1-Year Individual Memberships - California Council On Problem: Fill & Download for Free

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

I’m going to excerpt from a book, but its not MY book (although I DO talk about the more modern day Illuminati - and by that I mean, going back not further than the mid-1700s - in my book- among many other things).But this guy, Bill Cooper, has a unique view on a lot of these things which lends credibility to any investigation because he was deeply involved in Naval and other Intelligence agencies through the instrumentality of his service in the Armed Forces.(Cooper says that he himself was a member of one of these secret combinations - which is what *I* call them - and that he speculates in his book that this may well have been a reason that he was picked for this kind of duty consistently during his period of service)What follows are EXCERPTS from his work BEHOLD, A PALE HORSE: and as pertains to your question, what you will see in the things Cooper says, is that Cooper seems to go far afield from the Illuminati proper (and for the purpose of making a more complete response, I include that “in”); and it seems to be his intention to enumerate and then connect miscellaneous various secret organizations to, not THE ILLUMINATI, as such - but RATHER, the greater concept of ILLUMINISM - which goes back MUCH further; so in responding to this question, the reader will, it is hoped, see that the REAL IDEA is not “THE ILLUMINATI” PER SE - but a LARGER PREMISE - which goes back much much further in time - to which all these secret combinations subscribe - called ILLUMINISM.So here we go with Cooper’s comments; and afterwards, I will have more to say which will add a little bit on a specific group that Cooper mentions, which is from my own research and writing:“Adam Weishaupt, a young professor of canon law at Ingolstadt University in Germany, was a Jesuit priest and an initiate of the Illuminati. The branch of the Order he founded in Germany in 1776 was the same Illuminati previously discussed. The Jesuit connection is important, as you will see later in this chapter. Researchers agree that he was financed by the House of Rothschild (the same Rothschild family mentioned in "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars"). Weishaupt advocated "abolition of all ordered national governments, abolition of inheritance, abolition of private property, abolition of patriotism, abolition of the individual home and family life as the cell from which all civilizations have stemmed, and abolition of all religions established and existing so that the Luciferian ideology of totalitarianism may be imposed on mankind." In the same year that he founded the Illuminati…[Adam Smith] published Wealth of Nations, the book that provided the ideological foundation for capitalism and for the Industrial Revolution. It is no accident that the Declaration of Independence was written in the same year. On the obverse of the Great Seal of the United States the wise will recognize the all-seeing eye and other signs of the Brotherhood of the Snake. Every tenet was the same. Date and beliefs confirm that Weishaupt's Illuminati is the same as the Afghan Illuminated Ones (The Roshinaya) and the other cults which called themselves "illuminated." The Alumbrados of Spain were the same - as were the "illuminated" Guerinets of France. In the United States they were known as the Jacobin clubs.“Secrets within secrets within secrets — but always at the heart is the Brotherhood.“[some believe]…Weishaupt was betrayed and set up for persecution because he ignored the rule that the word "illuminati" or the existence of the Brotherhood would never be exposed to public knowledge. His exposure and outlawing accomplished several goals of the still-hidden and still very powerful brotherhood. It allowed members to debunk claims of its existence on the grounds that the Illuminati had been exposed and outlawed and thus was no longer a reality. It allowed members to deny allegations of conspiracy of any kind. The Brotherhood of the Snake is adept at throwing out decoys to keep the dogs at bay.“Weishaupt may have been a fool — OR, he may have been doing exactly what he was told.“Weishaupt said, "The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation."“Allegations that the Freemason organizations were infiltrated by the Illuminati during Weishaupt's reign are hogwash. The Freemasons have always contained the core of Illuminati within their ranks, and that is why they so freely and so willingly took in and hid the members of Weishaupt's group.“You cannot really believe that the Freemasons, if they were only a simple fraternal organization, would have risked everything, including their very lives, by taking in and hiding outlaws who had been condemned by the monarchies of Europe.“It is mainly Freemason authors who have perpetuated the myth that Adam Weishaupt was the founder of the Illuminati and that the Illuminati was destroyed, never to surface again. The Masons are major players in the struggle for world domination….“The 33rd Degree is split into two. One split contains the core of the Luciferian Illuminati and the other contains those who have no knowledge of it whatsoever. ALL of the intelligence officers that I worked for while in Naval Intelligence were Masons.“Most members of the Freemasons are not aware that the Illuminati practices what is known as "secrets within secrets," or organizations within organizations. That is one purpose of initiation.“I firmly believe that all adult secret societies that practice degrees of initiation and consider the members to be "illuminated" are branches of the original ages-old Illuminati. Their goal is to rule the world. The doctrine of this group is not democracy or communism, but is a form of fascism.(Editor Note: Arguably, without the network of the southern jurisdiction Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, getting the South into the mindset and position where it could decide to secede from the Union, COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. There were some other networks – Yale’s Skull and Bones network had quite a bit to do with this – but all these other networks were under the general umbrella of the southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. So what was operating, ante-bellum, was a lot of Skull and Bones type, Scottish Rite Freemasonry, British influence, esp. in South Carolina – all of these interests wanted the U.S. to split up, right? For various nefarious reasons).OK - back to Cooper:“You must begin to think correctly.“The Illuminati are not Communists, but some Communists are Illuminati. (1) Monarchism (thesis) faced democracy (antithesis) in WWI, which resulted in the formation of communism and the League of Nations (synthesis). (2) Democracy and communism (thesis) faced fascism (antithesis) in WWII and resulted in a more powerful United Nations (synthesis). (3) Capitalism (thesis) now faces communism (antithesis) and the result will be the New World Order...“The 1953 report of the California Senate Investigating Committee on Education stated: "So-called modern Communism is apparently the same hypocritical world conspiracy to destroy civilization that was founded by the Illuminati, and that raised its head in our colonies here at the critical period before the adoption of our Constitution." The California Senate understood that communism is the work of the Illuminati. They failed to realize that the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are also the work of the Illuminati.“YOU MUST BEGIN TO THINK CORRECTLY.(Ed. Note: AND SO SAY I ALSO)“The enemy is not communism, it is ILLUMINISM.“The Communists are not going to be much happier with the New World Order than we. I hope to show that most modern secret societies and especially those that practice degrees of initiation — and that is the key — are really one society with one purpose. You may call them whatever you wish — the Order of the Quest, the JASON Society, the Roshinaya, the Qabbalah, the Knights Templar, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus, the Jesuits, the Masons, the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae Crucis, the Illuminati, the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Executive Members of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Group, the Brotherhood of the Dragon, the Rosicrucians, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Open Friendly Secret Society (the Vatican), the Russell Trust, the Skull & Bones, the Scroll & Key, the Order — THEY ARE ALL THE SAME and ALL WORK TOWARD THE SAME ULTIMATE GOAL - a New World Order.“In 1952 an alliance was formed, bringing them all together for the first time in history. The Black Families, the Illuminati (the Order), the Vatican, and the Freemasons now work together to bring about the New World Order. All will protest their innocence…“You may notice that some of those listed in the preceding paragraphs do not, or so it appears, practice degrees of initiation. That is the public view. Look at the Council on Foreign Relations. Many members—in fact, the majority — never serve on the executive committees. They never go through any initiation of any kind. They are, in fact, the power base and are used to gain a consensus of opinion. The majority are not really members but are made to feel as if they are. In reality they are being used and are unwilling or unable to understand. The Executive Committee is an inner core of intimate associates, members of a secret society called the Order of the Quest, also known as the JASON Society, devoted to a common purpose. The members are an outer circle on whom the inner core acts by personal persuasion, patronage and social pressure. That is how they bought Henry Kissinger. Rockefeller gave Kissinger a grant of $50,000 in the early '50s, a fortune in those days, and made dear old Henry a member of the CFR. Anyone in the outer circle who does not toe the mark is summarily expelled and the lesson is not lost on those who remain. Do you remember the human desire to be a member of the elect? That is the principle at work.“The real power are men who are always recruited without exception from the secret societies of Harvard and Yale known as the Skull & Bones and the Scroll & Key. Both societies are secret branches (also called the Brotherhood of Death) of what is otherwise historically known as the Illuminati. They are connected to parent organizations in England (The Group of Oxford University and especially All Souls College), and Germany (the Thule Society, also called the Brotherhood of Death).“I learned this when I was with Naval Intelligence.“I was not able to explain why some members of the Executive Committee were not listed under the "Addresses" of Chapter 322 of the Skull & Bones Society until I read The Wise Men by Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas, Simon and Schuster, New York. Under illustration #9 in the center of the book you will find the caption "Lovett with the Yale Unit, above far right, and on the beach: His initiation into Skull and Bones came at an air base near Dunkirk." I have found that members of these two societies were chosen on an ongoing basis by invitation based upon merit post-college and were not confined to only Harvard orY>ale attendees. Only members of the Order are initiated into the Order of the Quest, the JASON Society that makes up the executive members of the Council on Foreign Relations and, in fact, the Trilateral Commission as well. The executive members of the Council on Foreign Relations are the real elect in this country. George Bush is a member of the Order. Surprised? You shouldn't be. His father was also a member who helped finance Hitler.“It is important that you know that the members of the Order take an oath that absolves them from any allegiance to any nation or king or government or constitution, and that includes the negating of any subsequent oath of allegiance which they may be required to take. They swear allegiance only to the Order and its goal of a New World Order.“George Bush (to use one example) is not a loyal citizen of the United States but instead is loyal only to the destruction of the United States and to the formation of the New World Order. According to the oath Bush took when he was initiated into Skull & Bones, his oath of office as President of the United States of America means nothing.“The Trilateral Commission is an elite group of some 300 very prominent business, political, and intellectual decision-makers of Western Europe, North America, and Japan. This enterprise is a private agency that works to build up political and economic cooperation among the three regions. Its grand design, which it no longer hides, is a New World Order. The Trilateral Commission was the idea of its founder, American banking magnate David Rockefeller. The real reason for its formation was the decline of the Council on Foreign Relation's power as a result of the people's dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War. The reasoning behind the move toward the Trilateral Commission was the same as entering two horses in the same race. It doubles the chances of winning. The real power has always remained solidly in the hands of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Rockefeller family was, is and always will be the benefactor of both organizations. Rockefeller, though powerful, is not in control in this country or anywhere else. The key to the REAL power is the fact that Rockefeller had to put out feelers at a Bilderberg Group meeting in 1972 about forming a private group of trilateral leaders.“The Bilderberg Group gave the nod and Rockefeller's man Zbigniew Brzezinski gathered up a membership and organized the Trilateral Commission in 1972, not in 1973 as the Commission claims. A key to the danger presented by the Trilateral Commission is its "Seminal Peace," written for them by Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington in the mid '70s. In the paper Professor Huntington recommended that democracy and economic development be discarded as outdated ideas. He wrote as co-author of the book Crises In Democracy, "We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary." The crises and sacrifices he talks about will be discussed in a later chapter. Remember that George Bush was a member of the Trilateral Commission and only resigned as an expediency to get elected. He believes wholeheartedly in the Commission and its ideas and ideals. We…elected a President who believes that democracy and economic development must be discarded…Bush is still a member of the Order and the CFR.“The JASON Society, or JASON Scholars, takes its name from the story of Jason and the Golden Fleece, and it is a branch of the Order of the Quest, One of the highest degrees in the Illuminati. The golden fleece takes on the role of truth to JASON members. Jason represents the search for the truth. Therefore the name JASON Society denotes a group of men who are engaged in a search for the truth. The name Jason is spelled with capital letters when used as the name of the JASON Society. Lower-case letters are never used when referring to this secret group. Author's note: The name may even have a deeper meaning, as the name "Jason" and the Golden Fleece appear throughout history in relation to various other secret societies. In these instances the story represents man (Jason) looking for himself (Golden Fleece). Top Secret documents that I read while with Naval Intelligence stated that President Eisenhower had commissioned the JASON Society to examine all of the evidence, facts, lies, and deception and find the truth of the alien question. Founders of the JASON Group (not the same as the JASON Society) include members of the famous Manhattan Project, which brought together almost every leading physicist in the nation to build the atomic bomb during World War II. The group is made up mostly of theoretical physicists and is the most elite gathering of scientific minds in the United States. As of 1987 the membership included four Nobel Prize winners. Today JASON continues to offer scientific help the government cannot find anywhere else. They are probably the only group of scientists in the United States that know the true state of highest technology. JASON is shrouded in what appears to be unnecessary secrecy. The group refuses to release its membership list. None of the members list JASON membership on their official resumes. Working completely behind the scenes, JASON has guided the nation's most important security decisions. These include, but are not limited to, Star Wars, submarine warfare, and predictions about the greenhouse effect….[a]ccording to the Pentagon, the JASONS hold the highest and most restrictive security clearances in the nation. They are given the protocol rank of rear admiral (two stars) when they visit or travel aboard ships or visit military bases. The only other reference to the JASON group that I have been able to find is in The Pentagon Papers. The papers stated that JASON was responsible for designing the electronic barrier between North and South Vietnam for the purpose of sealing off infiltration of the South by North Vietnamese regulars during the Vietnam War. I was stationed on the DMZ and I can tell you that it did not work. The veil of secrecy drawn around the JASON Group has been so tight and so leak-proof since its conception that those who think the government cannot keep a secret need to reexamine that position.“The government was able to contain the JASON secret except for the one leak; but the JASON Group itself, a civilian group, did even better. No leaks have ever occurred from within JASON.“JASON is administered by the Mitre Corporation. Government contracts allotted to the Mitre Corporation are in reality allotted to the JASON scientists. This is done so that the name JASON does not ever appear in documents which may come under public scrutiny. What is the difference between the JASON Scholars or JASON Society and the JASON Group? The documents that I read referred to the JASON Society in exactly those words. In public documents the only JASON reference is to the JASON Group, administered by the Mitre Corporation. I believe the JASON Society is one of the highest degrees above the Skull & Bones and the Scroll & Key in the Illuminati. In other words, it is a higher level of initiation. The JASON Group is a scientific organization formed and hired by the JASON Society and the U.S. Government for obvious reasons. I know a lot more about the JASON Society and the JASON Group, but I do not want to injure Mr. Grant Cameron, who has done extensive research on these subjects. He will publish his research in the coming months. I guarantee his findings will amaze you. The Council on Foreign Relations has been the foremost flank of America's foreign-policy establishment for more than half a century. The Council on Foreign Relations is a private organization of business executives, scholars, and political leaders that studies global problems and plays a key role in developing U.S. foreign policy. The CFR is one of the most powerful semi-official groups concerned with America's role in international affairs. It is controlled by an elect group of men recruited from the Skull & Bones and the Scroll & Key societies of Harvard and Yale, which are both chapters of a secret branch of the Illuminati known as Chapter 322 of the Order….“The members of the Order make up the Executive Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations after undergoing initiation into the Order of the Quest, also known as the JASON Society. The Council on Foreign Relations is an off-shoot sister organization to the British Royal Institute of International Affairs. Their goal is a New World Order. Although it existed as a dinner club in New York, it did not take on its present power until 1921, when it merged with the Royal Institute of International Affairs and received its financial base from J.R Morgan, the Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller family, and other Wall Street banking interests.“The Council on Foreign Relations controls our government. Through the years its members have infiltrated the entire executive branch, State Department, Justice Department, CIA, and the top ranks of the military. EVERY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CFR. MOST PRESIDENTS SINCE ROOSEVELT HAVE BEEN MEMBERS. The members of the CFR dominate ownership of the press and most, if not all, of America's top journalists are members. The CFR does not conform to government policy. The government conforms to CFR policy.“The CFR is a secret society in that it forbids the taking of notes or the publishing of minutes of its meetings. Any member who divulges the subject or any part of any conversation or talk that took place during a meeting is terminated. The goal of the Council on Foreign Relations is a New World Order. George Bush is a member of the CFR.ATTENTION!OK, now this is me again for a moment making a quick comment - this next part of Cooper excerpt is at least as important to pay attention to as the foregoing - THESE guys are REALLY NOT GOOD GUYS and they are VERY MUCH active today, right up to the present time:“The Knights of Malta play a powerful role in this scenario. In the 1930s General Smedley Butler was recruited to help take over the White House. He was told that he was needed because of his general popularity with the military. General Butler blew the whistle and named several prominent Americans as part of the plot. At the top of the list was John J. Raskob, who was a founding member of the U.S. branch of the Knights of Malta. He was board chairman of General Motors. He was, at the time, the U.S. Treasurer of the Knights of Malta. Congressional hearings were held to investigate the plot, but none of those named, including Raskob, was ever called to testify and nothing ever came of the hearings. Although you will find this in the Congressional records, you will NEVER find it in ANY history book anywhere. It is significant that the Iran-Contra episode has many similarities to the 1930s plot. William Casey was a member of the Knights of Malta. William Casey, with the help of Vice President Bush, Anne Armstrong and Donald Regan, caused the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to be emasculated so that Bush, Casey, North and others could carry out their dirty deeds without oversight. They had also developed a plan to suspend the Constitution of the United States and were preparing to implement the plan when they were caught. These facts emerged from the hearings but were suppressed by the committee chairman, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. You must understand that tremendous power was involved in both attempts to overthrow the United States Government. William Casey was the Director of the CIA. He was a member of the CFR. Casey was a Knight of Malta. He was the head of Ronald Reagan's political campaign. He was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the Nixon administration he was head of the Export-Import Bank. Casey arranged financing for the Kama River truck factory in the Soviet Union with 90% of the funds guaranteed or furnished by the U.S. taxpayer. This factory built military truck and tank engines for the Soviet Army. It was, and may still be, the largest factory in the world and could produce more heavy trucks than all U.S. factories together. I believe Casey was murdered. The Knights of Malta is a world organization with its threads weaving through business, banking, politics, the CIA, other intelligence organizations, P2, religion, education, law, military, think tanks, foundations, the United States Information Agency, the United Nations, and numerous other organizations. They are not the oldest but are one of the oldest branches of the Order of the Quest in existence. The world head of the Knights of Malta is elected for a life term, with the approval of the Pope. The Knights of Malta have their own Constitution and are sworn to work toward the establishment of a New World Order with the Pope at its head. Knights of Malta members are also powerful members of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.The Vatican has been infiltrated over many years by the Illuminati. This is easily proven by the fact that in 1738 Pope Clement XII issued a Papal Bull which stated that any Catholic who became a Mason would be excommunicated, a very serious punishment. In 1884 Pope Leo XIII issued a proclamation stating that Masonry was one of the secret societies attempting to "revive the manners and customs of the pagans'' and "establish Satan's kingdom on Earth."(Cooper: Behold A Pale Horse; excerpts; interpolatory insertions are mine)ATTENTION!OK, now, this is ME, again, adding some stuff about the Knights and Sovereign Military Order of Malta.Comments on various Secret Societies: Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society (these are the guys who REALLY choose our judges, folks) is a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.What does this mean?It is essentially a society of European, titled nobility – feudal aristocrats -existing in today’s world -the branch that he is a part of is the Roman Catholic one, There’s also an equivalent of it in Britain called the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem -there’s another one called the Knights of Malta, a Russian order, but this is actually the American version, and what we’re dealing with here is split from the various organizations into different parts. It goes back to the Crusades, back to 10, 11, 1200 A.D., when they were the Hospitaliers of Jerusalem. It’s sovereign, aristocratic order. It is considered to be independent state. It had diplomatic relations with 107 countries. They have their own embassies.What do they do?They claim they do humanitarian work: medical emergencies; national disasters. In Germany you will see their ambulances. Look up the Maltese Cross.They have passports.They have a diplomatic pouch.They can go around the customs and the border patrols of the countries that they are in.They have License plates.Stamps.Coins.They have a LOT of the attributes of a sovereign state.There is a huge controversy about this, but it is not generally known.Up until recently the head of this group was Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke of the United States – Wisconsin. He was the overboss of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and then he became one of the leading critics of the Pope; he said that of formal censure of the Pope might be needed in consequence of his encyclical entitled Amoris Laetitia.Burke is a canon lawyer; he’s a reactionary; Cardinal; a Prelate – and he orchestrated a power play in that Burke tried to use some of his people in the Order to turn people against Francis. However, Pope Francis called in the main ally of Burke, and forced Burke’s guy to quit.Anyway: let me tell you who some of these people are: they are TITLED NOBILITY (you don’t get into this thing without that).(IMAGINE - in this day and age)1) the Prince and Grand Master, Giacomo Dell’Atore Del Tempio Del Sanguinetto; grand commander Ludwig Hauptmann von Rumerstein of Austria;2) Grand Chancellor Albrecht Freiherr von Burgerlager (an imperial Knight of the Holy Roman Empire);3) Grand Master of the Order was Matthew Festing (British) –4) The Grand Hospitaler is Dominic de la Rochefocault Mobel;5) the Receiver of the Common Treasure is Janos Count Esterhazy De Gallante.We ALL would do WELL to ask ourselves, in this time of political upheaval in the United States, just what exactly we are doing allowing people who have these kinds of connections to foreign (and in some cases FEUDAL) organizatoins and influences to do all the things that they are doing in the U.S., including, now, apparently choosing our judges, or having a SAY in choosing our judges, a’la my previous observation about Leo’s role in the Federalist Society.

Q: “What is the importance of professional certifications? Are they sought out by employers? Do they give you a significant advantage?”I am ultimately hawkish on “professional” certifications, due to the variability and lack of enforcement of professional standards.My primary experience comes from the technology world. When I was younger, and when I thought they made a difference, I had an experience with a business/organization, which was also a certified testing provider for Microsoft and Comp/TIA and Cisco certifications.One of my (ad-hoc) jobs was installing cameras at that facility (to conform to evolving standards, circa 2004).Another of the jobs was “training” individuals using proprietary training methodology — in effect, preparation for taking exams. Part of the business was “certified” by the State of California to provide rehabilitative training for individuals on workers compensation (PPPVE, or PPVE — Private, Post-Educational Vocational Education).One individual I was assigned to “train” was on vocational rehabilitation due to a medical condition directly inflicted by so many previous years of repetitive typing. (Not sure why this person was “accepted,” she was in constant pain even though she already knew how to touch-type; reported to the State of California as soon as I lost my job — because the situation amounted to [workers compensation] FRAUD — the woman had already worked for the State of California, and the State of California produced a settlement such that she should go through “rehabilitation” doing the same thing she did everyday; that constituted ABUSE, too. I’m actually happy I was fired from this job an reported the employer to the State of California — because the State of California was directly involved in committing fraud against itself and entities it certifies.)But he latter aside is besides the point.The preparation for taking exams was specific “test-prep,” and not so much disciplinary competence.Two of my co-workers (long-term employees) actively used ExamCram test prep materials to train themselves for specific questions that would be on tests.In the end, neither of them were necessarily “competent” in any of the disciplines they’d received “certifications,” nor to “teach” (competently) to other individuals.Since that time in my life, I’ve worked in programming in various industries.In the finance industry, even though someone can be a Certified Public Accountant (by State), the person does not necessarily need to have full disciplinary competence, but can operate almost indiscriminately (in California, and Texas) advertising skills — even though the person’s “skills” may not be up to par with a particular individual’s tax situation.Texas mostly doesn’t care. Regulations are in name only. (Quite literally, usually passed under a person’s name, but, practically zero enforcement mechanisms unless private action is taking forcing the State to take action once exposed in a private legal action.) Texas is kinda-of screwy like this.On the other hand, you’ve got places like California, which is happy about enforcing regulations — but that there are so many reports, getting one through to actually be enforced is difficult if not a corrupt process. (The State of California will prosecute obvious, trivial cases with huge outcomes, but, it rarely spends money and resources where political connections and/or conflict are involved.)Also, in retrospect, you have private organizations, such as SHR (Society for Human Resources). They have ZERO ability to report a person with one of their certifications who violates the organization’s basic tenets or ethics. It’s because this is a PRIVATE organization. It IS NOT like being a Doctor or Lawyer or CPA. If you take the classes, pay the fees, you’re a member.It’s a big, bad joke.Now, look at more traditional professions. For example, a doctor advertises him or herself as “Board Certified.” — But what the hell does that mean?If a doctor advertises him or herself as “Board Certified” — It usually means exactly shit. All of the supposed “Board Certified” organizations are under the AMA umbrella (American Medical Association). They are privately policed organizations, like SHR for Human Resources, or whatever sub-”Council” on Legal or Finance — they’re all privately organized bodies, where you PAY A FEE, BECOME A MEMBER, ADVERTISE YOURSELF.This is not a joke.I am not kidding.Verify it for yourself.A State may “certify” an individual to practice certain disciplines in that particular State. CPA for Finance, Attorney, Doctors, etc…BUT, if, let us say that a Doctor is “Board Certified” in Neurology, but loses his or her license to practice in one State, this person can go an pass the medical boards in another State, start a practice, and then claim the same: “Board Certified.”That’s because the “Board” “Certification” is an independent body which need take no action against a paying member once admitted.Pretty much the same holds true for just about any “professional” organization providing certification.Professional organizations, by which many supposed “professionals” promote themselves, are, more than 90% of the time, a big joke.If you doubt this, the next time you see someone promoting him or herself as having or being “certified” in something, (1) go look-up their certification, based upon the information provided, (2) make sure it is current, and (3) look for ethics and/or standards by which someone must abide to maintain that supposed “professional” certification, and then, FINALLY, (4) ENSURE THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS A PROCEDURE FOR ENSURING PROFESSIONAL QUALITY SERVICES IN-LINE WITH THE CERTIFICATION. (This is to say, if you cannot get a valid response from someone within the organization citing examples of certification revocation, the reasons for such revocation, and actively policing individuals who maintain supposed “certification” — then the certification is actually a joke — a membership in a club, and not anything to do with any degree of professional competence.)So, when someone says that they’re “certified,” I look on it hawkishly and critically. It means exactly nothing to me, unless the person can live-up-to the organizing body’s standards and expectations, and it only means something if that organization has a process for revoking certification, and not just maintenance through paying fees.Do you want a doctor who obtained his or her medical license in one state, only to lose that certification, while maintaining a private “Board Certified” status to promote him or herself, in another State, to operate on you without mentioning that his or her license to practice medicine in another State was revoked, but the “Board” that certifies the person doesn’t care and was a “qualification” allowing the person to obtain medical license in another state?If I heard something crazy like that after-the-fact, I’d be scared out of my wits.BUT IT HAPPENS!!! (Because people get distracted by things like “Board Certified,” thinking it means something.)When I see a doctor promoting his or her qualifications as “Board Certified,” or lawyer citing membership in several legal organizations — I look on the person with skepticism and do RESEARCH before engaging any further. (Because the person is likely trying to gloss things over and promote him or herself while covering-up other problems or issues.)