DISCLOSE Act aka DISGRACE Act

DISCLOSE Act aka DISGRACE Act

The DISCLOSE Act is back.



Remember the DISCLOSE Act? Or, as we like to call it, the DISGRACE Act; the one in which the Reid-Pelosi-Obama team attempted to silence small, grassroots groups during elections, including the ones this November. Though it failed to pass in the Senate last month, Harry Reid has decided that he is going to try again. The only thing that stopped it before were the three usual suspects: Senators' Snowe, Collins, and Brown. Reid and Obama are pressuring them hard to change their votes to Yes. We must pressure them harder to continue voting NO.



Here is a refresher course on the DISCLOSE Act:



From our friends at Freedom Action about this speech violating bill-

Even if somehow the speech restrictions in this bill were constitutional, their uneven application would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection under the law. Even the left-leaning Sierra Club has labeled the DISCLOSE Act a two-tiered system that is "unfair and undemocratic" and that smaller grass-roots organizations would be disadvantaged because they lack the resources to cope with "the additional disclosure burdens." The unions and the big non-profit groups get to keep their free speech given to them in the January Supreme Court decision, but the corporations and small non-profits lose theirs under DISCLOSE.

Also, President Obama and some Democrats are dishonestly stating that the Court's decision would "open the floodgates for special interest, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." However, current federal law and Federal Election Commission regulations already ban foreign corporations from participating directly or indirectly in American elections. (see 2 U.S.C. § 441e and 2 U.S.C. 437g).


An example of how this bill could affect your tea party group:

Exampleville, Ohio has two people running for U.S. Congress-Mr. A and Mr. B-in what promises to be a close race. Exampleville's local Tea Party believes in Mr. B. The Tea Party wants to run ads highlighting Mr. B's stance on cap and trade, federal spending, increased taxation, etc, but they don't have enough money to fulfill the new highly complex reporting requirements from DISCLOSE. And DISCLOSE would force them to list their top donors, even if they are not necessarily the specific donors to the ads, in their ads. Besides, the disclaimers required could take up to 14 of a 30 second ad. The Tea Party gives up trying to run ads to support Mr. Republican.

In contrast, Mr. A has some well-funded unions who want to see Exampleville's factories unionized, so the unions run ads against Mr. B and ads for Mr. A. Also, the Sierra Club and the ACLU (groups actually opposed to DISCLOSE) want Mr. A to support their issues, so they also run ads for Mr. A. None of these ads are subject to DISCLOSE's requirements.

Guess who wins?

(For those interested, here's a good link with information on the actual language and problems with the DISCLOSE bill, click here: http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr5175 )


Remind them that the DISCLOSE Act exempts unions and very large special interest groups!! And the little guy is left without a voice.

We must start putting pressure on these three Senators, and tell them to vote NO.



This is SO important as the Left is running scared and are trying to minimize our efforts and impact this November. Please call the following Senators:

Scott Brown (R-MA)
http://scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme
Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-4543, (F) (202) 228-2646



Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-5344, Toll free (800) 432-1599, (F) (202) 224-1946



Susan Collins (R-ME)
http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssue&CFID=42880122&CFTOKEN=39747274

Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-2523, (F) (202) 224-2693

Confusion About the Kingdom of God

An interesting article from www.gnmagazine.org about the Kingdom of God. This follows this post about right and wrong. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Confusion About the Kingdom of God
Eerdman's New Bible Dictionary, in discussing the Kingdom of God, traces views and interpretations of the concept of the Kingdom through history. The early Roman Catholic Church developed the belief that the Kingdom had already come in the form of the church. Its leaders were seen as leaders of the Kingdom; where the church spread its power and authority was viewed as synonymous with the boundaries of the Kingdom (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1962, p. 696).

"In their resistance to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Reformers laid chief emphasis on the spiritual and invisible significance of the kingdom and readily (and wrongly) invoked Luke xvii. 20f. in support of this." Protestant churches continued this drift in a reaction to abuses of power and developed an emphasis upon social and community programs. "The coming of the kingdom consists in the forward march of social righteousness and communal development" (ibid.).

The article concludes with the summation that returns to the duality of salvation and a kingdom. "In contrast to these spiritualizing, moralistic, and evolutionary interpretations of the kingdom, New Testament scholarship is rightly laying stress again on the original significance of the kingdom in Jesus' preaching-a significance bound up in the history of salvation and eschatology [study of events surrounding Christ's return]" (ibid.).

Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia concludes that neither the idea of a Kingdom of God without a Savior nor the idea of a Savior without a Kingdom of God "can stand on its own" and "each can be defended only at the cost of explaining away, often by dubious methods, the evidence for the other" (Vol. III, p. 804)

There is a kingdom yet to come from God. When Jesus instructed believers to pray for the Kingdom to come (Matthew 6:10), "the verb ...preclud[es] the notion of gradual progress and development, and impl[ies] a sudden catastrophe ..." (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1985, p. 345).

Zondervan's Bible Encyclopedia concludes its article on the Kingdom: "Although the Kingdom was truly present in the ministry of Jesus, He also spoke of it as a future entity and told His disciples to pray for its coming (Matthew 6:10; cf. Luke 11:12) ... By this manner of speaking, Jesus was referring to the age to come (Mark 10:30; cf. Luke 18:30) which was associated with the coming of the Son of man, the resurrection of the dead and the setting up of the eternal realm of bliss ..." (Vol. III, p. 806, emphasis added). GN

-- Cecil Maranville

U.S. Court Halts Obama Admin Stem-Cell Research Guidelines

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about a new EMBRYONIC stem cell ban. This follows this post about current musical trends. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

U.S. Court Halts Obama Admin Stem-Cell Research Guidelines

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia has intervened to block regulations issued by the Obama administration expanding embryo-destructive research.

Pro-life researchers and Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a group that encourages adoption of frozen embryonic children, filed the suit last year. Judge Royce Lamberth had ruled in June that the group has standing to sue over the guidelines that the National Institutes of Health developed for taxpayer-funded research that would involve the destruction of living human embryos.

The newly-expanded research was made possible by an executive order signed by President Obama in March 2009.

The plaintiffs argue that the new guidelines clearly violate a provision in U.S. law (known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment) that prevents taxpayer monies from funding research in which embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

In the opinion issued Monday, Lamberth ruled that the Dickey-Wicker language was unambiguous, contrary to the arguments of lawyers with the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the NIH guidelines violated the "plain language of the statute."

"ESC [embryonic stem-cell] research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," wrote Lamberth. "To conduct ESC research, ESC must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.

"Despite defendants' attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on ESCs, the two cannot be separated."

Critics have pointed out that, aside from destroying tiny human lives, ESC research has resulted in virtually no therapeutic benefit and has been outstripped by breakthroughs in adult stem-cell research, which has yielded dozens of cures and benefits for previously untreatable illnesses.


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Calif. Quietly Shifts Fruitless Embryo Research Funds to Adult Stem Cells
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012908.html

Fed Appeals Court Green Lights Suit Against HHS over Funding Embryonic Research
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062505.html

"Embryos are Humans" Says U.S. Government Report on Stem Cell Research
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07011009.html

Adult Stem Cell Treatment Leaves College Student Free of Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022407.html

Moderate Muslim spokesman issues veiled threat over Ground Zero mega-mosque opposition and "Islamophobia"

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org about the Ground Zero mosque's Imam. This follows this post about Miss USA's take on the Ground Zero mosque and this article about the recent news about the ban offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.

Moderate Muslim spokesman issues veiled threat over Ground Zero mega-mosque opposition and "Islamophobia"

You don't want to get Reza Aslan angry. "European Islamophobia Finds A Home In The U.S.," by Reza Aslan for NPR, August 23 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

[...] No matter what your feelings are about the proposed community center, there can be little doubt that Islamophobia is on the rise in America.
A Washington Post poll released last year found that nearly half of Americans -- 48 percent -- have an unfavorable view of Islam. That's nine points higher than in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. A new national survey by the Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of those who disapprove of President Obama's job performance believe he is Muslim.


Note the snake oil that Aslan is peddling. He pretends that Americans have some irrational hatred of Islam, and hopes that as he wrings his hands about "Islamophobia" that his enlightened NPR readers will not remember the Fort Hood jihadist who murdered thirteen people, or the Christmas underwear jihadist that almost took down another airliner, or the Mumbai jihad, or the London jihad, or the Madrid jihad, or the Bali jihad, or so many, many other jihads around the world since 9/11. He wants you to think that Americans have an unfavorable view of Islam that stems from irrational hatred, from bigotry and racism.

And he isn't even concerned that some readers will see through his game and view him with greater suspicion and reserve once they do, because even that he will turn around to his own advantage in that parlor game ever-popular among Muslims in America, The Quest for Privileged Victim Status.

What's more disturbing is that anti-Muslim sentiment seems to have gone mainstream, with fringe groups like Stop Islamization of America -- which is behind many of the protests in lower Manhattan and has been participating in similar anti-Muslim rallies across the country -- suddenly receiving regular air time on mainstream media outlets.
Stop Islamization of America is actually an affiliate of a European organization called Stop Islamization of Europe, an anti-Muslim hate group whose motto is "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense."


Actually SIOA hasn't adopted that slogan precisely because it can be misused by used car salesmen like Aslan, but its actual meaning should be clear to anyone who is not playing Gotcha or trying to portray freedom fighters in the worst possible light. SIOE is emphasizing that the resistance to Islamization is not racism, as is commonly charged, since the Islamic supremacist political ideology is not a race, and it is saying that concern about the advance of Sharia imperatives in the West is not an irrational fear, but a genuine concern for the preservation of European freedoms.

The connection between the two organizations is telling.
In Europe, the passage of laws curtailing the rights and freedoms of Muslims and the success of avowedly anti-Islam political parties have led to a sense of marginalization and disenfranchisement among Europe's Muslim communities. That in turn has led to what I believe is a sharp increase in radicalization among Europe's young Muslims.


So "radicalization" is a response to attempts to preserve European cultural identity and genuine pluralism. Got it. What specific laws curtailing the rights and freedoms of Muslims were passed in London before the July 7, 2005 jihad bombings, Mr. Aslan? What specific laws curtailing the rights and freedoms of Muslims were passed in Madrid before the March 11, 2004 jihad bombings, Mr. Aslan?

[...] The fear is that this may lead to the same kind of radicalization among Muslim youth in the U.S. that we've seen in Europe. It has already played into the hands of al-Qaida, which has for years been trying to convince American Muslims that the unfettered religious freedoms they enjoy is a mirage -- that the U.S. will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens.
Are we in danger of proving al-Qaida right?

I am a liberal, progressive, secularized American Muslim. But when I see that bigotry against my faith -- my very identity -- has become so commonplace in America that it is shaping into a wedge issue for the midterm elections, I can barely control my anger.

I can't imagine how the next generation of American Muslim youth will react to such provocations. I pray that we never find out.


Threat noted, Mr. Aslan. But instead of tossing veiled threats onto the cappuccino-stained pages of National Public Radio, shouldn't you, sterling moderate that you are, be working among those young Muslims to counter their tendencies to "radicalization"?

But of course, to do so would be to acknowledge that "radicalization" proceeds from wellsprings within the Islamic community itself, instead of as a response to provocation from without -- and that would contradict Aslan's entire victimhood narrative.
Posted by Robert

Eggs In Many Baskets: ALIPAC Endorses 21 New Candidates‏

A timely post from www.alipac.us about the 2010 elections. This follows this post about Amnesty as a failing strategy for the GOP. This follows THIS VERY IMPORTANT POST about the Arizona Senate race and this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Eggs In Many Baskets: ALIPAC Launches New Wave of Endorsements

August 24, 2010

For Immediate National Release

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
(866) 703-0864 WilliamG@alipac.us

As primaries wrap up in several states today, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is launching a new wave of 21 endorsements in federal races where there is a clear decision for voters between immigration enforcement vs. Amnesty.

ALIPAC intends to endorse more candidates than ever in 2010 and to provide more support for those candidates.

"Illegal immigration is a top issue in the minds of voters and it relates to many other issues such as taxation, crime, terrorism, jobs, education, and the economy," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "We are looking for candidates who want our existing border and immigration laws enforced instead of a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty that would make millions of illegals new voters and thus destroy the borders of America."

ALIPAC launched candidate support operations early this year in expectation of a rising political revolution in America. Endorsing many of the incumbents who have been endorsed by ALIPAC in prior election cycles, more challengers are joining the list.

ALIPAC looks at candidate surveys, the voting records of incumbents, media reports, and reports from supporters in the districts to decide which candidates to endorse.

The goal of ALIPAC is to endorse, recommend, and support federal candidates who most accurately represent the approximately 80% percent of voters who support immigration enforcement instead of Obama's executive order or legislative Amnesties.

ALIPAC's candidate endorsement will be viewed by hundreds of thousands of people online and the group will encourage national supporters to both volunteer and contribute directly to these endorsed candidates.

"We have spent the last six years building a strong support base of dedicated Americans who are ready to take action in the 2010 elections," said William Gheen. "Our supporters will be working hard to support our small army of candidates."

ALIPAC's 2010 Candidate Survey can be accessed via the homepage at www.alipac.usThe survey includes questions asking candidates if they support Arizona's new law SB 1070, if they oppose Obama's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan, and if they will use their power to assure that the president begins to enforce our existing laws and the Constitution.

Today, ALIPAC is pleased to announce endorsement for 20 new candidates who are being added to the main endorsement list where you can view all ALIPAC endorsements, incumbent records on immigration, and candidate surveys at...

ALIPAC's 2010 Federal Campaign Endorsements
http://www.alipac.us/2010_campaign_endorsements.html


The 21 new candidates endorsed today include, Congressman Kenny Marchant of TX District 24, Mo Brooks (AL-5), Paul Smith (CA-5), Gary Clift (CA-10), Dave Chapman (CA-14), Mark Reed (CA-27), Michael Crimmins (CA-53), Isaac Hayes (IL-2), Teri Davis Newman (IL-12), John Kupiec (MI-5), Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski (MI-9), Robyn Hamlin (MO-1), Anna Little (NJ-6), William 'BJ' Lawson (NC-4), Tom Marino (PA-10), Bob Gibbs (OH-18, David Hall (TN-5), John Faulk (TX-18, Donna Campbell (TX-25), Bryan Underwood (TX-28, and John Koster (WA-2).

For more information, to schedule interviews, or to complete a candidate survey, please visit www.ALIPAC.us

Who Determines Right From Wrong?

An interesting article from www.gnmagazine.org about right and wrong. This follows this post about distractions. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Who Determines Right From Wrong?
It's ironic that while some Christians vehemently defend the posting of the Ten Commandments, many other Christians believe that these laws have no application to modern Christianity.
by Gary Petty
American society is in the midst of a morality battle. A focal point of this struggle is the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools and on any government property. Underneath the surface, there is a much more important issue in the Christian community than the post-ing of the Ten Commandments. The question really being asked is, "Are the Ten Commandments even relevant today?"

A survey done a few years ago involving people ages 15 to 35 revealed that most people could name no more than two of the Ten Commandments.

An Atlantic Monthly article reporting on the survey's respondents said that many "weren't too happy about some of the others when they were told about them. They also had clear ideas about how the commandments might be revised for modern times. Support was weak for keeping the Sabbath holy and honoring one's father and mother, but 'Thou shalt not drink and drive' and 'Thou shalt care for the environment' would have appeared on any new list of commandments put together by this group."

The group, by the way, was also asked to pick who they thought should be in charge of drawing up a new list of commandments. The number one choice? Oprah Winfrey.

A new set of commandments?
Over the last few decades there have been various movements to create a new Ten Commandments.

Author Orion Moshe Kopelman, in his book The Second Ten Commandments, claims that the Ten Commandments have outlived their usefulness. He promotes commandments like "Maximize your time spent in flow and happiness" and "Act true to your inner voice and fulfill your mission."

John Leo, in U.S. News and World Report, speculates that if we begin to change the Ten Commandments to fit into modern ways of thinking then they might appear as:

"Thou shalt not steal, but creative work on your tax return is okay.

"Thou shalt not kill, except during any of the [pregnancy] trimesters or if the Pentagon says you must.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods, except in the sense that our whole economic system depends on the power of envy and wanting more.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery, except if thou art unhappy or if personal fulfillment points thee toward the new secretary in thine office.

"Honor thy mother or mothers, including thy birth, adoptive, - step-, surrogate or same-sex-partner mothers, and honor thy father, thy mother's sperm donor or her casual inseminator, current whereabouts unknown."

Anti-Commandments movements
A number of forces are driving our society toward seeing the Ten Commandments as outmoded and even oppressive. One is the New Age movement.

Shirley MacLaine, a queen of New Age philosophy, promotes two modernized commandments in her book Dancing in the Light: "Know that you are God" and "Know that you are the universe."

Jesus Christ participated in the typical first-century Jewish debates over Old Testament law, which included the Ten Commandments. When asked to state the most important law, Jesus simply reiterated two laws from the Old Testament: Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-39, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18).

There are profound differences between the belief that there is a Supreme Being with knowledge of right and wrong, possessing the right to enforce His reality on His creation, and the belief that each person is a god or goddess with only his or her own thoughts and feelings to determine right from wrong.

A second type of resistance to the Ten Commandments arises from the ever-increasing secularizing of America. This movement is based on a belief that personal liberty—expressed as "Nobody can tell me how to live my life"—is the most cherished freedom.

Of course, the problem with commandments that restrict cheating on your income tax, committing adultery with your neighbor or lying to get ahead is that that they also restrict personal freedom to do whatever feels good at the moment.

A third force is found in Christianity itself. Since the early days of Catholicism, and in the relatively shorter lifetime of Protestantism, there has been a struggle in defining the relationship of God's grace to God's law. Some churches openly argue against the keeping of the Ten Commandments, saying they are unnecessary for Christians. Some major denominations have actually changed some of the Commandments. Others give lip service to them but only obey the ones they like, if even that.

Are the Ten Commandments relevant?
It is this last theological struggle that must be settled before either the New Age movement or secularism can be confronted by our nation's religious institutions. This confusion leaves most professing Christians so bewildered that they base their religious convictions on vague concepts of morality devoid of any real guidelines for conduct.

If the Ten Commandments, given by God, are valid guidelines for Christian conduct, then much of Christianity itself stands indicted by those same Ten Commandments. If Christians accept the validity of the Ten Commandments, then they must face some hard questions about their own religion.

Why have millions of people been killed in wars fought in the name of Jesus Christ? Why do Christians cheat each other, dishonor their parents or pray to statues and images in their worship of God even though this is plainly forbidden by the second of the Ten Commandments?

Let's return to John Leo of U.S. News and World Report, who writes: "It's possible to put together a modern, pro-impulse set of commandments based on advertising slogans—'Just do it,' 'Just be,' 'Sometimes you gotta break the rules,' 'Peel off inhibitions,' 'Find your own road.'

"The National Parenting Center asked children to suggest additional commandments. Among their ideas: 'No bombing for the heck of it,' 'Thou shalt not address people by their color' and 'No grabbing.'"

Are the Ten Commandments relevant today or can we trivialize them to the same level as "Use a good day planner to maximize your time"? Are they simply the "Ten Suggestions" the Creator wanted to pass on to His children? Are they laws that only applied to an ancient people and that have little application to modern life? If they are applicable today, what is the price we pay both individually and collectively for breaking them?

A better relationship with your Creator. A deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. A better life for individuals and society. These are why the Ten Commandments should be a more important part of your life! GN



Related Resources
The Ten Commandments
Many religious people embrace the idea of loving others as themselves but remain blissfully unaware of how the Bible defines love. As a result, they do not understand the necessity of putting into practice the biblical principles that determine the success or failure of their relationships.

99 Percent of Music Chart Hit Acts are “Soft Porn” Says Music Industry Giant

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about current musical trends. This follows this post about homosexuality. . For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

99 Percent of Music Chart Hit Acts are “Soft Porn” Says Music Industry Giant


By Hilary White

LONDON, August 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While religious leaders have been warning about the moral effects of the modern pop music scene for decades, now even some leaders of the industry are expressing their concern. Today record producer Mike Stock told British media that he believes children are being “sexualized” by popular culture.

“The music industry has gone too far. It's not about me being old fashioned. It's about keeping values that are important in the modern world. These days you can't watch modern stars - like Britney Spears or Lady Gaga - with a two-year-old.”

“Ninety-nine per cent of the charts is R 'n' B and 99 per cent of that is soft pornography,” he added.

Stock is one of the trio of “legendary” music producers that constitute Stock Aitken Waterman, whose talent properties have included Cliff Richard, Debbie Harry, Donna Summer, La Toya Jackson and Kylie Minogue. The trio was one of the most successful songwriting and producing partnerships in the history of the music business, with more than 100 UK top 40 hits, and earning an estimated £60 million.

Stock told the Daily Mail, “Kids are being forced to grow up too young. Look at the videos. I wouldn't necessarily want my young kids to watch them. I would certainly be embarrassed to sit there with my mum.”

In Britain the “Hit Parade,” the first British record sales chart at the dawn of the popular music era, was published in November 1952, and was measured by sales of sheet music. The first number 1 song on Britain’s Hit Parade was “Here in My Heart” by Al Martino, the Italian-American “pop crooner” and actor who is also known for his portrayal of the character Johnny Fontane in the 1972 film The Godfather.

This week, BBC Radio 1 reported that the number one UK spot was held by American rapper Tramar Dillard, better known by his stage name “Flo Rida,” for his rap piece “Club Can’t Handle Me.” The number, performed largely on two notes of the musical scale, includes a video in which a frenzied mob of night-clubbers burst out of the club and into the streets, destroying a corner shop to end up gyrating in a laundromat.

Lady Gaga’s widely criticized single, “Alejandro,” has fallen on the charts this week to number 22. The video features Lady Gaga, shown in scanty underwear and a mock nun’s habit, simulating sado-maochistic sex and swallowing a rosary. It also shows a team of semi-nude male dancers performing mock homosexual acts, themes that are so common they are starting to be considered passé in British pop culture.

“Before children even step into school, they have all these images - the pop videos and computer games like Grand Theft Auto - confronting them and the parents can't control it,” Stock continued.

He has responded to the concerns of parents by producing what he has called a “family-orientated show.” The Go! Go! Go! Show is a pop song and dance show performed by “tween” singers that is playing to positive reviews in London.

Brian Clowes, the research director for the pro-life and pro-family group Human Life International, expressed surprise that there is anyone left who “doesn’t believe that the music industry degrades morals, sexualizes young girls and is disrespectful to women.”

Such people, he told LSN, “should just visit YouTube and randomly select a half-dozen music videos to watch.”

“There are only a handful of artists who even attempt to promote good moral values, since this is considered ‘uncool’ and, even more importantly, unprofitable. Many of the singers target pre-teen girls with their messages, and then these girls follow the advice and lyrics they hear and wind up ruining their lives,” Clowes commented.

“It's true that we are not forced to watch this trash; but we are also responsible for making sure our kids grow up holy, healthy and happy. If they follow music videos and shows, they will be zero for three.”