Lou Iacobelli

, , ,

Who will protect Ontario’s school children?

Lou Iacobelli
By Lou Iacobelli

TORONTO, Ontario, February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The provincial government in Ontario has now for years been pushing school boards to accept a radical social/sexual indoctrination agenda. In 2010, the McGuinty Liberals had to withdraw the Health and Physical Education curriculum because it contained explicit sexual material that many believed to be inappropriate for young children. Parents were outraged that their government would try to teach children what Christians see as immoral content with little or no consultation.

In 2011, schools began implementing the “Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy”, and presently the proposed Bill 13, if passed, will see the legal protection of dozens of socially constructed sexual “orientations”. There is a campaign by provincial governments in Canada to normalize the LGTB, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender life-style, and in a number of provinces to establish gay/straight alliances in schools. In Ontario, this is now clear because McGuinty has rejected the Catholic document called “Respecting Difference” on how to deal with the issue of bullying in schools. It was released this past week by the Catholic trustees and backed by the Ontario Bishops.

In all these adult efforts pushing for political correctness, who is speaking for the children? Who will protect Ontario’s students from this psychological and moral abuse?

School boards and teachers’ unions have not been there to defend students. In fact, to help schools normalize and promote the LGTB life-style, boards are using resource Internet guides written by activist groups like Egale for grades 7-12 called MyGSA . According to Egale, the website is for youth and educators across this country for “safer and inclusive education”. The Toronto District Board of Education website currently links and endorses this site.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, the public teachers’ union, has already developed a number of guides that are friendly and promote the LGTB agenda. One is called, Creating Spaces: Embedding Equity in Education, and another is titled, Shout Out: Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Transphobia and Heterosexism.

Parents can no longer trust governments, school boards and teachers’ unions

Why are our governments using tax payer money and partnering with Egale to offer training workshops on “LGBT”? This sexual indoctrination in our schools and our society is the result of policies deceptively called, “Inclusive and Equitable” education.

Of course it helps, at least in Ontario, to silence and buy the co-operation of many voters with the Liberals’ decision to fund All-Day Kindergarten. This unnecessary extra schooling is pedagogically unsound. The added year will also cost Ontario taxpayers billions of dollars; nevertheless, this is of little importance to politicians interested in getting votes and appeasing consciences.

The Liberals didn’t consult with Ontario parents and citizens if they wanted the LGBT curriculum. We think we know why: the majority of parents and students don’t consider the LGBT agenda a priority or something they would endorse. The LGBT is completely politically driven and socially manufactured. As a result, the ruling government can toss aside even the mere appearance of passing “Equity” policies and laws democratically. Why do you think they had the effrontery never to mention the LGBT issue during the election if they believe it’s so important?

Why concern yourself with a consultation process when you can simply get bureaucrats to approve the deception of “Equity” education. The government merely instructed the ministers of education, got the school boards and trustees on side with more programs and money. Then they launched a political campaign about the need to end bullying in schools and to do that, among other things, it mandated and encouraged schools to implement the doublespeak of the “Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy”.

The last step was to collaborate with gay activists to provide the schools with the resources to accomplish the task. If you listen to the LGBT rhetoric, it seems that governments have now decided that one of the most important issues facing Ontario and the nation is the protection and support of students with a dozen different sexual orientations. But please read on, regrettably there’s more.

Egale’s MyGSA website goes further and lists for visitors, these could be young students, homosexual organizations like Outrage!, Stonewall, PFLAG, and pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The website’s recommended resources includes a book for teens called Coming Out: A Handbook for Men that includes sex advice involving grotesque sexual acts not worth mentioning here. To suggest that this material is a good resource for students is psychologically and morally abusive.

People in authority are taking advantage of their positions and tempting students to sin by exploring immoral behaviour. Parental warning: your children can be visiting websites like MyGSA fully endorsed by some teachers, your local school board, teachers’ unions and our provincial government.

Who will protect the children?

Given all this evidence, it’s only natural that parents be suspicious of governments and their political educational agenda. Politicians may be working to please people’s sexual orientations and get re-elected, but who is there to protect the children and their souls? Isn’t it part of a government’s responsibility to keep children from harm? And to be building the common good? Don’t students have the right to their moral and sexual innocence?

The government, the schools boards and teacher unions that ought to be defending students instead are introducing programs that are abusive to their moral and sexual wellbeing.

In addition,there is a total disregard of Christian values that are based on natural law. The push to normalize the LGTB sexual agenda has no natural, moral or legal basis. The acceptance of the LGTB lifestyle has been masked as “human rights” and turned into a topic of taboo because anyone who dares to disagree is quickly attacked as being “homophobic” or bigoted. But shouldn’t a truly “Equity and Inclusive” policy make plenty of room for those who don’t accept it?

In the end, the only true hope is for parents to protect their children’s morality and true sexuality; they must act quickly before the province and school boards turns the children against their parents on these issues. Our government is now bullying Christians: it’s high time for parents to reclaim their rights and to push back. If parents don’t defend their children from this Orwellian nightmare, who will?

This article is a slightly condensed version of an article posted on the Lou Iacobelli blog Every Day for Life Canada.

Lou Iacobelli and his wife are retired former teachers with a combined total of 64 years of teaching experience with the Toronto District Catholic School Board. Lou is a member of the board of directors and spokesperson for The Parental Rights in Education Defense Fund (PREDF)

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley / Shutterstock.com
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook