Skip to content

Social and Welfare Issues

Here Are 3 Steps to Take on Marriage After Court’s Ruling

Here Are 3 Steps to Take on Marriage After Court’s Ruling published on

Here Are 3 Steps to Take on Marriage After Court’s Ruling
Commentary By
Ryan T. Anderson @ryantand
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the
William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage
Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and
education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He’s the author of the
forthcoming book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Read his research.
Friday’s Supreme Court decision is unadulterated judicial activism.
As Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “Today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own
conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to. … Whatever force that belief
may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy
preferences” in other rightly condemned activist decisions.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage in all 50 states, and five unelected justices do not
have the authority to redefine marriage everywhere. Still, the question now is: What do we do?
I suggest that pro-marriage citizens should follow the example of pro-life citizens.
Thank you!
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox
and keep you informed.
In January 1973, the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers were told
they had lost, that the issue was settled. The law taught citizens that they had a new right, and public opinion quickly
swung against pro-lifers by as much as a two-to-one margin.
Pundits insisted that all young people were for abortion, and elites ridiculed pro-lifers for being on the “wrong side of
>>> For more on this, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “ Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and
Religious Freedom”
But pro-lifers put their hand to the plow, and today we reap the fruits. My generation is more pro-life than my parents’.
A majority of Americans now support pro-life policies. In the last decade, states have enacted more laws protecting
unborn babies than were passed in the previous 30 years.
What happened?
The pro-life community stood up and responded to a bad court ruling. Academics wrote books and articles making
the scientific and philosophical case for life. Statesmen like Henry Hyde, Edwin Meese, and Ronald Reagan used the
bully pulpit to advance the culture of life. Activists and lawyers got together, formed coalitions, and devised effective
Now everything the pro-life movement did needs to be done again on this new frontier of marriage. Here are three
critical steps to take.
First, we must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges what it is: judicial activism. Just as the pro-life movement
successfully rejected Roe v. Wade and exposed its lies about unborn life and about the Constitution, we must make it
clear to our fellow citizens that Obergefell v. Hodges does not tell the truth about marriage or about our Constitution.
Second, we must protect our freedom to speak and live according to our beliefs. The pro-life movement
accomplished this by ensuring that pro-life doctors and nurses would never have to perform abortions. It won the
battle to prevent taxpayer money from paying for abortions. And it made sure that pro-lifers and pro-life organizations
could not be discriminated against by the government.
Pro-marriage forces need to do the same: Ensure that we have freedom from government coercion to lead our lives,
rear our children, and operate our businesses and our charities in accord with our beliefs about marriage. Likewise,
we must ensure that the government does not discriminate against citizens or organizations because of their belief
that marriage is the union of husband and wife.
Third, we must redouble our efforts to make the case for marriage in the public square. To do this, we must use
reason and our own personal stories. This is the most compelling way to bring the truth about marriage to light.
Originally published by The Boston Globe

Obamacare After 5 Years

Obamacare After 5 Years published on

What Do You Think? Years After Launch Fact Checking Obamacares Biggest Promises (2)

Regarding Marriage, One State Has it Right

Regarding Marriage, One State Has it Right published on

Dianne Feinstein Endorses Assisted Suicide

Dianne Feinstein Endorses Assisted Suicide published on

Planet Fitness says Transgender is OK

Planet Fitness says Transgender is OK published on

Race Relations and Law Enforcement

Race Relations and Law Enforcement published on

Race Relations and Law Enforcement
January 2015 | Volume 44, Number 1Jason L. Riley
Editorial Board Member, Wall Street Journal


Jason L. Riley is an editorial board member and a senior editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal, where he writes on politics, economics, education, immigration, and race. He is also a FOX News contributor and appears regularly on Special Report with Bret Baier. Previously, he worked for USA Today and the Buffalo News. He earned a bachelor’s degree in English from the State University of New York at Buffalo. He is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 30, 2015, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

Thomas Sowell once said that some books you write for pleasure, and others you write out of a sense of duty, because there are things to be said—and other people have better sense than to say them. My new book, Please Stop Helping Us, falls into that latter category. When I started out as a journalist 20 years ago, I had no expectation of focusing on race-related topics. People like Sowell and Shelby Steele and Walter Williams and a few other independent black thinkers, to my mind at least, had already said what needed to be said, had been saying it for decades, and had been saying it more eloquently than I ever could. But over the years, and with some prodding from those guys, it occurred to me that not enough younger blacks were following in their footsteps. It also occurred to me that many public policies aimed at the black underclass were just as wrongheaded as ever. The fight wasn’t over. A new generation of black thinkers needed to explain what’s working and what isn’t, and why, to a new generation of readers. And the result is this book, which I hope will help to bring more light than heat to the discussion of race.

The book is not an autobiography or a memoir, but I do tell a few stories about growing up black and male in the inner city. And one of the stories involves a trip back home to Buffalo, New York, where I was born and raised. I was visiting my older sister shortly after I had begun working at the Wall Street Journal, and I was chatting with her daughter, my niece, who was maybe in the second grade at the time. I was asking her about school, her favorite subjects, that sort of thing, when she stopped me and said, “Uncle Jason, why you talk white?” Then she turned to her little friend who was there and said, “Don’t my uncle sound white? Why he tryin’ to sound so smart?”

She was just teasing, of course. I smiled and they enjoyed a little chuckle at my expense. But what she said stayed with me. I couldn’t help thinking: Here were two young black girls, seven or eight years old, already linking speech patterns to race and intelligence. They already had a rather sophisticated awareness that, as blacks, white-sounding speech was not only to be avoided in their own speech but mocked in the speech of others.

I shouldn’t have been too surprised by this, and I wasn’t. My siblings, along with countless other black friends and relatives, teased me the same way when I was growing up. And other black professionals have told similar stories. What I had forgotten is just how early these attitudes take hold—how soon this counterproductive thinking and behavior begins.

New York City has the largest school system in America. Eighty percent of black kids in New York public schools are performing below grade level. And a big part of the problem is a black subculture that rejects attitudes and behaviors that are conducive to academic success. Black kids read half as many books and watch twice as much television as their white counterparts, for example. In other words, a big part of the problem is a culture that produces little black girls and boys who are already worried about acting and sounding white by the time they are in second grade.

Another big part of the problem is a reluctance to speak honestly about these cultural shortcomings. Many whites fear being called racists. And many black leaders have a vested interest in blaming black problems primarily on white racism, so that is the narrative they push regardless of the reality. Racism has become an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes, be they social or economic. If you disagree and are white, you’re a bigot. If you disagree and are black, you’re a sell-out.

The shooting death of a young black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, last year touched off a national discussion about everything except the aberrant behavior of so many young black men that results in such frequent encounters with police. We talked about racial prejudice, poverty, unemployment, profiling, the tensions between law enforcement and poor black communities, and so forth. Rarely did we hear any discussion of black crime rates.

Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men in the U.S., and around 90 percent of the perpetrators are also black. Yet for months we’ve had protesters nationwide pretending that our morgues are full of young black men because cops are shooting them. Around 98 percent of black shooting deaths do not involve police. In fact, a cop is six times more likely to be shot by someone black than the opposite. The protestors are pushing a false anti-cop narrative, and everyone from the president on down has played along.

Any candid debate on race and criminal justice in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. Blacks constitute about 13 percent of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 they committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault, and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. So long as blacks are committing such an outsized amount of crime, young black men will be viewed suspiciously and tensions between police and crime-ridden communities will persist. The U.S. criminal justice system, currently headed by a black attorney general who reports to a black president, is a reflection of this reality, not its cause. If we want to change negative perceptions of young black men, we must change the behavior that is driving those perceptions. But pointing this out has become almost taboo. How can we even begin to address problems if we won’t discuss them honestly?

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz. “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

The Left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and poverty, but back in the 1940s and ’50s, when racial discrimination was legal and black poverty was much higher than today, the black crime rate was lower. The Left wants to blame these outcomes on “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.

Some insist that our jails and prisons are teeming with young black men due primarily to racist drug laws, but the reality is that the drug laws are neither racist nor driving the black incarceration rate. It’s worth remembering that the harsher penalties for crack cocaine offenses that were passed in the 1980s were supported by most of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rep. Charles Rangel of Harlem, who at the time headed the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Crack was destroying black communities and many black political leaders wanted dealers to face longer sentences. In other words, black legislators in Washington led the effort to impose tougher drug laws, a fact often forgotten by critics today.

When these laws passed, even their opponents didn’t claim that they were racist. Those charges came later, as the racially disparate impact of the laws became apparent. What’s been lost in the discussion is whether these laws leave law-abiding blacks better off. Do you make life in the ghetto harder or easier by sending thugs home sooner rather than later? Liberal elites would have us deny what black ghetto residents know to be the truth. These communities aren’t dangerous because of racist cops or judges or sentencing guidelines. They’re dangerous mainly due to black criminals preying on black victims.

Nor is the racial disparity in prison inmates explained by the enforcement of drug laws. Blacks are about 37.5 percent of the population in state prisons, which house nearly 90 percent of the nation’s inmates. Remove drug offenders from that population and the percentage of black prisoners only drops to 37 percent. What drives black incarceration rates are violent offenses, not drug offenses. Blacks commit violent crimes at seven to ten times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of blacks being picked on by cops who are “over-policing” certain neighborhoods. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the 911 calls originate.

If liberals want to help reverse these crime trends, they would do better to focus less on supposed racial animus and more on ghetto attitudes towards school, work, marriage, and child-rearing. As recently as the early 1960s, two out of three black children were raised in two-parent households. Today, more than 70 percent are not, and the number can reach as high as 80 or 90 percent in our inner cities. For decades, studies have shown that the likelihood of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, dropping out of school and other bad social outcomes increases dramatically when fathers aren’t around. One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken in this regard concluded that black boys without a father are 68 percent more likely to be incarcerated than those with a father—that overall, the most critical factor affecting the prospect of young males encountering the criminal justice system is the presence of a father in the home. All other factors, including family income, are much less important.

As political scientist James Q. Wilson said, if crime is to a significant degree caused by weak character, if weak character is more likely among children of unmarried mothers, if there are no fathers who will help raise their children, acquire jobs, and protect their neighborhoods, if boys become young men with no preparation for work, if school achievement is regarded as a sign of having sold out—if all these things are true, then the chances of reducing the crime rate among low income blacks anytime soon is slim.

Many on the Left sincerely want to help the black underclass. The problem is that liberals believe bigger government is the best way to help. But having looked at the track record of government policies aimed at helping the black underclass, I’m skeptical.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s commencement speech at Howard University. Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act a year earlier and would sign the Voting Rights Act two months later. And he used the speech to talk about what the government should do next on behalf of blacks. These two laws marked merely the end of the beginning, he said:

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society—to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. . . . But freedom is not enough. . . . You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. . . . The next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights [is] . . . not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

But what if Johnson was mistaken? What if there are limits to what government can do beyond removing barriers to freedom? What if the best that we can hope for from our elected officials are policies that promote equal opportunity? What if public policy makers risk creating more problems and barriers to progress when the goal is equal outcomes?

The civil rights struggles of the mid-20th century exemplified liberalism at its best. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawed racial discrimination in employment and education and ensured the ability of blacks to register and vote. All Americans can be proud of these accomplishments. But what about the social policy and thinking that arose from the ruins of Jim Crow? Good intentions aside, which efforts have facilitated black advancement, and which efforts have impeded it?

In 1988, right around the 25th anniversary of the Great Society, Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer published a book called the The Limits of Social Policy. Glazer analyzed Great Society programs from the perspective of someone who believed that government action was the best way to improve the lot of blacks. But his assessment humbled him. He concluded that in many ways, the Great Society programs were causing just as many problems as they were solving—that good intentions aren’t enough.

Unlike Nathan Glazer, many policy makers today are still riding high on good intentions. They don’t seem particularly interested in reconsidering what has been tried, even though 50 years into the war on poverty the result isn’t pretty. While gains have been made, significant racial disparities remain in some areas and black retrogression has occurred in others. The black-white poverty gap has widened over the past decade and the black poverty rate is no longer falling. The black-white disparity in incarceration rates today is larger than it was in 1960. And the black unemployment rate has, on average, been double the white rate for five decades.

Confronted with these statistics, liberals continue to push for more of the same solutions. Last year, President Obama announced yet another federal initiative aimed at helping blacks—an increase in preschool education, even though studies (including those released by his own administration) have shown no significant impacts in education from such programs. He said that he wants to increase reading proficiency and graduation rates for minority students, yet he opposes school voucher programs that are doing both. He continues to call for job-training programs of the sort that study after study has shown to be ineffective.

Fred Siegel, an expert on urban public policy, has written extensively about the liberal flight from evidence and empiricism that began in the 1960s. The Left, wracked by guilt over America’s diabolical treatment of blacks, decided to hold them to different standards of behavior. Blacks, Siegel writes, were invited to enter the larger society on their own terms. Schools, which had helped poor whites, ceased incorporating poor blacks from the South into the mainstream culture. Discipline as a prerequisite for adult success was displaced by the authentic self-expression of the ill-educated. Blacks were not culturally deprived but simply differently-abled—more spontaneous and expressive and so forth. Liberals tried to improve conditions for blacks without passing judgment on antisocial black culture. And this sort of thinking continues to this day. Walter Williams once wrote that he’s glad he grew up in the 1940s and ’50s, before it became fashionable for white people to like black people. He received a more honest assessment of his strengths and weaknesses, he says, than black kids today are likely to receive from white teachers and employers who are more interested in being politically correct.

After George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, President Obama explained the black response to the verdict this way. Blacks understand, he said, that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to that history. In other words, Obama was doing exactly what the Left has been conditioning blacks to do since the 1960s, which is to blame black pathology on the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

This is a dodge. That legacy is not holding down blacks half as much as the legacy of efforts to help. Underprivileged blacks have become playthings for intellectuals and politicians who care more about revelling in their good intentions or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead. Meanwhile, the civil rights movement has become an industry that does little more than monetize white guilt. Martin Luther King and his contemporaries demanded black self-improvement despite the abundant and overt racism of their day. King’s self-styled successors, living in an era when public policy bends over backwards to accommodate blacks, insist that blacks cannot be held responsible for their plight so long as someone, somewhere in white America, is still prejudiced.

The more fundamental problem with these well-meaning liberal efforts is that they have succeeded, tragically, in convincing blacks to see themselves first and foremost as victims. Today there is no greater impediment to black advancement than the self-pitying mindset that permeates black culture. White liberals think they are helping blacks by romanticizing bad behavior. And black liberals are all too happy to hustle guilty whites.

Blacks ultimately must help themselves. They must develop the same attitudes and behaviors and habits that other groups had to develop to rise in America. And to the extent that a social policy, however well-intentioned, interferes with this self-development, it does more harm than good.

This concept of self-help and self-development is something that black leaders once understood quite well, and at a time when blacks faced infinitely more obstacles than they face today. Asked by whites in 1865 what to do for freed blacks, Frederick Douglass responded: “I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! . . . If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength . . . let them fall! . . . And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!” Douglass was essentially saying, give blacks equal opportunity and then leave them alone.

Booker T. Washington, another late 19th century black leader who had been born a slave, once said that it is important and right that all privileges of the law be granted to blacks, but it is vastly more important that they be prepared for the exercise of these privileges.

Douglass and Washington didn’t play down the need for the government to secure equal rights for blacks, and both were optimistic that blacks would get equal rights eventually, although neither man lived to see that day. But both men also understood the limits of government benevolence. Blacks would have to ready themselves to meet the challenge of being in a position to take advantage of opportunities once equal rights had been secured. The history of 1960s liberal social policies is largely a history of ignoring this wisdom.

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

California may repeal ‘welfare queen’ law

California may repeal ‘welfare queen’ law published on

California may repeal ‘welfare queen’ law
February 23, 2015

California Democrats are calling for the repeal of a law that bars families from receiving increases to their welfare checks if they give birth to an additional child while on benefits. [Sac Bee]
Sen. Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles says the law is based on the pejorative concept of a “welfare queen,” who has babies in order to collect more cash. Mitchell has authored Senate Bill 23, which calls for the repeal of California’s welfare limit rule.
Mitchell said the existing law was crafted to discourage welfare recipients from having children. Rather than accomplishing that, the rule helped California achieve the nation’s highest poverty rate, she said.
“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”
If the “maximum family grant” rule is appealed, families receiving welfare benefits would be eligible to collect about $130 a month per child. The change is welfare rules would cost the state about $205 million in the first year, according to a budget analysis prepared last year.
Mitchell has twice before tried unsuccessfully to repeal the welfare limit law, but she now has support from a host of organizations and from Sen. President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon.
Senate Republic Leader Bob Huff opposes the effort to overturn the welfare rule. Huff said the $200 million should go to a better use, like job training or childcare for working mothers.
Other opponents of Mitchell’s bill say that reinstating the $130 monthly payments will not lift welfare recipients out of poverty.

Obama’s Change To The Definition Of ‘Spouse’ Is Going To Have Far-Reaching Consequences

Obama’s Change To The Definition Of ‘Spouse’ Is Going To Have Far-Reaching Consequences published on


Obama’s Quiet Change To The Definition Of ‘Spouse’ Is Going To Have Far-Reaching Consequences

Political Reporter

The Obama administration re-defined the word “spouse” Tuesday to include gay couples.

The Department of Labor quietly issued a new 52-page regulation, to be published in the Federal Register Wednesday, updating the term “spouse” to include gay couples so that gays now get job-protected leave from work to care for their gay partner or partner’s children or parents under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The new definition applies to all gay couples who were legally married in states where gay marriage is legal, regardless of whether or not they now live in states where gay marriage is not legal. The IRS also adopted this “place of celebration” definition of residency after the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down at the Supreme Court.

The regulation is rife with progressive editorializing:
“The Department of Labor’s (Department) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) revises the regulation defining ‘spouse’ under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993,” the regulation states. “Because of the Supreme Court’s holding in Windsor that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, the Department is no longer prohibited from recognizing same-sex marriages as a basis for FMLA spousal leave.”
“…the Department is aware that the language surrounding marriage is evolving and that not all married individuals choose to use the traditional terms of husband or wife when referring to their spouse.”

“The Department intended the proposed definition to cover all spouses in legally valid marriages as defined in the regulation regardless of whether they use the terms husband or wife. The Department adopts the definition of spouse as proposed.”

“Legal recognition of same-sex marriage has expanded rapidly and the Department anticipates that the number of States and countries recognizing same-sex marriage will continue to grow.”

Follow Patrick on Twitter

Consequences of Inbreeding on Certain Cultures

Consequences of Inbreeding on Certain Cultures published on

SCIENCE: Centuries Of Inbreeding Have Caused Catastrophic And Irreparable Damage To Muslim Gene Pool


Excerpted from Cognition Emission:

Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.
The most famous example of inbreeding is in ancient Egypt, where several Pharaonic dynasties collapsed after a couple of hundred years. In order to keep wealth and power within the family, the Pharaohs often married their own sister or half-sister and after a handful of generations the offspring were mentally and physically unfit to rule. Another historical example is the royal houses of Europe where royal families often married among each other because tradition did not allow them to marry people of non-royal class.
The high amount of mentally retarded and handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed themselves to marry for love and not just for status.
The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants“

Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred – which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequenses greatly.
The amount of blood related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the amount is down to 40 percent and 15 percent among Turkish immigrants (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants“.).

More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried:
The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” (Times of India, 17/11 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).
The lower percentages might be because it is difficult to get the chosen family member to the country, or because health education is better in the West.

Low intelligence

Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:
“Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.
IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively).
The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies.” (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children“).

The article “Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices” concludes that “Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status.” (Behaviour Genetics, 1984).
Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400 percent from 1.2 percent in children from normal parents to 6.2 percent in inbred children: “The data indicate that the risk for mental retardation in matings of normal parents increases from 0.012 with random matings to 0.062 for first-cousin parentage.” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation“). The study A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity concludes, that “The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages.”

Mental and physical diseases and death

The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants). One study analyzed the risk of perinatal death (the child dies during its own birth), infant death (child dies while still infant) and autosomal recessive disorders (serious and often deadly genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy):
Perinatal mortality in the Pakistani children was 1.5 times higher than that in the Norwegian children, and infant mortality in the Pakistani children was more than double that in the Norwegian children. Deaths due to autosomal recessive disorders were 18 times more common in the Pakistani children. Similarly, deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized autosomal recessive syndromes, were 10 times more common.
There are also evidence suggesting that inbred people has a higher risk of developing mental disorders: “The clinical observations indicated that depression is very high in some communities where the consanguinity of marriages is also high.” (Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009 “Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population“.
Another study focused on the relationship between intermarriage and schizophrenia: “The closer the blood relative, the more likely was there to be a schizophrenic illness.” (American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors in the ethiology of the schizophrenic disorders.
The increased risk of insanity among children of marriages between cousins might explain why immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric system and are strongly overrepresented among insane criminals: “In Sct. Hans Hospital, which has the biggest ward for clinically insane criminals in Denmark, more than 40 percent of the patients have an immigrant background.” (Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007 Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane).

Implications for the Western and the Muslim World

The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence or even mental retardation, handicaps and diseases often leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are:
Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures and painful treatment procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to anti-social behavior.
The economic costs and consequences for society of inbreeding are of course secondary to the reality of human suffering.

However, inbreeding among Muslims has severe implications for both the Western societies and the Muslim world.
Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants drains the budget for other public services: “When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child – it costs municipal funds dearly. Disabled immigrant children costs Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen County alone, the number of disabled children in the overall increase of 100 percent at 10 years. … Meredith Lefelt has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen. She estimates that one third of their clients have a foreign cultural background.” (BT, 10/11 2003 Immigrants inbreeding costing one million.

On top come the expenses for Muslim immigrants who – because of different consequences of being born from blood related parents – are not able to live up to the challenges of our Western work market: Muslim immigrants and their descendants in Europe have a very high rate of unemployment.
The same goes for Muslims in USA, where the Gallup Institute made a study involving 300.000 people concluding “The majority of Muslims in USA have a lower income, are less educated and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.” (Berlingske Tidende, d. 3. marts 2009: Muslims thrive in USA.
The cognitive consequences of Muslim inbreeding might explain why non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the Danish army’s intelligence test than native Danes: “19.3% of non-Western immigrants are not able to pass the Danish army’s intelligence test. In comparison, only 4.7% of applicants with Danish background do not pass.” (TV 2 Nyhederne, 13/6 2007 Immigrants flunk army test.

It probably also explains – at least partly – why two thirds of all immigrant school children with Arabic backgrounds are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system: “Those who speak Arabic with their parents have an extreme tendency to lack reading abilities – 64 percent are illiterate. … No matter if it concerns reading abilities, mathematics or science, the pattern is the same: The bilingual (largely Muslim) immigrants’ skills are exceedingly poor compared to their Danish classmates.” (Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, May 2007: Ethnic students does not make Danish children worse.
The high expenses on special education for slow learners consumes one third of the budget for the Danish schools. “Immigrant children are clearly overrepresented on Copenhagen’s schools for retarded children and children with physical handicaps. … 51 percent of the children on the three schools in Copenhagen for children with physical and mental handicaps had immigrant back ground and on one of the schools the amount is 70 percent. … These amounts are significantly higher than the share of immigrant children in the municipality, which is 33 percent. The many handicapped children are a clear evidence that there are many intermarried parents in the immigrant families.” (Jydske Vestkysten, 4/4 2009 Tosprogede i overtal på handicapskoler).
Our high level of education may also make it harder for inbred students to follow and finish their studies: “Young people with minority backgrounds have a significantly higher dropout rate at secondary schools than youth with a Danish background. For trade school education, the dropout rate among immigrants is 60 percent, twice as high among adolescents with a Danish background….

There is great variation in educational outcomes when compared with national origin. For example, dropout among young people with Lebanese or Iranian background is far greater than among people of Vietnamese background.” (Center for Knowledge on Integration in Randers, May 2005 “Youth, education and integration“). ”Among immigrant children that are born and raised in Denmark, more than a third has no education. Among native Danes it is less than one fifth that do not get an education. (Statistics Denmark: “Indvandrere i 2007”.
The negative consequences of inbreeding are also vast for the Muslim world. Inbreeding may thus explain why only nine Muslims ever managed to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize (5 of them won the “Peace Prize” – for peace that turned out not to last for very long).

The limited ability to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge following a limited IQ is probably also partly the reason why Muslim countries produce 1/10 of the World average when it comes to scientific research: “In 2003, the world average for production of articles per million inhabitants was 137, whereas none of the 47 OIC countries for which there were data achieved production above 107 per million inhabitants. The OIC average was just 13.” (Nature 444, p. 26-27, 1. November 2006 ”Islam and science: The data gap”.
The lack of interest in science and human development in the Muslim World is also clear in the UN Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR). AHDR concludes that there have been fewer books translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year:

“The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s [sic] time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year.” (Eugene Rogan ”Arab Books and human development”. Index of Censorship, vol. 33, issue 2 April 2004, p. 152-157). “70 percent of the Turkish citizens never read books.”(APA, 23 February 2009 “).


There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims’ religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. The overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences have been explained above.

Compassion for the health of future generations should be enough to ban intermarriage among first cousins. The economic and societal consequences do also count. Such a ban would also lessen Muslim immigration to the West because many Muslim families would like to be able to continue their practice of intermarriage in order to live up to cultural and religious traditions and keep wealth and power inside their family.
A legislative ban on first cousin marriages is a logical and compassionate imperative for both the Muslim world, for EU and our Western national governments.

Read more at:

Women Overwhelmingly Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban

Women Overwhelmingly Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban published on

Women Overwhelmingly Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban

Commentary By

Katrina Trinko @KatrinaTrinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina.

Americans care.

Washington, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to realize that Americans believe 5-month-old unborn children deserve have to their right to life protected. Or that as a nation, America says that when a child is moving, can hear and has a heartbeat, that child deserves the right to live—and deserves a nation that honors that right.
Americans care—but Washington isn’t hearing them.

On Wednesday night, House Republican leaders canceled plans to have a vote Thursday on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The legislation would have banned abortions after 20 weeks, except in cases where rape or incest had been reported to authorities.

“The evening switch comes after a revolt from a large swath of female members of Congress, who were concerned about language that said rape victims would not be able to get abortions unless they reported the incident to authorities,” reported Politico.
But this bill passed in the House in 2013 without controversy over the exceptions. Furthermore, polling about this legislation specifically mentioned how the exceptions would work.
“In 2013 the House of Representatives approved legislation that would ban virtually all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape and incest that are reported to authorities,” Quinnipiac University told poll respondents. “Would you support or oppose such legislation?”
In response to that specific question, 60 percent of Americans, including 59 percent of women, said they would support such legislation in response to the poll, which was released in November.

They knew exactly what the exceptions were—and they still backed the legislation.
It’s unclear if the exception is even the true reason some GOP members revolted. It may have been over an unwillingness to pursue the social issues.
“Rep. Renee Ellmers repeated her critique from the GOP’s retreat in Hershey, Pa., last weekend that voting on abortion bills so early in the session would turn off millennial voters,” reported National Journal.
Ironically, the Quinnipiac poll found that 57 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds backed the 20-week ban on abortion.
When’s the last time GOP has backed a policy that has had nearly 6 out of 10 millennials supporting it?

Yes, people care about taxes and personal freedom and bread-and-butter issues.
But they also care about life. They care about making the United States a humane nation, a nation that says no, we will not tolerate the legal killing of children who are this developed, who are as a little as a week away from being able to survive outside of the womb if born premature. (In 2011, Frieda Mangold, born at 21 weeks, survived.)
Virtually every other country says it is unacceptable for a child this old to be aborted. Only seven countries in the world—including United States, North Korea and China—allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.
Americans have spoken—and have said loudly and clearly they care about this. They care about making the United States a country good enough to protect the right to life for these children.

It’s time for Washington to listen.

The Surprising Speech on Marriage From the Creator of The Affair

The Surprising Speech on Marriage From the Creator of The Affair published on

The Surprising Speech on Marriage From the Creator of The Affair

Commentary By

Ericka Andersen @ErickaAndersen

Ericka Andersen manages The Heritage Foundation’s social networking platforms and strategy as well as online outreach as the think tank’s manager of digital media.

It was just like Hollywood to create and flaunt a show around the premise of an affair—and then actually call the show “The Affair.”
But, after winning the award for best TV drama at the Golden Globes last night, the show’s co-creator Sarah Treem had something refreshing to say about the institution of marriage.

She thanked her husband in her acceptance speech, noting that, “If I have learned anything from writing a show about an affair, it’s how sacred and valuable and essential our marriages are.”
In Hollywood, where divorce is common, it was nice to hear someone uphold the importance of marriage—especially in a time when the ravages of divorce and single parenthood are fueling inequality in our society.

Treem’s remarks came near the same time that George Clooney spent a few moments praising his new wife Amal Clooney, saying, “It’s a humbling thing to find someone to love” and that he “couldn’t be more proud to be your husband.”
Showtime’s “The Affair” co-creator Sarah Treem and the rest of the cast during the 72nd annual Golden Globe Awards. (Photo: Jim Ruymen/UPI/Newscom)
Marriage is great for Clooney and Treem, but its benefits extend across educational, racial and socio-economic backgrounds as well. Studies have shown that marriage helps the economy and prevents child poverty.
In the quest for a juicy story line, Hollywood has discovered something even more important: the benefits of marriage.

Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings

Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings published on

Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings

Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sharply protesting a three-judge panel’s October ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in two states, argued on Friday that courts at that level of the federal judiciary have no authority to decide that question. The Supreme Court, those judges argued, took away that power forty-two years ago.
The critique, one of the strongest dissenting statements yet issued amid a wave of federal and state court rulings striking down bans on same-sex marriages, came as the en banc Ninth Circuit refused to reconsider the panel’s combined decision in cases from Idaho and Nevada. Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain wrote the dissenters’ opinion, joined by Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Carlos T. Bea. It is unclear how many judges on the full court voted to deny rehearing.

Perhaps by coincidence, the fervent judicial protest came on the same day that the Supreme Court considered anew whether it should step in now to resolve the constitutional controversy over same-sex marriage. (The Justices examined that issue in private Friday but did not act on it.) The O’Scannlain opinion bluntly argued that “the same-sex marriage debate is not over.” It could have the effect of building resistance within the Supreme Court to moving soon toward a nationwide ruling in favor of such unions.

The heart of the dissent was its argument that lower courts are still bound by the Supreme Court’s one-line decision in 1972 in the case of Baker v. Nelson, declaring that a claim to same-sex marriage did not raise “a substantial federal question.” Judge O’Scannlain wrote that the Baker precedent remains binding on lower courts, and he added that the Supreme Court had made clear that “federal courts must avoid substituting their own definition of marriage for that adopted by the states’ citizenry.”

The dissenting opinion used much stronger language than a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit had used in November in upholding bans on same-sex marriage in four states — an opinion that also had relied upon the Baker precedent.
Judge O’Scannlain did make some of the same other points that the Sixth Circuit panel’s majority had, such as the argument that an issue as sensitive as same-sex marriage should be left to the people and the state legislatures to resolve, and that it will be better for the nation and for its people to have it worked out by representative government rather than by the courts.
The panel’s decision in the Idaho and Nevada cases, Judge O’Scannlain wrote, “shuts down the debate, removing the issue from the public square. In doing so, it reflects a profound distrust in — or even a downright rejection of — our constitutional structure.”
The Ninth Circuit dissent, though, added another point that went beyond the Sixth Circuit’s ruling against same-sex marriage. The dissenters said that the courts simply have no authority to decide any question about marital policy, because there is a flat “domestic relations exception” to federal court jurisdiction over that field of law, since it is to be left to the states.
That notion dates all the way back to a Supreme Court decision in 1890 in the case of In re Burrus. That jurisdictional argument, although picked up by some state attorneys general in recent same-sex marriage cases, had not been embraced by any court as a reason not to rule on the constitutional issue. It has received some recent support in academic literature.
The three-judge panel decision so forcefully opposed by the dissenters Friday was written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. He and Judge O’Scannlain have been long-time philosophical adversaries on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for a panel majority against the Idaho and Nevada bans went further in its constitutional reasoning than any other federal court had in the lengthy series of decisions against state bans.
The Ninth Circuit took almost three months to reveal its vote on whether it would reconsider the panel decision before a full eleven-judge court. The governor of Idaho had asked for such a rehearing of the case involving that state’s ban, as had the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, in the Nevada case. State officials in Nevada had abandoned a defense of their state’s ban.
The Idaho governor and the state’s attorney general have filed separate petitions asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision. Those petitions were not among those that the Justices considered at their private Conference on Friday, because they were not yet ready to be submitted to the Justices.

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Sharp new critique of same-sex marriage rulings, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 10, 2015, 7:46 AM),

Cashing in on MLK’s Legacy

Cashing in on MLK’s Legacy published on

King, Inc. Cashing in on MLK’s Legacy … to its Destruction

By Michael Minkoff

The new movie Selma, a sweeping biopic chronicling the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., did not use any of King’s actual words from his speeches. Why not? Because the corporation that owns the rights to those speeches, King, Inc., which is run by King’s surviving family, zealously guards those actual words like a dragon hoarding gold. Actual gold, as it turns out.

King, Inc. charges exorbitant royalties for the use of words from King’s speeches. The iconic “I have a dream” speech has become something of a cash cow for King, Inc.

. . . Clarence Jones, who was a personal attorney and speechwriter for King, was told by attorneys from King, Inc., that if he wanted to use the full speech in his book Behind the Dream: The Making of the Speech That Transformed a Nation, he would have to pay $20,000.

“If it wasn’t for me copyrighting that speech, the King children wouldn’t today own their biggest moneymaker,” Jones complained. He said his small publisher feared a lawsuit, so he as the author had to indemnify them from any costs of such a suit. He then dared King family lawyers to sue the man who helped write “I have a dream.” They chose not to.

But in most other cases, they have sued. And no one has been exempt. Anyone who might want to use King’s words, likeness, etc. have to go through King, Inc. first. And this isn’t just a case of King’s family wanting to make sure King’s legacy is not tarnished. King, Inc. could probably very easily collaborate with MLK memorial-makers, historians, and documentarians to make sure that MLK’s legacy is secure—without requiring payment.

It is the money, and the huge amounts of it, that indicate that King, Inc. is less interested in promoting and protecting King’s message and more interested in profiting off of it. Which is, quite frankly, despicable. King’s legacy doesn’t belong to King, Inc. any more than any famous person’s legacy belongs to his blood relations. King’s speeches and legacy belong to America and to history.

Ironically, the very means King, Inc. is using to purportedly protect King’s legacy is in direct contradiction to it. And it may turn out that the draconian tactics of King, Inc. is only encouraging people, like the film makers of Selma, to make up their own words to represent King.
Reposted from Last

FDA Intends To Allow Sodomites To Donate Blood

FDA Intends To Allow Sodomites To Donate Blood published on

FDA Intends To Allow Sodomites To Donate Blood
By Jonah Bennett
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Tuesday plans to remove the long-standing prohibition on blood donations from sodomites.

As a result of consistent pressure from homosexual rights advocacy groups, the FDA has spent the past few years reviewing the scientific literature relating to sodomites donating blood. After consultations with the Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability, the FDA has agreed that a change is needed. Soon, instead of facing a permanent deferral, sodomites who abstain from sex with other men for a year will be able to donate blood.
In the meantime, the FDA is working with the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute to implement a massive blood surveillance system nationwide, in order to determine the effects of the new policy change after it’s put in place. However, the proposed change is not yet finalized. In 2015, the FDA will release draft guidance advocating for the new regulation. There will be a period where the public and all relevant stakeholders can comment.

“We encourage all stakeholders to take this opportunity to provide any information the agency should consider, and look forward to receiving and reviewing these comments,” the FDA’s press release stated. At the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee last month, homosexual activist Richard Dedor testified that sodomites often lie on blood donation forms, anyway, in spite of the ban. “Others in my exact same situation do lie because they believe so vehemently that they have the right — forget the right, the ability — to keep the blood supply and the bone marrow supply safe,” Dedor said, according to The Hill. “We have the ability to help save lives.”

A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that in 2010, 63 percent of new HIV infections in the United States came from men who have sex with other men. However, the America Medical Association (AMA) and other groups still think that the blood ban is based on unwarranted science. The AMA voted in 2013 to kill the ban. Homosexual rights advocacy groups are disturbed that the prohibition will not completely be done away with in 2015, but last month Ryan James Yezak of the National Gay Blood said that it’s “only a matter of time” before all conditions surrounding sodomites donating blood are left in the past.
Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg argued before the Blood Products Advisory Committee, urging the FDA to “oppose any change in the current lifetime deferral as blood donors of men who have had sex with men, unless it can be scientifically proven that a revised policy would result in no increase in risk to the blood supply. Even a small increase in risk is unacceptable.”

“The very small size of this population means that any potential benefit to the quantity of blood supplies would be marginal,” Sprigg added.


Editor’s Note: The fact that sodomites lie on their blood donor forms should be the supreme red flag here. They are telling on themselves about their deviant behavior to the point that they put their lives, along with other people’s lives, at risk. Where are you America? Where is the outcry of the Christian community against not only the abomination that is sodomy, but over the endangerment of your fellow man?

© 2014 Freedom Force