SpongeBob, Barney promote 'gay tolerance (FedEx to Sponsor in Gov't Schools)

In a new video to be distributed to 61,000 schools across the nation, homosexual activists are using popular children's TV characters such as SpongeBob SquarePants and Barney the dinosaur to surreptitiously indoctrinate young children into their lifestyle, a pro-family activist group charges.

Based on the 1970s hit song "We Are Family," the video will be distributed to public and private elementary schools nationwide March 11, along with lesson plans for teachers, points out the American Family Association.

The distribution, sponsored by FedEx, will coincide with the video's broadcast March 11 on Nickelodeon, PBS, and the Disney Channel in celebration of the proposed National We Are Family Day.

AFA researcher Ed Vitagliano sees the project as an "open door" to a secondary discussion of homosexuality, noting the the foundation has a "tolerance pledge" on its website that children and others are encouraged to sign, which includes sexual orientation. [Editor's note: This story previously linked to the website of a group that has the same name but no connection to the video. WND regrets the error.]

"While we want everyone to respect other people's beliefs, we do not consider it appropriate for children's television to be used in an effort to indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality," he said.

Vitagliano says the foundation is employing a bait-and-switch approach, with popular children's figures such as Arthur, Dora the Explorer, JoJo, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Big Bird and Bob the Builder.

The objective is to get children to the foundation's website "and there they're given the full pitch about homosexuality," he said.

"For the first time characters from all of the important kids shows came together to appear in the same video," he said in a November news release. "The producers and performers from each show embraced the spirit and message of this project."

The We Are Family Foundation was founded by singer-songwriter Nile Rodgers, who wrote the hit song recorded in 1979 by Sister Sledge.

"Cooperation and unity are the most important values we can teach children," Rodgers said. "We believe that this is the essential first step to loving thy neighbor."

The We Are Family Foundation says its partners in the production are the Anti-Defamation League, Crown Theatres, Disney Channel, FedEx, Nickelodeon, HIT Entertainment, Nile Rodgers/Sony Publishing/The Bernard Edwards Estate/Warner Chapel, Nelvana, PBS, Scholastic, Sesame Workshop, Toni Mendez Shapiro Estate, and WGBH-TV in Boston.

A Federal Express spokesman said the company is "proud" to provide shipping for the project.

"Promoting diversity is part of our corporate culture at FedEx," said William G. Margaritis, senior vice president, worldwide corporate communications.

Characters appearing in the video are from award-winning shows including "Arthur," "Barney," "Bear in the Big Blue House," "Between the Lions," "Blue's Clues, Bob the Builder," "The Book of Pooh," "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Dora the Explorer," "Jimmy Neutron," "JoJo's Circus," "Kim Possible," "Lilo & Stitch: The Series," "Little Mermaid," "Madeline," "The Magic School Bus," "The Muppet Show," "The Proud Family," "Rugrats," "Sesame Street," "SpongeBob SquarePants," and "Zoom."

The video also features cameo appearances by entertainers Bill Cosby, Diana Ross and Whoopi Goldberg.

Have a look at this:
THE GAMES THEY TEACH OUR CHILDREN

What Is This Intellectual Development?

What is the base for the technique of mindwarp being
imposed throughout our education system?

If you are a grandparent you may recall that, when a
child, you were often told you were allowed to be seen but
not heard. Our change-agents today throw up their hands in
horror at such a suggestion; they would claim it, at very
least, an intolerable denial of child rights.

But ask these advocates of (what they call) 'child rights'
on what moral or factual base they rest their claim and
they will only splutter like a broken record ... child
rights ... child rights ... child rights ... just as they
have been brainwashed to repeat.

Any person not mindwarped beyond all appreciation of
reality knows that decisions made by 5-year-olds will not
be as valid as those made by ten- year-olds; those of ten-
year-olds not so good as twenty-year-olds; and twenty-year-
olds not so sound as a forty-year-olds; all this assuming
that natural mental development is unhindered.

It follows then that the longer one can leave opinion-
forming the more mature will be the opinions formed. Or,
conversely, that the earlier one is induced to form
opinions, then the more immature will be the opinions
formed.

Our grandparents had it right: it was made clear to
children that their opinions, on matters beyond their
experience and understanding, were of no value. They were
neither encouraged to give them nor, therefore, did they
have to defend them.

When a person gives an opinion then that is the first step
to possession. Once that opinion is defended then that is
the second step to possession. If this process is repeated
then possession becomes nine points of the mind's law;
meaning that the mind possessed by an opinion tends to see
it as law. It is not so much the mind that possesses the
opinion as the opinion that possesses the mind.

Once a person makes an opinion public, then ego becomes
involved and that person begins to search out evidence to
feed the opinion and, while doing so, tends to reject
information that might harm the opinion. Dogmatism sets
in, the mind tends to become rigid and biased against
truth. The younger this process begins the less experience
the mind has of coping with these pressures and so the
more inflexible and dogmatic it becomes.

Values clarification games are very cleverly designed to
force children to 'adopt' opinions and defend them in a
peer group situation. This imposition goes well beyond
dogmatizing children to adopt adolescent ideas because
the ideas dogmatized are not those that children of
tender age would naturally have. Young children do not
naturally despise their parents; they do not naturally
take an anti-moral outlook; they do not naturally fight
for an anti-defense position; etc. So although the self-
admitted change agents fiercely maintain that they do not
interfere with the opinion-forming process, it is self-
evident that they have introduced their concepts and
attitudes as the 'correct' concepts and attitudes, which
are then fixed into minds by values clarification games.
This appears to be the sole purpose of the 'game'.

...please be bold to share more as warranted,...

Child molestation, rape, murder and suicide are not a genotype or a phenotype, neither is homosexuality a genotype or phenotype.

It is a willful perversion of human anatomy.

While some human behavior is hormonal and genetic (a woman crabby during menstruation, for example), it is not a perversion of human biological facts to say she was born that way (that is, to menstruate).

Now Rosie O'Donnel for instance...

Everything about her is a lie. She is not a parent - - there are no children that are the product of her ovaries. She wants children but claims she is homosexual - - the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Rosie just can't make up her mind. By definition, homosexuals do not reproduce - - it is self-imposed sterility and an infertile cult of fertility when they say they want to have a child.

No person can ever have a "sex change." The use of the language has been so twisted by the leftist radicals, that in our touchy-feely world, many blindly accept some of these erroneous terminologies.

XX or XY chromosones can't be changed after conception when mitosis begins.

The physicians who do "sex-change" operations should not be allowed to practice medicine, it is disfigurement. The same goes for breast implants: instead of lawsuits against Dow-Corning, the doctors who implanted the silicone bags should be held liable...

They are still genetically male or female. They are sterile. XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome). No matter how many X chromosomes there are, any individual with a Y chromosome developes into a male, the absence of a Y chromosome is female. These abnormalities are so few, only one in several thousands occurs.

So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist, it is a phantasm.

Either homosexuality is a choice, a mental illness (which some people believe is demonic by nature) or it is a birth defect...

I am writing a book and will possibly publish it next year, if my spare time permits me to complete it by then. You may want to look at some books I have read recently by Immanuel Velikovsky: Ages in Chaos, and Oedipus and Ahkenaton .

Try also...

Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ...

And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.

Besides these sovereign powers, divine and human, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another power, namely, that of "the rulers of the darkness of this world," [Ephesians, 6. 12] "the kingdom of Satan," [Matthew, 12. 26] and "the principality of Beelzebub over demons," [Ibid., 9. 34] that is to say, over phantasms that appear in the air: for which cause Satan is also called "the prince of the power of the air"; [Ephesians, 2. 2] and, because he ruleth in the darkness of this world, "the prince of this world": [John, 16. 11] and in consequence hereunto, they who are under his dominion, in opposition to the faithful, who are the "children of the light," are called the "children of darkness." For seeing Beelzebub is prince of phantasms, inhabitants of his dominion of air and darkness, the children of darkness, and these demons, phantasms, or spirits of illusion, signify allegorically the same thing. This considered, the kingdom of darkness, as it is set forth in these and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a confederacy of deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by dark and erroneous doctrines, to extinguish in them the light, both of nature and of the gospel; and so to disprepare them for the kingdom of God to come.

Another relic of Gentilism is the worship of images, neither instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the general religion of the Gentiles to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream. And this is the reason why St. Paul says, "We know that an idol is nothing": not that he thought that an image of metal, stone, or wood was nothing; but that the thing which they honored or feared in the image, and held for a god, was a mere figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. And the worship of these with divine honour is that which is in the Scripture called idolatry, and rebellion against God. For God being King of the Jews, and His lieutenant being first Moses, and afterward the high priest, if the people had been permitted to worship and pray to images (which are representations of their own fancies), they had had no further dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no similitude; nor on His prime ministers, Moses and the high priests; but every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the utter eversion of the Commonwealth, and their own destruction for want of union. And therefore the first law of God was: they should not take for gods, alienos deos, that is, the gods of other nations, but that only true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give them laws and directions for their peace, and for their salvation from their enemies. And the second was that they should not make to themselves any image to worship, of their own invention. For it is the same deposing of a king to submit to another king, whether he be set up by a neighbour nation or by ourselves.

An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.

It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.

And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.

The fantastic is, of course, most closely related to the imagination (Phantasien), but the imagination is related in it’s turn to feeling, understanding, and will, so that a person’s feelings, understanding and will may be fantastic. Fantasy is, in general the medium of infinitization…

Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness Unto Death. Trans. Alastair Hannay. New York : Penguin, 1989.

VALUES CLARIFICATION games are very cleverly designed to force children to 'adopt' opinions and defend them in a peer group situation. This imposition goes well beyond dogmatizing children to adopt adolescent ideas because the ideas dogmatized are not those that children of tender age would naturally have.

This is but ONE of the techniques taught to future teachers in the TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS at many/most colleges.

This Values Clarification has been USED IN SCHOOLS FOR YEARS. The HATCH AMENDMENT was put in place to protect children from these types of PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATIONS. The HATCH AMENDMENT gave parents a tool to use against schols/teachers that put their children into psychological exercises WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' CONSENT OR WRITTEN PERMISSION, subjecting the school/teacher to violation of FEDERAL LAW.

President Reagin was extremely concerned about this, along with Orrin Hatch. Phylis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, testified before congress, along with parents all over the country, concerning these different kinds of "games" that were being forced onto innocent children, from K-12. Another psychological technique used in school is MAGIC CIRCLE. It's goal is to break down the "wall" to a child's "self," and can be used to FORCE a child to SHARE (all kinds of things) in a group setting.

THIS IS DANGEROUS, as children are PROMPTED to speak about what they otherwise wouldn't---and in a group setting.

Teachers are NOT health care officials. They are NOT trained to deal with the resultant TRAUMA to other students that can/does occur when ALL those OTHER children (even 5 year olds) ARE forced to LISTEN to and hear about acts of violence or deviant sexual behaviors that may be occurring in, say, another Kindergartener's home.

The NEA, teachers' unions, colleges which teach future teahcers, JUSTIFY these techniques being used because of the ONE CHILD WHO MAY BE ABUSED at home....

They're on a FISHING EXPEDITION, using children as "bait," if you will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.