossing over and they might spill the milk and cookies we leave out for them?

And since he can't get's clear to me that Big Sis is getting to hoard them for her coming big plan to run the militia's, vets and patriots into camps under the orders of Jarret or Van Jones or Bill Ayers.

And don't think for a minute they're not above going after Joe Sixpack either. Cause to those latte lapping shits...we're all Joes and have to be feared...specially those T party types according to Jim MCDimwit!

Constitutional Insurgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

As someone who wasn't persuaded, at all, by the relentless Republican assault on conservatives (i.e. "Set your principles aside and vote for Romney anyway") I have to ask if pointing out the facts that Mitt Romney was pushing for homosexuality in the Boy Scouts 20 years ago and that as Governor of Massachusetts personally issued hundreds of gay marriage licenses and directed his state agencies to give gay couples preferential treatment in child adoption proceedings - if all that is still "ammo for the left" - or just true.

And if true, and we're to be disturbed by the social results of placing children with homosexual couples or under their supervision, are we as conservatives (those of us who actually are...) relieved that the man who facilitated the very thing decried by this post is not currently President?

Kid said...

IMP< You know, I don't have every detail on these POS's because I don't want to give them that much free rent space in my brains but here ya go on old janet.
She has Never said anything that made the least bit of sense or contained the least bit of honesty.

Remember the swine flu? If I hadn't been looking at new page I'd never know this becuase it was taken down and trashed after about 5 minutes.... janet ordered all travel to Mexico cut off because of the mexican swine flu, called the swine flu. Someone obviously called here and told to stfu about things she has no business getting involved in.

Then when the underwear bomber got onto a plane overseas and lit his underwear on fire, she said "The System Worked". someone explain that one.

Then she siad, the border with mexico has never been more secure.

There have been 100 or more of these total moronic statements from the Head of DHS and nada consequence or criticism.

she makes biden look like einstein.

Someone should write a book. It'll make good humor someday, but it won't be me.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

*edited for grammar

"There may be something there."

As there may be something in the amount [or not] of actual attempts.

Whether or not the unattended bags being missed is inexcusable is subject to debate and assessment, but it's certainly not debatable that an area target such as the finish line of the marathon is a security nightmare. You simply can't lock it down in the same way that you can a permanently static area such as an airport.

I would guarantee that red teaming the same scenario with bags dropped in crowds of people, the bags would go unnoticed in most iterations. The sheer mass of people in close proximity, mitigates most camera angles, as well as LEO assessment of whether a bag is unattended, or simply belongs to the person closest to it.

This scenario isn't a political or dereliction of duty problem, it's logistical.

Kid said...

CI, How many people had backpacks there ?

How hard would it be for people with an elevated position to be able to keep tabs on the people with backpacks.

I don't have the numbers but I still view this as a spectacular failure.

Anonymous said...


BTW..if he's in the army in AZ...most likely he's at the base in Nogales. Right smack on the border with the narco terrorist state of Mexico. Now wonder they can't get ammo...they're not supposed to fight back..nor protect the border. A mexican might get hurt. Or a terrorist crossing.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - No way of knowing how many backpacks were in attendance, but they're certainly not uncommon.

Next time you are near a crowd of roughly the same size and footprint of the marathon finish line, go to an elevated position, and see how well you would be able to spot not only two unattended backpacks at ground level, but also determine that they did not belong to anyone nearby.

Anonymous said...


"She has Never said anything that made the least bit of sense or contained the least bit of honesty."

And you expected what from a High school grad?

"Janet Napolitano is the first woman to serve as the United States Secretary of Homeland Security ( and needs to be the last ! ), in office since 2009. Napolitano, a member of the Democratic Party, serves in the administration of President Barack Obama.

Born: November 29, 1957 (age 55), New York City, NY

Nationality: American ( criminal )
Office: United States Secretary of Homeland Security since 2009
Parents: Jane Marie Napolitano, Leonard Michael Napolitano
Sandia High School (1975),
Siblings: Leonard Michael Napolitano Jr., Nancy Angela Haunstein

Anonymous said...


"see how well you would be able to spot not only two unattended backpacks at ground level.."

New York seems to do that well on the subways and in Grand Central and the other transport centers / hubs.

Kid said...

CI, Let's imagine you're right then for the sake of the abstract.

SO - what is to keep the vermin from doing this at will all over America all day long. Are you conceding we are totally defenseless against such an unsophisticated attack?

How can that be?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

@Impertinent - I'm not sure what metric for success you'd be using, but those locations are also permanent, static targets.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - I'm not conceding that were totally defenseless, but we are simply unable to secure every event or location that can be a potential target for terrorist attacks.

Often times the more unsophisticated the method or device, the more difficult it is to detect/mitigate.

Anonymous said...


"I'm not sure what metric for success you'd be using..."

To replace Boston cops with New York cops or Transit cops?

Kid said...

CI, You're sounding a lot like an apologist.

Anonymous said...


" I'm not conceding that were totally defenseless..."

Yea we long as we still refuse to profile.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"You're sounding a lot like an apologist."

Apologist for whom, and how do you figure?

You've castigated the LEOs on site in Boston, as well as the Administration...yet offered no solution for how to prevent a similar attack.

Logistics trumps rhetoric every time; terrorist attacks or how to combat them are no different in that regard.

Kid said...

CI, Kid - I'm not conceding that were totally defenseless, but we are simply unable to secure every event or location that can be a potential target for terrorist attacks.

Often times the more unsophisticated the method or device, the more difficult it is to detect/mitigate.

We're not talking about the red hat ladies parade in Gary Indiana.
We're talking about teh Boston Marathon, and We're talking about Identified terrorists living in Boston, AND we're talking about all sorts of security minded people being successful in thwarting such an attack, and Heathrow is a LOT bigger and a LOT more complex than the finish line at the marathon.

I'm calling bullhit on your whole schtick here. Seriously.

Anonymous said...


Suppose we just admitted that all mooslems...are Zombies? Would that make it work for us?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Call BS all you like. You ignore logistical facts. Not to mention inconvenient facts such as the bombers not being identified terrorists prior to the bombing.

Rhetoric is easier...I get that. But it's no substitute for logic.

Kid said...

CI, yet offered no solution for how to prevent a similar attack.

Talk to Israel. Talk to security at Heathrow, or the Underground in London, or a hundred other airports and large human traffic venues that have been able to thwart such attacks for decades now.

Apologist for the media, the administration and the inept security.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

If you have a wealth of experience in analyzing ad hoc security cordons versus static cordons, and can detail how the LEOs explicitly failed in mitigating the attack, I'm all ears.

Kid said...

CI, Not to mention inconvenient facts such as the bombers not being identified terrorists

What am I missing. It's common knowledge these punks were named by Russian intelligence to our intelligence people long before the bombing.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

The Tsarnaev brothers were passed by FIS to the US as a tip for watch listing. They had committed no crime prior to the bombing, and as such, can not be considered "identified terrorists" prior to that event.

If you also have an explanation for how we could track every single tip passed to the IC, or even every single person who is enrolled in TIDE...again, I'm all ears.

Kid said...

CI, If you have a wealth of experience in analyzing ad hoc security cordons versus static cordons, and can detail how the LEOs explicitly failed in mitigating the attack, I'm all ears.

*I* don't. I simply recognize that a multitude of security organizations around the world are able to prevent such things, especially against well known tactics.

It's late I'm outta here.
I need to work tomorrow to pay my taxes so we can provide thousands in welfare to terrorist immigrants and other vermin.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

BTW, how many terrorist attacks have bee thwarted at Heathrow? Do you know?

Kid said...

CI, Get me Janet's job and I'll show you something OK?

Anonymous said...

NYT has an article up on the Cambridge could it happen here bullshit...we're so open to diversity and tolerant...

You know...all the mea culpa cause they were so open and tolerant.

Maybe now that 3 are dead and 260 very messed up....they'll cut the crap and realize that no matter how much hugs they give...many will still turn their backs on them...and buy pressure cookers to stuff into backpacks.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Get me Janet's job and I'll show you something OK?"

I'd actually like to angle for that gig, but you can go first.

Mustang said...

No matter how many attacks have been thwarted inside the US ... the Patriot Act was a colossal mistake. It needs to be repealed.

Elmers Brother said...

There is this

Mustang said...

Masha Gessen is a talented writer in the same way that the Marquis de Sade was a talented writer ... and nuttier than a fruitcake.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I'm not going to sign up for her newsletter, but she reiterates a common point that makes me think.

If gay marriage doesn't redefine my marriage, does it in fact redefine marriage?

TSWS said...

Two guys holding nap-sacks, with the same identifiable tags as the two set off by the local leos-looked like cia or some sort of military black ops. does you all remember that 4 pressure pots were there that day at the event-reported the first day and then not narry a word after that, only two bros were focused on.
Yea there were two guys with those nap sacks in the video and then they were not holding anything latter in the video just like the two bros. but no talking on the news about them----oh, wait there was a question asked of the FBI spokesperson. He said don't look at those videos - only the video we show you. {??????}
Were the two bros involved ? Probably the hyped up fall guys--remember the toy car electronics used to be the send off, even the BI said that every thing was more specifically detailed than those two stupid bros could find on the internet.
Just saying that the IRS and Bengusi and AP and and Nominations and every distraction possible to change direction of concentration and focus is being used to change the precedent of law so they can take away our 1st and 2nd Amendment and the other 8 Bill of Rights; HELL NO ONE SEEMS To Be Fighting For Them. Speeches in the Hearing are good but no one is putting the Congress on notice, like Stating the 14th Amendment Section 3 solution to our Right to Drop the Hammer on their toes.
Remember I asked ALL of you to blog about it, then maybe the wronged People in the Hearings just might have read one of the 100dreds' of blogs. I have as such as sounding like a broken record--but then no one reads my blog anyway, cause I sound like a not knowing what I'm talking about anyway.
If the Repubs were not sent back to take the House would we be hearing about all of this stuff?
The Dems were counting on taking back the House-but- then decided to flood all the scandals all at once to stall for time.
Hillary signed the UN treaty to take our guns---that is OBO next exc order while we are crying about our 1st Amendment

Mustang said...

It would have to depend on how you define marriage.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"It would have to depend on how you define marriage."

Agreed. Which is why I'm both turned off and entertained by some of the chattering class telling me how my marriage will be destroyed.

Mustang said...

Generally, I'm opposed to the idea of polygamous communes. Not because of the multiple partners, but rather because of the sheer weight of the honey do list associated with 26 or more wives. Pure nuts.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Excellent observation. That could be construed to also indict the institution of marriage itself. Maybe the poly- lifestyle is the long game though....lots of kids =lots of minions to do chores.

There are certainly days where I would caution gays from entertaining the notion of marriage, merely from the standpoint of being married.

TSWS said...

Kid is right - there was a drill right before the Event......Maybe just for a SHOW!

TSWS said...

Drawing a line in the sand in Tennassee
Anti-Muslim Internet Posting will be prosecuted as a civil rights violation.
US Attorney Killian and FBI Special Agent Moore told the audience that if you defame Islam and engage in hate speech towards Muslims that you will be prosecuted to the fullest. Killian gave a power point presentation on what constituted hate speech under US law.
The FBI and the Department of Justice are already attempting to implement the sharia blasphemy laws.
Here comes just another attack on the 1st Amendment

TSWS said...

One source told of military that came down from Fort Campbell, Kentucky especially to attend this event. Members of the contingent commented to one audience member, “We fought this in the sandbox against Sharia, and we came home to find that it is happening here and now.” Many in the audience were veterans and of a similar cast of mind.

FreeThinke said...

When it comes to Islamics among us there is ONE SANE thing to do:




Those who would be kind to the cruel are sure to be cruel to the kind."

"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)


Radical Redneck said...

Did you know uber leftist Glenn Greenwald and the left leaning UK Guardian were secret teabaggers?">

KayInMaine ‏@KayInMaine 55m @TPM Here it is in 10 seconds: Greenwald & the GuardianUK are in cahoots to take down Obama so as to protect Bush & Cheney!

Bob said...

@constitutional insurgent
FWIW, the study was funded by the right -wing Witherspoon stated by the author.

Thanks, CI. I appreciate the link. I did not see anything in the study's abstract, or the body of the study about funding, but it is not unusual for me to miss something.

As most people realize, it is a logical fallacy to judge a study by the funding authority. Many foundations sponsor studies, but many don't go to the extent of publishing a peer reviewed paper in the academic literature.

As you know, this study was sponsored by The University of Texas who monitored the design, sampling process, and analysis of the data. Folks at UT Austin are about as liberal as you can get.

The deal is if you cannot challenge the work itself, then you will not find anything upon which to refute a study based on who funded it. For example, the Federal Government funds billions of dollars of scientific and social research every year, and yet all that government money should be considered as politically tinged, i.e., a political body is furnishing the funds.

Yet, much of the research funded by the Federal Government turns out to be incorrect in one way or another.

Z said...

Radical "protect Bush and Cheney"? They're not like HOlder; they don't need much protection from anything.
Delighted to hear when anybody loves this country to understand and join the Tea Parties, though. Thanks for that information; not sure it's real, but what the heck...

Bob, excellent point about the Fed Gov't research. Not only that, but why are they spending millions of dollars on the sex lives of fleas and other such ridiculous stuff? That's horrifying$$$$n WHat a lot of wasted research they're doing.
I agree about the study; seems valid and very well motivated and respected by both sides.
I guess it just throws the Left to have information they don't count on.

Kid said...

Bob Yet, much of the research funded by the Federal Government turns out to be incorrect in one way or another.

That's because -all- government grants are nothing more than money laundering for gutzbas, pizannos, payback pals, friends, family and others.

Z said...

Kid, why else would they come up with THE nuttiest ways to spend our money?! PAYBACKS to goofballs who want grant money and are in the family, or paid a lot to support the party, etc...and that's BOTH parties

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Bob - I concur with the assessment of studies. One cannot logically refute a research study if one cannot show quantifiable error in the foundational assessment, methodology or key findings. Opinion surveys are a bit easier to challenge, given the latitude in which vague or generic questions can be posed. But although there might be hopeful findings on the behalf of the funding source, one cannot begin to refute a study based on that entity.

Z - Though Glenn Greenwald is a Liberal in many respects, he has also been a strident and consistent civil libertarian. Not really sure of any intent on his part to join the tea party though.

Bob said...

CI: My problem is that I don't have time to read and analyze every controversial study that comes along, not do I have expertise to handle a good many of them.

I don't know if Regnerus study was correct or not, but from what I read it looked pretty good. Until somebody comes up with a convincing counter-analysis, I will keep the study in the OK column.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Bob - I'm with you there. Too many studies, not enough time...or interest. For me, a study has value if it can [or should] affect policy. The study showing that children reared in households with homosexual parents have the same issues that exist in households with heterosexual parents.....yawn.

There's no 'so what' factor at play. But it is entertaining to see how these studies are used as political footballs, by all parties involved.

beamish said...

Did you know uber leftist Glenn Greenwald and the left leaning UK Guardian were secret teabaggers?

Leftists in the Tea Party? Man, what's next, raisins in raisin bran?