I'm amazed at the constipated stupidity of many librarians who believe that privacy issues are more important than national security or the protection of children or the support of laws against child pornography.' Blame it on the extremist positions of the American Library Association, which I have long viewed as a family and values unfriendly bully group.Case in point:' a recent news report of a librarian who called the police because a fellow was a repeat offender in the library, downloading kiddie porn - a Federal offense.' The first time it happened, the news report tells us that the supervisor told this librarian not to report it.' When she saw him a second time, she called the police.' This heroine was fired.' Why?' Privacy issues!' What??' There is no presumption of privacy in a PUBLIC library - especially when one is breaking a Federal law.All of which makes it even more weird that Sprint Nextel Corporation has signed up hundreds of thousands of customers for a feature that shows them where their friends are with colored marks on a map viewable on their cellphone screens.' Basically, people would know, all day long, exactly where you are...right down to a restroom or a street corner.All the folks who use the social-networking websites don't seem to mind losing their privacy.' So when a librarian protects the children in the library by ridding it of a prospective child molester - who is the bad guy and who is worried about what privacy? More >>

The Associated Press published a report on the New Jersey prosecutors who have subpoenaed records of JuicyCampus.com, a website that publishes anonymous, often malicious, gossip about college students.' For example, the Princeton University (yeah, the Ivy League school) site produces information such as "the most overrated Princeton student" with the commentary mostly filled with name-calling and slurs against homosexuals and Jews.The New Jersey Attorney General suggests that JuicyCampus may be violating the state's Consumer Fraud Act by implying that it doesn't allow offensive material, but then providing no enforcement of that rule, and no way for users to report or dispute the material.This site has recently expanded to more than 50 colleges, including Pepperdine University in California, whose student government voted overwhelmingly to request' a ban on the site, although the university has a policy against censoring websites.'The founder of JuicyCampus, Matt Ivester, seemingly is unconcerned about the backlash. "Like anything that is even remotely controversial, there are always people who demand censorship," he told the AP.It is typically disgusting of such types to invoke censorship issues when the true point is accountability and responsibility - concepts that have become four-letter words in American society.' This site, as abominable as it obviously is, is no different from the millions of blogger sites that already exist, full of hate, vitriol, lies, distortions and character assassinations all for the purpose of self-exaltation, power, meanness, and downright evil.'Our children obviously have learned all too well from the blogosphere and the general media.'Just the other day, I communicated with a "formerly esteemed" journalism professor (now retired), to question him on a piece he did about me and my "position" on marital infidelity.' He actually admitted that he did not vet the comments that were repeated and repeated all over the web; he admitted that he did not read the entire transcripts of my interviews; he admitted that he did not view the video on his own.' Can you imagine?' It's like the feathers released from a pillow on a breezy hill - all of them can never be reclaimed.I predicted that the Internet would further deplete what was left of the dignity of human discourse, as the basest of attitudes and impulses would be set free.' Any suggestion of the benefits of self-control, accountability, truth or fairness are countered with screams of "censorship!"' Defamation, libel, and slander against others are no longer seen as a line crossed, but as an opportunity for fame and money. "It is not possible for anyone to use this website to find out who you are or where you're located," assures a JuicyCampus privacy page. "We do not track any information that can be used by us to identify you." Cowards and evil-doers use these opportunities to spread their traditional ideas and hate as they hide behind "protection," while those they hurt have no protection at all. More >>

Legend has it that one of the top commercial theatre producers on Broadway once joked:' "There's no profit like non-profit."' Taking a page out of what could easily be a Tony Award-winning script, the Los Angeles Times has reported that the former Vice President for Finance and Administration for [Un]Planned Parenthood's Los Angeles affiliate has filed a whistleblower lawsuit, alleging that various [Un]Planned Parenthood affiliates overcharged California and the federal government by at least $180 million from the late 1990's through 2004.What was the alleged scam?' The Family Research Council reports that California [Un]Planned Parenthood affiliates would purchase oral contraceptives at a special discount price offered only to non-profit organizations, and then bill California's Medi-Cal program for "up to twelve times as much as they paid ."According to an article in the Los Angeles Times (3/8/08): "A 2004 state audit of Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties - one of nine affiliates statewide...identified more than $5.2 million in overbillings just during the 2003 fiscal year."To make matters more unbelievable, in 2004, [Un]Planned Parenthood complained that a lower reimbursement rate could imperil its survival (God forbid!) and lobbied Sacramento, the California state capital,' to get a law passed allowing it to continue to bill at the same usurious rates!Just for a chuckle, I decided to take a look at tax returns (Form 990's) for the Los Angeles chapter for the past three years to see what impact this new law has had.' According to the 2005 and 2006 Form 990s, the Los Angeles chapter has had $53 million in revenue and $12.5 million in surplus ("non-profit speak" for profit! )' That's a 24% profit - I mean "surplus" - margin!' Holy moly!Where is the media outrage over this story?' Leave aside the policy debate which has been effectively stifled by the anti-life forces and has allowed [Un]Planned Parenthood's personal agenda to become de facto public policy.' How dare our lawmakers ratify and institutionalize the price-gouging and the pickpocketing of California taxpayers!' According to the Times the lawsuit was filed "under seal" in 2005, after the state legislators apparently had ratified and sanctified the alleged misbehavior of the past.'At the very least, [Un]Planned Parenthood's non-profit status should be seriously reviewed, based on their clear record of turning dimes into dollars. More >>

Recently, a committee of the Vermont State Senate approved Democratic Senator Hinda Miller's bill to have a task force weigh the pros and cons of lowering the legal age of drinking, back to 18.' The logic behind this is similar to the concept of having your underage kids have sex in your home.' Parents think that "they're going to do it anyway, so we might as well make it comfortable and convenient for them!"On the other side, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) calls this "folly to even consider."' They say that the higher age limit has saved thousands of lives since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed in 1984.' The act required states to raise the drinking age to 21 or risk losing federal transportation funding.Vermont voted to raise the age in 1985, and, according to the Vermont State Police, there's been a 40 percent decrease in alcohol-related fatalities in the last 20 years.' Vermont stands to lose about $17 million per year in highway funding if they flout the Feds and lower the drinking age. "The facts speak for themselves," said William Goggins, Director of Education and Enforcement for the state Liquor Control Board. "To me, saving lives is the grandest argument of all." Obviously, this argument is not good enough for some Democrats in Vermont. More >>

Scathing criticism of the lack of maternity care insurance for women in the United States recently appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer : "Barely two months into her pregnancy, an ultrasound triggered some alarming' news for Meagan Armington.' The fetus, thankfully, was fine, but Armington's health insurance was not.' To Armington's dismay, the policy she bought from Aetna about three years ago did not provide maternity coverage, forcing the 31 year old single-mom-to-be to pay for the prenatal visits out of pocket.' Due to give birth in April, Armington faces labor and delivery costs of at least $7,500." I know a lot of folks don't want reality to interfere with their completely unfettered personal activities, but the main point of this article should have been that she's not married - and not that the insurance companies are bad guys.' The sure-fire method for avoiding financial issues during pregnancy and child-rearing is a marriage.' She bought the insurance for her single lifestyle.' At thirty-one, you'd think she'd know about birth control, adoption, or marriage.' Instead, we have the same nonsense that defends irresponsible behavior and looks for some institution to blame for not coming to the rescue.At best, this is irresponsibility and journalistic nonsense.' At worst, this is irresponsibility and journalistic nonsense. More >>

Talk about dangerous and destructive!' A Johnson County (Kansas) grand jury is investigating Planned "Un"Parenthood to determine whether the abortion provider complies with Kansas laws on parental notification and the 24-hour waiting period.The grand jury panel has asked for medical records of sixteen women who had abortions in 2003.' Planned Parenthood is refusing to turn them over, claiming patient privacy right violations.' However, the grand jury wants the following patient information:' date of birth, date of last menstruation, dates and times of medical procedures, and notifications and/or consultations with patients.' The grand jury is not asking for any patient-identifying information like name, social security number, address, phone numbers or next of kin - they can be eliminated before the information is sent on to them.' So much for patient privacy violations.Additionally (according to the Kansas City Star ), charges allege that Planned Parenthood performed illegal later-term abortions in 2003 and falsified, forged, and failed to maintain related records.The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are also pushing San Diego's school board to end long-standing policies which require parental notification when students are pregnant and contemplating abortion, and parental consent before students leave campus, including trips to abortion clinics. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are claiming that this violates the privacy rights of students and that the mentality is "antiquated and dangerous."'I've had conversations with some of these ACLU and Planned Parenthood types over the years, and it's absolutely scary how paranoid they are about parental involvement in their children's lives.' They are thoroughly convinced, it would seem, that parents universally impregnate and/or beat their children, and that only they are the grand protectors of children.' If that's so, I wonder why Planned Parenthood gets in trouble for not reporting molestations when adult males bring in minor females for abortions?' Gets mighty confusing to me.Happily, the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) sent a letter to the school board, urging them to stand by their parent and family-friendly policies and offered free legal assistance if those policies are challenged in court.' PJI President, Brad Dacus stated in the Standard Newswire that "Contrary to ACLU and Planned Parenthood propaganda, parental responsibility is not antiquated or illegal.' It is indispensable to a decent society.' We urge the San Diego School Board not to cave in to pressure from radicals who ignore common sense and distort constitutional principles." PJI's affiliate attorney commented: "Parents are morally and legally responsible for their minor children, so it is just common sense that they should be aware of their children's whereabouts, particularly if they are being subjected to life-altering medical procedures, such as abortions." More >>

According to the Associated Press ( February 1, 2008 ), remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on Baghdad pet bazaars on Friday, killing at least 73 people.' The women had Down Syndrome.' Considering the explosives were detonated by remote control, they probably were completely unaware that they were to be used as human bombs.' The attacks were most likely the work of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.Associated Press records show that since the start of the war, at least 151 people have been killed in about 17 attacks by female suicide bombers.' Involving women in fighting violates cultural taboos in Iraq, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq is recruiting females to perform suicide attacks because militants are increasingly desperate for volunteers.' Women in Iraq wear the long black overgarments called abayas , and can avoid searches at checkpoints, because men are not allowed to search them, and there aren't enough female guards.' This is an obvious "PC" mistake - this is war, and such proprieties need to be put by the wayside, because people are being murdered.I wish NOW (the National Organization for Women) would spend less time on rants assuring women that murdering the babies in their bodies is some kind of noble "right," and spend their time in the Middle East, protecting women from being used as cannon fodder. More >>

Frankly, calling abortion (the termination of a life within a woman's uterus) "reproductive health," is a ridiculous - but effective - way of obfuscating the realities.' A January 18 report from the Associated Press (which excludes California because its government does not provide data) estimates that in 2005 there were 1.2 million abortions - down from a peak of 1.6 million abortions in 1990, but still happening in 20% of the cases where conception has occurred.Half of the 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 and older, while only 17% are teenagers.' Since abortion became legal, there have been roughly 50 million abortions in the US, and more than one-third of adult women are estimated to have had at least one."Planned Un-Parenthood," as I call that group, is launching a major effort to elect so-called "pro-abortion rights" candidates to Congress and the White House in November.' According to the Wall Street Journal (January 22, 2008), they plan to spend $10 million to elect candidates who back its priorities.' We are just in the beginning of a world wide jihadist movement to eradicate Western Civilization, and they want to focus only on protecting a woman's right to kill the life growing inside her body.' I don't love special interest groups.Tuesday, January 22, 2008, the Santa Barbara News-Press published a half-page ad from the "Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition" concerned with what would happen to women in America "if Roe Fell?"' They list: "They may have to resort to back alleys, they'll be forced to travel to states with less restrictive laws, they may be prosecuted for self-induced abortions, [and] poor and low income women will suffer the most."' It is signed by just about every group in Santa Barbara that is dominated by women (except, of course, by religious or pro-life groups).When I woke up to that ad I thought immediately that "if Roe Fell" maybe women would be more circumspect about when and with whom they had sex; that women might show some proactive responsibility by using the birth control pill, an IUD, etc., or have the maturity to make sure their sex partner (or, if you're in college, it's just a hook-up partner) uses a condom.' I also thought that maybe they'd have the compassion not to make an innocent child experience capital punishment, and instead be offered for adoption to a two-parent, mature and responsible married couple and thereby create a family instead of terminating a life.Instead, we've got a culture that disdains personal responsibility and elevates freedom from consequences and the impact on others be damned.' Think about the so-called reality shows which have young adults mixing and matching sexual exploits, and the popularity of television programs like "Sex in the City" and "Friends."' Sharon wrote to me recently about the second American Idol pilot episode: "Auditioning was a young man who had made a promise to his father never to kiss or be intimate with a girl until his wedding night.' He wears a key around his neck that fits into a heart that hangs around his father's neck.' His father will give this heart to his son's bride when the time comes.' It was all very sweet and I admired him so much for his dedication to this promise.' I thought that his wife would be a very lucky woman." "I was shocked at American Idol's spin on this young man's promise.' I thought they would respond to it as romantic.' Instead, they essentially mocked him.' He did not get selected, and when he asked if the judges had any advice, they told him to go kiss a girl.' He told his father he would just keep working on his voice and come back next year.' The announcer said maybe next year he'll come back as a man instead of a boy." "I was shocked.' To me he already was a man.' It takes a man to make a sacrifice like that.' He was easily 25.' In today's world, boys as young as 12 are having sex, so does that make them men?' Who makes the standards on what makes a man today?' And does American Idol have any right to make that call?" About 13 percent of American women are black, yet new figures from the Centers for Disease Control show they account for 35 percent of the abortions and the overwhelming majority of children born to black women are "illegitimate."' Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr., calls herself a "reformed murderer" for undergoing two abortions when she was young.' According to the AP report, she is now an outspoken anti-abortion campaigner.' She says that the best way to reduce abortions among black women is to dissuade more of them from premarital sex.' "'We give free sex education, free condoms, free birth control,' she complained.' 'That's almost like permission to have free sex, and the higher the rate of sexual activity, the higher the rate of unintended pregnancy.'"Ms. King is so right.' The Denver Post (January 7, 2008) reported that pregnant students in a Denver high school are asking for at least four weeks of maternity leave so "they can heal, bond with their newborns, and not be penalized with unexcused absences."' These are unmarried teenagers whose children will now be in 'other than mom'-care, most likely grow up in poverty, and not have a dad in their lives.' Meanwhile, society is telling these girls that their actions should have no consequences on them...what about their children?!' The do-gooders who back up these young girls refuse to acknowledge this disaster cast upon innocent children, and instead propagate more such irresponsible behavior by demanding free child-care and elevating these girls to a sacred status.'It would seem that reinstituting shame for being a "bad girl" and having sexual intercourse out-of-wedlock (it works...there were no pregnancies in either of the two high-schools I went to in Long Island, NY), and pushing the heck out of adoption might be better for women in the long run than unfettered abortion rights.What is ignored or denied by Planned UN-Parenthood types are the wide range of emotional problems that women who have had abortions suffer.' To get up to speed with these facts, check out www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp .'Nicole wrote to me about watching a popular morning television talk show where the topic was "hooking up." "On stage was a fourteen year old girl who mentioned that her friends were having oral sex at the age of 11 and that she had hooked up too.' Evidently, when the mother expressed some anger, the host and the 'expert' ganged up on her telling her how to be more understanding and go off with her and buy condoms." "That's when I shut the television off.' I grew up with parents who had a zero tolerance policy for sexual activity outside of marriage.' Sure, when I was a child our conversations about sex were calm and relaxed.' We talked openly about the consequences and reasons to wait.' However, when I became a teenager I knew that if I had sex and got pregnant, I was on my own.' I knew that if I had sex they would not pay for college.' I knew that if I had sex there were not only going to be consequences with my parents...and you know what?' As a teenager, losing the love and respect of my parents was enough of a consequence for me to abstain when my friends were not." "Parents need to be stern about sex outside of marriage - not compassionate.' If my parents had told me in advance that I could come to them after I had sex and all I would receive was a big hug and a trip to the drug store, I would have had no reason to abstain." Perhaps we should go back to thinking about sex as "making love," and then wait 'til we actually are...making love. More >>

Earlier this week, I got a call from a 36 year old woman who has been "shacking up" with her boyfriend for four years.' She wants to have children, but senses his ambivalence.' The answer I gave her applies to all the otherwise intelligent women who do this.You should move out and say "I've decided I've made a horrible mistake and the next time I'm living under the same roof as a man, I'm going to be his wife!"You don't demand anything.' You don't threaten anything. You act like a dignified woman, instead of an unpaid whore.' It's as simple as that.' A man who loves and respects a woman wouldn't treat you like that.When I asked this caller "What would you tell your son?" at first, she didn't understand that I was raising a hypothetical question about how she would explain this behavior to her "future" child.' She started to say, "Well, if you're both happy, and you're both-" and I immediately cut in and said she should not make babies.' If you're going to do that to your kid, don't have any.' If you're going to tell your daughter "...as long as you're happy and you're screwing your brains out every night with a guy who doesn't want to commit his life to you, it's all okay!" - we don't need any more parents like that.'That's why we have such chaos in our whole society - because you think "happy" at any one moment is the highest value.' I think honor, sacrifice, and commitment are a higher honor than taking your daily "happiness" temperature, because a man staying true to his wife, who has terminal colon cancer, instead of dating is not happy .' Is he happy ?' Then that can't be the highest quotient!If you want the world to deal on "happiness," then you have to understand that your man will leave you any day you don't make him happy, and will not honor you or any vow, because he doesn't have to!' You've already taught him that if you're "happy," that's the only thing that matters.I don't think firemen are happy to run into burning buildings.' I don't think they're "happy" doing that.' I don't think police are "happy" to surround a building where somebody says he's going to shoot everybody.' I don't think they lay awake in the morning and go "Gee, that makes me happy!"' They have honor and sacrifice and duty and commitment to something higher than "feeling good" in and of themselves.' Don't have children if you're going to teach them about "happiness."' We have enough chaos in our society because people are doing what they "feel" like when it has no meaning and no projection into the future.'If you teach your sons to screw girls if it makes them happy, and as long as she's smiling and you don't have to make any commitment, don't make babies.' We just don't need any more parents like you.' We just don't. More >>

Go ahead and guess what came out as Number 3 on AOL's "Top Searches from Mobile Devices."' Right!' It's porn.' The Wall Street Journal's Carl Bialik ( The Numbers Guy ) got the original list in a draft press release, and said he "pointed out the surprising entry" to a spokeswoman, who said that normally, such terms are "scrubbed from the list."' And guess what?' When the final list was released, "porn" was nowhere to be found, replaced by "iPhone," which was pushed up to Number 3 from Number 4 on the original draft release.It gets even better...."...Britney Spears and Saddam Hussein could each top the category of 'celebrity' and 'news,' respectively, in lists from multiple search engines.' Those search engines willing to share numbers beyond their news releases made clear that, in search land, the troubled pop singer trumped the late dictator.' Searches for Ms. Spears ran six times those for Mr. Hussein on Yahoo!, and nearly 600 times on Lycos."How embarrassing for our nation.'[sources:' Bialik article:' you can search it on WSJ.com under The Numbers Guy for December 21.' Title of article is "What Topics Filled (Clean) Minds in '07?' For One:' An Asterisk or use the link here: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119820461738044109-lECMb7qhI7UaxADXmlRkefZGJhI_20081220.html?mod=rss_free ] More >>