The Republican Club of Sun City N E W S L E T T E R

July 2015

Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

rcsctx.com

(Subjects of Reports in This Issue: Signers of Declaration, Islam and Violence in Garland, Conservative Women Listed “Extremist” by SPLC, Same-Sex Parenting, Transgenderism, Forgiveness)

STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER TO ADDRESS CLUB

Nita Davidson, who represents Williamson and other central Texas counties in Senate District 5 on the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC), will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 16 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City.

According to its bylaws, the SREC is composed of a chairman, a vice chairman (one a man and the other a woman) and two members from each of the 31 senatorial districts (also one a man and the other a woman) all to be elected at the Party’s  biennial state convention, as prescribed by the Texas Election Code.

The SREC is the governing body of the state party and, in that capacity, establishes general policy and is responsible for the general supervision and management of the party. It fosters and encourages growth by  promoting party principles as expressed in the the platform and by promoting the election of Republican office holders.

Our speaker has credentials in several respects as a conservative grass-roots activist. In connection with her duties as a member of the SREC, she attends quarterly meetings of that group in Austin, helps county chairs fulfill their duties, and serves as a liaison between the community and the State Party. The SREC makes recommendations to both the Texas Legislature and the national party, which means that citizens wishing information about various matters or wishing to promote certain policies or laws should contact her in that regard. She is vice president of the county party.

At the grass-roots level she has been active in several capacities, having been an election judge/early voting supervisor/ballot tester/early voting board member for 14 years. In addition, she has been a participant in phone banking, block walking and county headquarters receptionist.

She is experienced in home-schooling. As the effects of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage become known, there is likely to be much more parental interest in private schools and home-schooling. Our speaker has had 26 years experience as a home-school educator, having home-schooled all four of her children. She has served as director of a local home-school support group and currently serves on the board of directors of the Texas Home Educators. Her extensive experience in this area is likely to prove invaluable as parents become aware especially of the anti-religious, anti-family affects that the Supreme Court ruling is likely to have on the curricula taught in the public schools, and will begin to consider alternatives.

Because of her experiences, she has much to offer attendees about the operations of party, from the grass-roots level through the state level.

BEGINNING TIMES:   Social Hour – 6:00 PM;   Dinner – 6:30 PM;   Program – 7:00 PM (approx.)

MENU:  caesar salad, meatballs in marinara sauce, chicken alfredo, sauteed vegetables, garlic cheese bread, strawberry cheese cake mine tarts, beverages.

COST:  Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to “The Republican Club of Sun City” should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633. The deadline for payment or reservations is Friday, July 10.

Bill Harron, treasurer, has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 125 Stetson Trail for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments. For information about reservations, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME! (Non-members may attend a maximum of two meetings per year – as participants in the dinner or as observers – without having paid membership dues.)

HEADMASTER OF CLASSICAL ACADEMY TO ADDRESS CLUB IN AUGUST

Dr. Kathleen O’Toole, nee Arnn, founding headmaster of Founders Classical Academy in Leander, a tuition-free charter school, will address the club during its dinner meting scheduled for Thursday, August 20. This educational institution was created as a result of a collaboration between Hillsdale College and ResponsiveEd, Texas’ largest public charter school holder.

Dr. O”Toole’s father is Dr. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College and a person widely-known for his work in promoting the values of our nation’s founders. He was speaker at a club meeting several years ago.

More information about the August meeting will be provided in the August newsletter.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

The “Subjects of Reports in This Issue” phrase shown in the masthead of this issue, and to be shown in  future issues, and some past issues is part of a plan to enable readers, when they wish to re-read a report, can, by using a scroll process, more easily find the desired report.

Club vice president (for membership) John Congdon reports current membership stands at 266; club treasurer Bill Harron reports there were 115 attendees at the June dinner meeting with an additional 3-4 individuals attending as observers.

THE AMERICANS WHO RISKED EVERYTHING:

THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Will Their Sacrifice Become in Vain During Our Watch?

Following are excerpts from an essay written by Rush Limbaugh’s father about the signers of the Declaration

of Independence. They are published periodically in a newsletter near the time of an Independence Day celebration.

The Declaration is Adopted. Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote. Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: “I am no longer a Virginian, Sir, but an American.” But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

The Signers. What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the Crown? To each of you the names of Franklin, Adams, Hancock, and Jefferson are almost familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56, almost half – 24 – were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, 9 were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th century. Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it.

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember: a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York harbor.

Even before the last [of the signers] was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Francis Lewis, New York delegate, saw his home plundered and his estates, in what is now Harlem, completely destroyed by British soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners, she died from the effects of her abuse.

John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never say them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home, they found it a devastated ruin.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark. He gave his sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to the infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York harbor known as the hell ship “Jersey” where 11,000 Americans were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when offered him his son’s lives if he would recant and come out for the King and parliament. The utter despair in this man’s heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each of us down through 200 years with his answer:  “NO!”

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create, is still intact.

The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

VIOLENCE AT GARLAND REVEALS AMERICANS ARE

DEEPLY DIVIDED ABOUT THE NATURE OF ISLAM

Foreword. The reader will recall that security guards killed two Islamist terrorists who were attempting to kill the participants at an event held in Garland, Texas where they could display depictions or cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

The violence triggered much harsh criticism generated by personalities representing well-known media outlets of the main sponsor of that event, Pam Geller, head of the American Defense of Freedom Initiative (AFDI)

But this harsh criticism, itself, should perhaps be subject to criticism because of a lack of effort to examine evidence that Islam is an adversary of America, and a lack of effort to examine, without benefit of context or history, whether Islam is a “religion” or more. This report is an attempt to provide some balance to those “lacks.”

The Attacks of Geller. As is evidenced by the following examples, the attacks on Geller were exceedingly vicious, suggesting that, in the eyes of critics, Geller’s motives were personal, without any legitimate justification.

∙ Brent Bozell reports that Chris Matthews blamed AFDI for “causing” or “provoking” the shooting. NBC terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann even claimed they were not holding a free-speech event: “These people are not standing by that principle; they’re standing by the principle of hatred for other people.”

∙ The New York Times stated, “There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however, offensive as they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech . . . But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest at Garland was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.”

∙ Ben Shapiro reports that Bill O’Reilly announced that Pamela Geller threatened American national security. “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid . . .It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad.” Juan Williams stated that Geller “engaged in gratuitous offensive behavior that led to the deaths of two people.”

Is Islam More Than a Religion? While the term “religion” may conjure up images of primarily a set of often staid pronouncements about theology, there is general agreement among scholars on Islam that it is more than a religion. Note that according to Wikipedia, the Koran “deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business laws, sexuality and social issues.” It is therefore sometimes referred to an an ideology.

Tarek Fatah, a Somali-born activist who calls for reform, states, “The difference between Muslims and other religious believers is that many Muslims still believe in the mixing of religion and politics, whereas the rest of the world now uses faith mainly as a moral compass, rather than a basis for legislation.”

Is Islam a Religion of Peace? An op-ed piece appearing in the may issue of the Austin American-Statesman, a paper having considerable readership, attempts to make the case that Islam is a religion of peace by citing some verses from the Koran. Some examples, with verse numbers shown in parenthesis, follow:

∙ “and let there always be among you a body of men who should invite to goodness.” (3:105) [Cited by the writer as indication that Islam invites healthy and intelligent dialogue]

∙ “Sit not with those who indulge in such talk . . . “ (4:141) [Cited as indication that Muslims should ignore such insults as those incited by Geller’s event]

∙ “You shall surely hear many hurtful things . . . But if you show patience and fortitude and act righteously, that indeed is a matter of high resolve.” (3:187) [Cited as a message for Muslims who resort to violence]

In addition to a large segment of our society being in agreement with the general thrust of the op-ed piece is the fact that our administration refuses to identify Islam as our adversary and a perpetrator of violence. The classification of the massacre at Fort Hood as “workplace violence”  – when there was ample evidence the act was in accordance with Muslim doctrine – is one of several instances when the true nature of Islam is not being recognized by our administration and other leftists.

Counter to the points made by the op-ed writer are other verses found in the Koran wherein the terms “kill,” “slay” or other terms commanding or condoning violence appear, such as:

∙ “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.” (verse 9:5)

∙ “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by
Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay compensation with willing submission, and feel themselves sudued.” (verse 9:29)

∙ “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.” (8:12)

How Are Contradictions in the Koran Handled? Contradictions in the Koran are handled by the doctrine of abrogation which, according to scholar Robert Spencer, means that later verses invalidate early verses. For example, “the violent verses of the ninth sura, including the Verse of the Sword (9:5) abrogate the peaceful verses cited above because they were revealed later in Muhammad’s prophetic career. (Note that the verses quoted by the op-ed writer to support his position are in the 3-4 range.)

Reaction of Europeans to a Similar Event. European reaction to the event known there as Charlie Hebdo is instructive when compared with the American reaction to the event at Garland. Columnist Dennis Prager explains: “After Islamists murdered 12 editors and writer of the Charlie Hebdo staff, millions of French citizens gathered to protest the murders . . . There were very few French voices blaming Charlie Hebdo for “provoking” the murders, or for being “haters.”  Further, “Danes organized a public event called “Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression” to show support for Charlie Hebdo and for freedom of speech” even though the event resulted in the murder of two people and wounding of five police officers.

Pam Geller’s Side. Columnist Bob Unruh provides statements revealing her side of the controversy:

∙ “It was the jihadis, not I, who made the cartoons a flash point. If we surrender on that point and stop drawing Muhammad, we’ve established a precedent of surrendering to violent Shariah enforcement, and once established, we will be made to reinforce it again and again.”

∙ The real problem is the Koran, which tells Muslims to “slay the non-believers wherever you find them” and those in the United States who teach violence [as commanded by the Koran] to their followers.

∙ “Roman Catholics don’t like their religion mocked or the mockery of other religions. But Roman Catholics don’t kill when their religion is mocked – and so no one talks about ‘provoking’ them or ‘respecting’ them. . . Why must we condescend to Muslims and think they cannot learn that?

Adherence to Commands of Muslim Leaders in Iran. Paul Marshall, writing in the February 2012 issue of Imprimis (a publication of Hillsdale College) notes that while there had been laws in the past preventing “insults” to religion, in the West, those laws were “only of historical interest.” But, continues Marshall, “That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill the British-based Salman Rushdie on ground that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous.” Fearing enforcement of that command, Rushdi has survived by living his life in hiding.

Individuals who are inclined to tolerate Islam should note the power exhibited by that Iranian leader when his command was followed by Muslims in other nations.

A Related Problem: The Non-Assimilation of Muslims. The mayor  of Irving, Texas, who had been locked in a bitter dispute with her council about the establishment of a Sharia Court there, explains that such courts have some legal standing when she points out: “Currently, Texas courts allow parties to subject themselves to foreign laws rather that state laws in family matters (see the case Jabri v. Qaddura from 2003). It states, “Once the party establishes the claim within the arbitration agreement, the trial court must compel arbitration and stay its own proceedings.”

But unlike the situation in Texas, other states have banned the establishment of Shariah law. Opponents argue that these bans are unnecessary. However, columnist Kirby Anderson contends they should look at a report from the Center for Security Policy which found “50 significant cases of Sharia laws in U. S. courts just from their small sample , , , Judges are making decisions deferring to Sharia law even when those decisions conflict with the U. S. Constitution and the various state constitutions.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal contends that Muslim enclaves are inevitable in America “if the country doesn’t insist that immigrant Muslims assimilate.” He then sound this warning: “We have communities of people that don’t want to integrate or assimilate . . . They are setting up their own culture to overturn our culture.”

Should the Right Use Alinsky’s Fifth Rule? Saul Alinsky’s Fifth Rule, stated in his book, Rules for Radicals, (the “bible” of the left) states: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

The left – through the media and the political process – has been highly successful in nullifying much of the conservative message. (Recall the treatment of George W. Bush on numerous occasions and Mitt Romney’s race for the presidency)

So why cannot the Gellers of the world – those who view Islam as a threat to the nation – also employ ridicule for their cause?

CONSERVATIVE WOMEN IDENTIFIED AS “WOMEN AGAINST ISLAM”

Lives May Now be in Danger

Originally concerned with civil rights issues, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) now lists individuals and organizations it considers worthy of placement on its “extremist watch list” in regard to matters other than civil rights issues – such as Islam and LGBT. Two of the conservative organizations listed as “hate groups” with which the reader may have some familiarity are, unbelievably, those concerned with promoting traditional family values – values now out of favor with the left – such as the Family Research Council (headed by Tony Perkins) and the American Family Association. (Dr. Ben Carson was on such list for a while.) Judicial Watch contends the SPLC is, itself,  an “extremist organization.”

While initially listing mainly organizations, the SPLC now lists individuals – specifically women – who have been branded not for promoting family values, but branded as “the core of the anti-Muslim right,” and as “a dozen of the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America.” Listed alphabetically, they are:

Cathie Adams (“Texas Eagle Forum”) Laura Ingraham (radio talk-show host)

Ann Barnhardt (Barnhardt.biz) Clare Lopez (Center for Security Policy)

Ann Coulter (author, columnist) Judge Jeanine Pirro (FoxNews host)

Brigitte Gabriel (speaker, author) Sandy Rios (“Sandy Rios in the Morning”)

Pam Geller (“Stop Islamization of America”) Debbie Schlussel (DebbieSchlussel.com)

Cathy Hinner (DailyRollCall.com) Diana West (DianaWest.net)

Judicial Watch, more specifically, details why some of these women have been targeted by the SPLC:

Pamela Geller is branded the “country’s most flamboyant and visible Muslim-basher;” Laura Ingraham for saying that hundreds of millions of Muslims were delighted that 12 people were massacred by Islamic terrorists in the Paris headquarters of a satirical magazine; former CIA agent Clare Lopez made the list for saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has “infiltrated and suborned the U. S. government to actively assist  . . . the mission of a grand jihad; Ann Coulter, among other offenses, according to the SPLC, is proclaiming that “not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims – at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America.”

Should the Listed Women be Concerned About Their Lives? An answer in the affirmative can be justified by several observations: (1) there have been attempts – sometimes successful, sometimes not –  on lives of individuals who spoke derisively in one form or another against the prophet Muhammad as evidenced by the attacks in Paris, Garland and elsewhere; (2) sections of the Koran command violence; (3) the Supreme Leader of Iran declared in 1989 it to be the duty of every Muslim to kill British writer Salman Rushdie causing him to go into hiding; (4) in August of 2013, a gunman responding to a listing of the Family Research Council on a SPLC hate list (similar to the present listing of women), attempted to kill members of the FRC team for which he is now serving a 25-year prison sentence; and (5) Pam Geller is now and has been for an extended period of time under protection 24/7.

SCIENCE, POLITICS AND SAME-SEX PARENTING

The “No Differences” Theory. In its 2004 endorsement of what is commonly referred to as the “no differences” theory, the American Psychological Association (APA) declared that “there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children,” and “research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”

These conclusions have been cited in numerous amicus briefs filed in court cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the marriage case argued before the Supreme Court on April 28. In fact, the reader may recall during the hearing of that case Justice Scalia asking the government attorney if the information he provided was the most recent, to which that attorney replied in the affirmative, thus leaving the “no differences” theory intact insofar as the Justices were concerned.

But Jamie Bryan Hall of the Heritage Foundation reports that, “In recent years, however, this position has been contradicted by more rigorous studies indicating that children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship face greater emotional, developmental, and other difficulties that those raised by mothers and fathers, particularly by their married biological parents.” The study of UT-Austin professor Mark Regnerus, in a comprehensive study involving 15,000 adults aged 18-39, confirm Hall’s report.

There were flaws in the earlier studies. Hall points out some them: (1) participants were aware of the purpose of study and thus may have been motivated to respond to produce a desired result; (2) participants were recruited through networks of friends or through advocacy organizations, thus affecting the sampling;  (3) some studies were based on a sampling of fewer than 40, a number too small to be statistically significant. Citizen, a Focus on the Family publication, reports that the APA resolutions affirming the same-sex marriage and parenting reports were based on recommendations from a task force that specifically excluded members holding traditional views. The integrity of anyone having to do with the flawed studies appears to have been compromised.

The question of integrity becomes amplified by a report from The American College of Pediatricians: “Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholarly associations – indeed, in part because of this – the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same-sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost totally without basis. All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy.” Is there not a violation of integrity to such degree as to warrant some public censure of some kind?

Childrens’ Rights Begin to Emerge. Many children raised by gay parents are now young or middle-age adults who can now articulate their childhood experiences. Some say their upbringing was positive, but a growing number are beginning to speak out against what they feel is a dysfunctional parenting model. Some believe their same-sex upbringing left them longing for a missing parent, confused about their own sexuality, and rudderless in navigating healthy opposite-sex relationships. Their reported experiences are in line with some of the recent reports referred to above.

The matter of “rights” now enters the picture. Author Daniel Divine notes, “The debate over legal privileges for homosexuals has emphasized right for adults, but these children, now adults themselves, say another right has been ignored: the right of children to have a mother and father.”

In other words, in addition to the flawed, biased and agenda-driven studies reported above about children of same-sex parents experiencing no deleterious effects, these children have had little, if any, opportunity to publicly express their feelings. But because they, as children, were the most innocent and probably had no advocate, they may now have the highest moral claim to be heard. Consequently, following are excerpts of often poignant letters of two former children – now adult parents – of same-sex parents.

Excerpts of Letters From Former Children of Same-Sex Parents. According to a report by Anderson, the New York Times ran an article profiling and quoting many children of gay and lesbian parents. But, typical of what may be biased reporting on the part of that paper, noticeably absent were comments from children who, while loving their two moms or two dads in a homosexual arrangement, expressed a yearning for both their mom and their dad.

In an open letter addressed specifically to Justice Kennedy before the hearing began, Katy Faust, raised in a same-sex household, but now a married adult and a parent of several children, concluded her letter with this strongly expressed admonition: “The bonds with one’s natural parents deserve to be protected. Do not fall prey to the false narrative that adult feelings should trump children’s rights. The onus must be on adults to conform to the needs of children, not the other way around.

Anderson reports on another child of two lesbians, Heather Barwick, who expressed similar concerns in a public letter of her own titled: “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting.” She then continues:

Gay community, I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s . . . Do you

remember that book, “Heather Has Two Mommies”? That was my life. My mom, her partner, and I lived in a cozy little

house in the ‘burbs of a very liberal and open-minded area. Her partner treated me as if I was her own daughter. Along

with my mom’s partner, I also inherited her tight-knit community of gay and lesbian friends . . .I still feel like gay people

are my people. I’ve learned so much from you. I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet. I don’t

support gay marriage.”

Anderson explains that Barwick illustrates a problem that while a same-sex marriage teaches the child that there’s nothing wrong with being deprived of a mom and a dad, that if a child aches and longs for the missing mom or dad, the problem is with the child, not the relationship. Anderson continues: “Redefining marriage will stigmatize the children of same-sex couples, because they will not be allowed to give voice to their experience of lacking a mom or a dad.

Berwick offers a compelling description of the difference between kids of divorce or adoption and kids of same-sex marriage:

Kids of divorced parents are allowed to say, “Hey, mom and dad, I love you, but the divorce crushed me and has been so hard. . .Kids of adoption are allowed to say, “Hey, adoptive parents, I love you. But this is really hard for me. I suffer because my relationship with my first parents was broken. I’m confused and I miss them even though I’ve never met them.”

But children of same-sex parents haven’t been given the same voice. It’s not just me. There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain . . .If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.

SCIENCE, POLITICS AND TRANSGENDERISM

The widespread publicity given to the gender conversion of Bruce Jenner to Cailyn Jenner, and the praise given to Jenner by President Obama – who stated,”It takes courage to share your story” – and by actress Ellen De Generes – who called Jenner “brave” – all seemed to indicate that the transgender process is now an appoved event – with no adverse effects.

And now the nation seems to be blindly plunging headlong into transgenderism. As was previously reported, former Attorney General Eric Holder, shortly before he left office, issued a memorandum, on his own authority, creating a special status for “transgendered” persons in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It means that, if child’s male teacher wants to dress as a woman, he is free to do so, and that, if a high school boy claims to be transgendered, he can use the girl’s rest room. As a result of Holder’s memo, the  Fairfax County (VA) school board voted to add “gender identity” as a protected class, apparently out of fear of losing federal funding if that action was not taken. In addition, one can learn of a number of lawsuits in which teenagers and others are claiming the right to use an opposite-sex restroom because of a gender conversion.

In its efforts to promote the LGTB cause, the left may have contributed to transgender procedures being inadequately vetted, placing participants at risk. Dr. Paul McHugh, psychiatrist, reports in an op-ed piece  appearing in a June 2014 issue of The Wall Street Journal on some of the adverse consequences which can come about from a gender change, particularly from surgery. In his op-ed piece, Dr. McHugh contends: “Sex change is biologically impossible . . . Claiming that this is a civil rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate and promote a mental disorder.”

That op-ed piece is extensively “excerpted” and presented in the January 2015 club newsletter available (or soon to be available) on the club’s web site, rcsctx.com The public should be aware of his report.

NOTES ON THE PASSING SCENE

(Some random observations on this crazy world in which we live)

∙ We are now less than nine months away from the March 1 presidential primary. By having its primary on March 1, the state will be allocating its delegates to candidates proportional to their popular vote in the primary. According to party rules, on March 15 states can begin to hold winner-take-all primaries. This means that Texas may be splitting its vote among 4 Texas-related candidates (Cruz, Paul, Perry, Bush) while in Florida, because its primary is on March 15, the winner (possibly Bush or Rubin) would receive 99 delegates with the loser receiving none. Other important dates for Williamson County Republicans in 2016 are: March 1 – Precinct Conventions; March 19 – County Convention; May 12-14 – State Convention; July 18-21 – National Convention.

∙ Sitting across the shooter who had just killed 9 blacks in a church, no one would have blamed the families for lashing out in anger – like rioting. Instead, one by one, racked by grief, they offered an unexpected gift – grace. “I will never be able to hold her again, but I forgive,” one daughter told the killer through her tears during the bond hearing. “We have no room hating, so we have to forgive.” Another daughter whose mother was killed said, “I forgive you. You took something very precious away from me . . .You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people. But if God forgives you, I forgive you.” Tony Perkins said “forgiveness [not the killing] became the story of the day.”  Those heart-wrenching stories bring to mind another report published in the February 2006 newsletter and reproduced below to close out this newsletter which reports on a now dysfunctional government with an uplifting story:

“End of the Spear.” Some of the more senior club members may recall hearing of 5 missionaries being brutally speared to death in 1958 in the jungle of Ecuador by warriors from a Stone Age tribe, the Waodini. What transpired in the aftermath of that terrible event provides for the reflective reader much food for thought about the good and evil nature of man.

The Waodini were rated by anthropologists as the world’s most violent society, one with a 60 percent homicide rate due mostly to intertribal feuds. They were totally lawless, refusing to submit even to tribal government. They killed outsiders. They killed each other. They even killed their own children. Deadly cycles of revenge had scattered them into small, paranoid factions. The tribe was destroying itself.

The tribe seemed unable to check its drift to extinction. There could be several explanations for why the tribe was not able to turn itself around. But one reason truces reportedly failed was that the tribe’s language had no words for abstractions such as “peace,” so even a concept of “peace” was foreign to the Waodini.

But then around 1959, a year or so after the murders, the unbelievable began to happen as the Waodini began to abandon the concept of revenge – with which they were so familiar – in favor of forgiveness – which to them had theretofore been inconsistent with their very nature.

What began to turn the tribe around was another unbelievable event. The widow and sister of two of the slain missionaries made their home with the individuals who murdered their loved ones.

Their sheer audacity and most of all their spirit of forgiveness sent shockwaves throughout the culture. The Waodani started listening to their message. They put down their spears, and the culture was utterly transformed.

In January of this year, a film, “End of the Spear,” which recaptured the tragic murder of those 5 missionaries and the remarkable  change of the Waodani, was shown in 1,200 theatres nationwide.

There may actually be other, but unreported, occurrences similar to the Waodini experience. Note that the American Enterprise reports, “520,000 Christian missionaries fan out across the globe each year . . .and every year, 130 missionaries are killed because of their commitments to spreading the Gospel”

(Source: World and various web sites)