Tag Archives: Social Justice

PETA calls for end of “anti-animal language”

Actions speak louder than words, PETA.

From MyFoxChicago: Old sayings may seem harmless, but, according to PETA, they could actually be viewed as anti-animal language and normalize animal cruelty.

The animal-rights group is pushing for “animal-friendly idioms” and provided a list of suggestions people can use to avoid offending vegans, PETA said. The group tweeted the alternative sayings Tuesday morning.

For instance, rather than saying, “bring home the bacon,” PETA suggested saying, “bring home the bagels.” Instead of saying “kill two birds with one stone,” they suggested, “feed two birds with one scone.”

“Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it,” PETA said in its tweet. “Just as it became unacceptable to use racist, homophobic, or ableist language, phrases that trivialize cruelty to animals will vanish as more people begin to appreciate animals for who they are and start ‘bringing home the bagels’ instead of the bacon.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Suicide: Seahawks’ Michael Bennett, others ask NFL to support social activism

michael bennett

Bennett (l) and his buddy Kaepernick. Turning the NFL into full-time social justice activism.


If the NFL goes full SJW for BLM, kiss the league goodbye.
From MyNorthwest.com: Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett is one of four NFL players that have sent a letter to the NFL requesting support from the league, general managers and owners for community outreach and social justice efforts on the part of its players. The players have also requested that the NFL recognize November as activism awareness month.
“We always have different months (when) we recognize different people or different issues in America, and we felt like that was a big issue,” Bennett told reporters Wednesday when explaining the idea. “We wanted to find a way to recognize it and be able to have that conversation (where) people can find information about things they want to get involved with.”
The 10-page memo, obtained by Yahoo! Sports’ Charles Robinson was reportedly sent to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in August by Bennett, Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins and wide receiver Torrey Smith, and former NFL wide receiver Anquan Bolden. The players requested the following of the league:
“To be clear, we are asking for your support. We appreciate your acknowledgment on the call regarding the clear distinction between support and permission. For us, support means: bear all or part of the weight of; hold up; give assistance to, especially financially; enable to function or act. We need support, collaboration and partnerships to achieve our goal of strengthening the community. There are a variety of ways for you to get involved. Similar to the model we have in place for players to get involved, there are three tiers of engagement based on your comfort level.”
Bennett has been an advocate for social justice issues and routinely speaks out about police brutality, racism, and inequality. This season, Bennett has chosen to sit for the national anthem, telling reporters the gesture is an effort to use his platform to oppose segregation and oppression. Several teammates, including center Justin Britt, defensive ends Cliff Avril and Frank Clark, running back Thomas Rawls, and cornerback Jeremy Lane, have shown public support for Bennett during his silent protest.
“I don’t know what the chances are (that the league accepts our proposal),” Bennett said. “Hopefully, the chances are 100 percent, but we’ll see. It takes a lot for a business or organization to get behind certain issues, and we’re hoping to keep pushing it to see if we can ever get to that place where we can be comfortable with talking about the issues that are going on around the country.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Washington voters to decide on nation’s first carbon tax

climate-change
From MyNorthwest.com: Washington lawmakers have tried and failed in recent years to make polluters pay for their carbon emissions to fight climate change. Now, voters will get to decide.
An initiative on the November ballot asks voters whether the state should impose the nation’s first direct carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline.
Sponsors say residents have a moral responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and a carbon tax is the best way to do it. The tax encourages businesses to conserve or switch to clean energy by making fossil fuels more expensive, and it makes the tax system fairer by using the revenues to reduce other taxes, they say.
Businesses say the tax will drive up fuel and energy costs and put Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage.
And in a move that has bewildered some, major environmental and other groups — including those that backed Gov. Jay Inslee’s proposal last year to cap emissions and make carbon polluters pay — oppose the initiative. They say it takes the wrong approach.

Yoram Bauman

Yoram Bauman


Yoram Bauman, an economist who founded Carbon Washington, the grassroots group that gathered more than 350,000 signatures to qualify Initiative 732, defended it as great climate and tax policy. “It does almost everything right for Washington,” he said.
Audubon Washington supports it. “Our members came down on the side of urgency. We don’t have time to wait,” said Gail Gatton, the group’s executive director. “Climate change is happening, and this is our best available option right now to protect birds.”
But the Sierra Club, Washington Environmental Council and the advocacy group Front and Centered say the initiative is the wrong carbon-pricing approach and will hurt the state’s revenues. Whereas Inslee’s pollution fee would have raised money for education, transportation, clean energy and programs to help disadvantaged communities affected by climate change, Initiative 732 provides no such investments, critics say.
Rich Stolz

Rich Stolz


“It’s not a path that makes sense for our communities,” said Rich Stolz, executive director of OneAmerica, which works on social justice issues. Stolz said the initiative ignores climate justice and lacks input from communities of color.
Stolz’s group is part of a coalition that worked on an alternative carbon-pricing measure. Last-minute talks between that coalition and I-732 supporters to collaborate on one ballot measure fizzled last year.
The initiative is designed to be revenue neutral, meaning the tax revenue increase from fossil fuels would be mostly offset by decreases in other taxes. In this case, revenues would be returned to people and businesses by cutting the state sales tax by one point, virtually eliminating business taxes for manufacturers and providing rebates for working families, sponsors say.
A state analysis, however, estimates the measure could cost the state about $800 million in lost revenues over the first six fiscal years. Initiative sponsors dispute the state’s analysis, saying it double-counted the rebates in the first year.
The carbon tax is modeled after one in the nearby Canadian province of British Columbia. California has a cap-and-trade program, which limits emissions and allows carbon polluters to buy and trade pollution credits. If approved, Washington’s carbon tax starts at $15 a ton of carbon emissions in July, goes up to $25 the next year and incrementally increases afterward.
The Washington State Tree Fruit Association, which represents growers, packers and marketers, is among those opposed. It takes a lot of fuel to grow and transport produce, and the tax will be paid by those in the state, not competitors outside it, said Jon Devaney, the group’s president. “Raising food prices in Washington state will make us less competitive compared to others,” he said.
Initiative sponsors say a $25 carbon tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 25 cents per gallon and the price of coal-fired electricity by about 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. They say power plants and fuel suppliers likely will pass those costs on to consumers, but that consumers will see price reductions in other things they buy because the sales tax is cut. The tax wouldn’t apply to electricity from renewables like hydro, wind or solar power.
The campaign has raised $1.2 million from nearly 1,200 unique donors; more than half of those total contributions are under $200. The No on 732 campaign sponsored by the Association of Washington Business has raised $300,000 to oppose the tax.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Sunday Devotional: Forgive

Colossians 3:12-17

Brothers and sisters:
Put on, as God’s chosen ones,
holy and beloved,
heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience,
bearing with one another and forgiving one another,
if one has a grievance against another;
as the Lord has forgiven you,
so must you also do.
And over all these put on love,
that is, the bond of perfection.
And let the peace of Christ control your hearts,
the peace into which you were also called in one body.
And be thankful.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly,
as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another,
singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs
with gratitude in your hearts to God.
And whatever you do,
in word or in deed,
do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God the Father through him.

water garden
Over the course of the last year, my parish church has become increasingly liberal (not that it was ever conservative). In the requests for prayers after the priest’s homily, there is much talk of “social justice” — praying for “justice” this and “justice” that. Never once are we asked to pray for the murder of innocent unborn. Never once are we asked to pray for forgiveness or even for God’s mercy.
Robert Enright quote
The streets of America reflect that self-righteous demand for “justice,” with endless and often violent protests hectoring about “justice” for Trayvon, for Michael Brown, for Eric Larson. Their “justice” turns out to be more about revenge than about what is right.
Thick Nhat Hanh quote
Researchers again and again have found that forgiveness is not just good for the recipient, it is also good for our own physical, mental and spiritual health.
The best definition of “forgive” I know is to refrain from wishing ill to the person who has hurt you, but instead wish him/her well. Don’t nurse the grievance and let it fester inside you.
But to forgive doesn’t mean to forget, for if we forget, we are simply setting ourselves up for a repeat of the offense. Nor does forgiving means we must approve of the offender or the offending act. Nor does forgiving means we must continue the relationship because sometimes the offense enables you to clearly see who that person really is. As a result, you simply no longer desire to be in his/her company.
Psychologist Everett Worthington has developed some techniques that prove useful. One of them is the two-chairs technique. Someone with a grievance sits in Chair A and addresses a real but absent offender sitting in Chair B, telling him how he feels. The subject is then asked to move to Chair B and respond as the offender might. Sitting in the offender’s place to explain why they acted as they did, the offended subjects are forced to think “outside the box,” to put themselves in the other’s place, perhaps seeing for the first time circumstances they had previously overlooked. This can open the way for seeing both sides of the story, and, eventually, to forgiveness.
How forgiving are you? There’s a 33-question quiz you can take to find out. Click here.
You may be surprised by the result. (Like you, I struggle with feelings of being hurt by others, with anger, with forgiveness. I was quite stunned that my quiz result was way on the far right end of “More forgiving.” I can only attribute that to God’s grace and infinite mercy.)
Our Father
May the Peace and Love of Jesus Christ, our Lord, be with you,
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

U.S. bishops betrayed the unborn, fearing Catholics would leave Democrat Party

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
-2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Mark Gallagher had worked with the Government Liaison Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Washington from 1974 to 2007. He was mainly responsible for lobbying Congress on abortion and programs for the poor.
In a stunning article for Crisis Magazine, Oct. 22, 2014, Gallagher gives a first-person account that after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling opening the floodgates to the killing of unborn human beings by legalizing abortion in the name of women’s “right to privacy,” Catholic bishops — putting “social justice” before the right to life — made a collective decision not to aggressively warn and inform the laity because they feared doing so would drive American Catholics away from the Democratic Party into the GOP.
Our Lord Jesus the Christ had warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-16)
These bishops have nothing less than the blood of innocents on their hands. They will be called to account for their grave sins before God.
Here is Gallagher’s article in its entirety.
JesusHoldingBabyClose

The Bishops’ Fateful Decision Respecting the Unborn

Mark Gallagher – Crisis Magazine – Oct. 22, 2014
In 1973 the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. It was projected that the decision would not just replace illegal abortions with legal ones, but that the total number of abortions would dramatically increase (it turned out by approximately a million a year). It was clear that there were only two remedies: the Supreme Court reversing it; or a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress and ratified by the states to overturn it. This required the election of presidents who would nominate Supreme Court justices not interested in creating constitutional rights to legal abortion, and the election of pro-life members of Congress to confirm the justices, and to propose a constitutional amendment. Elections were the key. How were the bishops to proceed?
The bishops’ conference staff provided two conflicting recommendations. As their pro-life lobbyist, I recommended that the bishops conduct a major campaign to educate and correctly form the consciences of American Catholics to their responsibility to elect candidates who support the Common Good, which is protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God (including the unborn). And those candidates who refused to support the Common Good would be morally unacceptable for public office. The laity’s responsibility included being involved in their political party so that Common Good candidates would be recruited and nominated for office.
The Social Development and World Peace staff at the bishops’ conference disagreed with this approach. They dealt with the economy, poverty, food policy, housing, human rights, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy, and felt their goals and prudential judgments were more reflected by the Democrats in Congress. I was told sometime later of their concern that Roe v. Wade would cause Catholics to seek the protection of the unborn by voting for Republicans (most were pro-life [90+ percent]) instead of Democrats (about 2/3rds were pro-abortion then [94 percent now]). This shift in the Catholic vote would necessarily hurt their legislative agenda. So a campaign should be undertaken to convince Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Their view prevailed and they pursued with the relevant bishops’ committees the first-ever Catholic voters guide published in 1976, called the “Political Responsibility Statement” (now called Faithful Citizenship). It would be the primary tool to achieve their objective. The document:
(1) Did not call upon Catholics to vote against a candidate who opposed the Common Good by supporting abortion. It cited no intrinsic evil that if supported would render a legislator morally unacceptable for office. And It did not include relevant Catholic moral theology: (a) that the constant teaching of the Church is that there are “certain choices that are always intrinsically evil” (i.e. abortion: … if one could eliminate all poverty in America at the cost of permitting the killing of one innocent person, that cost was too high and morally wrong); and (b) the applicability of proportionalism. According to one authoritative source, it holds that “the moral quality of an action is determined by whether the evils brought about by proposed action are proportionate to the goods the action effects. If the goods effected by the action are not in proportion to the evils caused, then the action is evil, but if they are, then the action is morally good.” First, there are no proportionate goods achieved by the killing of a million unborn each year. Second, voting American Catholics are not faced with any moral evils equivalent to abortion that might warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Voters have never been faced with the dilemma of choosing between a pro-abortion candidate and, for example, a rival candidate that would permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Or, by way of another example, Catholic voters do not have to choose between a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons. Voting for pro-abortion candidates in America has never been, and still cannot, be justified under the principle of proportionality.
(2) Listed everything they hoped a legislator would support (at least a dozen). This marginalized protecting human life by making it just one of many important issues. The candidate who supported abortion could say (and routinely did), that they supported 90-95 percent of the bishops legislative agenda.
(3) The current voter guide explicitly permits Catholics to vote for candidates who support intrinsic moral evils. It says, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” like abortion, “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” But what if a voter supports a pro-abortion candidate for some other reason? “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” The moral reasons must be “truly grave,” yet as I have argued, there are no grave moral reasons that trump protecting the unborn. Also would it really be far fetched to imagine that a Catholic voter, following the guide’s exception, might support a pro-abortion candidate because, for example, his position on “climate change” echoes that of the bishops who have said that saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions was a moral obligation?
In addition to this voters’ guide, the national Social Development and World Peace staff, as well as their diocesan counterparts, informed Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. This education campaign included workshops to persuade the laity that it was better to use their vote to achieve a good (helping the poor) rather than to oppose an evil (abortion).
A final step that helped pro-abortion Catholic candidates was the bishops giving them, or permitting them to receive, Communion. Many laity concluded that these legislators’ votes for abortion were morally acceptable, and that Catholics could vote for them in good conscience. Regular reception of Communion in the Catholic Church conveys that the person is a practicing Catholic, in the state of grace, in good standing, in communion with the Church.
All of these actions decreased the number of churchgoing Catholics voting pro-life, and this prevented (and still prevents) achieving sufficient votes to legally protect the unborn.
From a political science perspective the division of the Catholic vote (those voting for pro-life candidates and those voting for pro-abortion candidates) has severely limited if not completely neutralized the effect of the Catholic vote for good. If a significant majority of Catholics were united in only supporting Common Good candidates, as the Jewish community is largely united in only supporting candidates who support the State of Israel, then Catholics would legislatively achieve protection for the unborn and many other goals. When a group can decide the outcome of elections on one issue, then it will command serious consideration of whatever it pursues. The divided Catholic vote has prevented this.
The bishops have continued on their failed course for forty years, with fateful, disastrous results. If the bishops would change course, the legal killing, now at 56 million, could be stopped. The bishops need to teach that: (a) Legislators have the compelling moral responsibility to pursue the Common Good, protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God, born and unborn. And those who do not, are morally unfit for office; (b) “Catholic” legislators who support abortion are not in communion with the Church and they will not be given Communion until they are; and (c) Catholic citizens cannot in good conscience elect legislators who support the killing of the unborn (for there are no proportionate reasons to justify it).
H/t California Catholic Daily
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Project aiming to push ‘LGBTQ2S’ picture books into pre-K classes

Author and activist Bergman

Author and activist Bergman


LifeSiteNews: An online fundraising project to publish new LGBTQ2S picture books for children aged 4-8, with the hope of having the books picked up by schools, has recently met its fundraising target. 693 backers pledged a combined $56,793 to the project, called the “Flamingo Rampant Book Club.”  The fundraising goal was $49,000.
The books will “celebrate a great and wide variety of LGBTQ2S kids, families, and communities,” according to the description of the project.  The books will also “celebrate gender-independent kids and adults.”
J Wallace

J Wallace


The individual behind the project is S. Bear Bergman (a trans man, storyteller, a theater artist, an instigator, a gender-jammer, and a good example of what happens when you overeducate a contrarian)Given that his same-sex spouse, who goes by the name “j wallace,” is an employee of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), and that these books are being marketed to teachers and school librarians, it is more than likely that these books will end up in elementary school classrooms across Toronto.
The fundraising webpage for the project brags about the positive press the project has gotten, and displays links to articles on websites such as B*tch Magazine (a nonprofit feminist media organization).  According to one of these articles, found at Advocate.com, the books produced by the Flamingo Rampant Book Club “will explicitly feature lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirited people,” and that the target audience is pre-K to 3rd grade.  Bergman’s own book, which is expected to be titled Is That For a Boy or Girl? “features twelve kids rhyming about their gender binary-defying interests.”
Another of the articles, published on Gayswithkids.com, states that in most currently existing LGBT-themed books, “even when LGBT families are represented, they’re usually white, live in suburbs, and have exactly and only two parents” and that the Flamingo Rampant Book Club will aim to “tell a wider variety of stories.” This has generated speculation that the new books may even portray families with more than two parents.

J Wallace is the student equity program advisor at the TDSB’s gender-based violence prevention office, and a book list on his personal website includes 10,000 Dresses (a picture book about a boy who thinks he is a girl and wears dresses) which he recommends for preschool – grade 2, and My Princess Boy which he recommends for grade 2 children.  Also on the list of books he recommends for primary school children are sex-change books such as When Kathy is Keith, and My Mommy is a Boy – which is about a transgendered mother who transitions from female to male.

Furthermore, the TDSB’s gender-based violence prevention office regularly refers My Princess Boy to various schools.  In addition, according to the TDSB website, both My Princess Boy and 10,000 Dresses – as well as a book previously published by S. Bear Bergman – are being used in elementary schools in the TDSB.

Should these new books from the Flamingo Rampant Book Club make their way into Toronto’s elementary school classrooms, it will only add to the numerous examples of activists exploiting the public education system to push their own radical gender politics.
From the Flamingo Rampant Book Club web site:
The first year of books we have planned is so exciting! Some of these titles are just working titles, and concepts are subject to change, but we’re keen to tell you about what we have in store. They include:

  • M is for Mustache, a Pride ABC book written by playwright, activist, and badass mama Catherine Hernandez. M is for Mustache features not only items of Pride – like beads, flags, glitter and stick-on mustaches – but also values of pride: liberation, justice, community and magic.
  • a Onkwehon:we (Indigenous) story of a gender-independent young child finding the power in his long hair by Mohawk and Cayuga artist and shaman Kiley May. In this book, a young boy who values his long hair and femme ways finds the strength to peacefully affirm his own expression of gender.
  • Is That For A Boy Or A Girl?, by S. Bear Bergman (that’s me!) an inclusive and feminist book showing twelve awesome kids speaking in first person rhyme about how they and their activities/interests/ clothes interrupt the pink/blue dichotomy in some way.

homeschool
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Agenda 21 for Dummies

Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center has put together an excellent one pager to educate people about Agenda 21 policies, the intent and how it is meant to affect every person on the planet!  Thanks, Tom, this is a great tool!  ~LTG

Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson

Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.

A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.   Continue reading

Please follow and like us:
0