Month: February 2015

FCC Issues Secret Regulations for Internet

On By AZ ConservativeIn John SemmensLeave a comment

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnAnxious to rescue the Internet from what Federal Communications Chairman Tom Wheeler called a “regime of anarchy,” the FCC approved over 300 pages of new rules designed “to bring order to this disorderly segment of our society.”

“Right now, pretty much anyone with access to the web can do or say whatever he wants,” Wheeler pointed out. “This is very distressing to President Obama. At his urging we have adopted rules modeled on policies laid down by our agency in the 1930s.”

While loath to go into specifics “so as not to lose the very useful element of surprise as we attack those who might abuse their liberty to deviate from what promotes the common good,” Wheeler acknowledged that “folks can be reassured that we will prohibit any and every individual or corporate action that we deem injurious to the nation’s collective well-being.”

Criticism that this move is “Obamacare for the Internet” failed to faze the FCC Chairman. “We don’t buy into the premise that Obamacare has been a failure,” he countered. “Many people who didn’t have health insurance before have it now. Those who have refused to obtain insurance are being punished. The health industry is being transformed. We’d be proud if we accomplish similar results in the field of communication.”

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) expressed his doubts that “subjecting what has thus far been a very dynamic feature of modern life to oversight by nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats will lead to good results. The pace of innovation is bound to be slowed by bureaucratic supervision. Lower quality and higher prices seem certain.”

“Lower quality and higher prices are not the unmitigated evil that advocates of anarchy like Senator Lee would have everyone believe,” Wheeler contended. “If the trade-off is a fairer system, I think the average person would gladly make that exchange.”

President Takes Defiant Stand on Amnesty

President Obama announced that “we have expanded my authorities,” and bragged that “my enemies are powerless to stop me from going forward with what is right for America.”

One of the “enemies” the President cited with scorn “is that Texas judge who thinks a court order can prevail against me. If President Jackson could defy the Supreme Court why should I have to heed a mere district judge? I am Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most powerful army. The nation’s largest police force—the FBI—works for me. What resources does Judge Hanen control?”

Obama warned that “those who contradict my directives must know that they will face consequences for their disobedience. The excuse that my directives do not comply with existing statutes will not get anyone off the hook. Those who work for the federal government put their jobs at risk. Those who don’t can still be harassed by the swarms of officers I can send to eat out their substance.”

The President also dared Congress to “pass a law aimed at reining in my expanded authorities and I will veto it. My veto will not be overridden because a sufficient number of congressmen agree with the revisions I am making to existing laws. We are in concert that adherence to out-dated processes should not stand in the way of doing what is morally right. History will show that the bold leadership of one man is a simpler and more efficient way to run the country.”

In related news, the Administration cited the President’s newly expanded authorities in the disbursement of $3 billion to health insurers to help cover losses under the Obamacare program. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew explained that “an adjustment to the Affordable Care Act was necessitated by Congress’ failure to fully indemnify insurers against losses under the program.” Lew dismissed the objection that only Congress is empowered to appropriate federal money as “overly formalistic. Slavish devotion to arcane procedures shouldn’t outweigh the responsibility to do the right thing. Fortunately, we have a president who understands this.”

Departing AG Laments Difficulty of Making Case for Civil Rights Abuses

Citing the difficulties his office encountered in pursuing charges against George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, retiring Attorney General Eric Holder urged that changes be made in order to make it easier for the government to bring and win civil rights cases.

“The ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard is too daunting,” Holder complained. “Does anyone seriously doubt that there was an element of racial bias in the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? In my opinion, centuries of the oppression of minorities in this country proves that racism is deeply embedded in the culture. It would be unreasonable to presume that racism did not play a role in the deaths of these two young men.”

Holder suggested that “to better balance the ‘scales of justice’ we need to be allowed to look at the whole history of race relations in order to place recent killings of Black men into context. The long run conduct of whites toward Blacks establishes a pattern of behavior that could generally be described as criminal. Fitting the actions of Zimmerman and Wilson into this pattern proves that a lengthy criminal conspiracy by whites against Blacks is ongoing. It should have been Zimmerman’s and Wilson’s burden to conclusively prove that they are not part of this conspiracy to escape a finding that they violated the civil rights of Martin and Brown.”

In related news, Holder’s temporary grant of authority to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to seize and “administratively forfeit” property was made permanent. “Having to go to court to seize property is time-consuming and tiresome,” Holder said. “Seizing property and forcing the previous owner to go to court and prove that it should not have been seized is more efficient. Many of those dispossessed will lack the resources or will to contest the seizure. Selling the seized property can provide revenue for the Agency without having to go through the cumbersome congressional appropriations process.”

Executive Action Underway to Ban Bullets

President Obama has ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to write a regulation banning 5.56mm ammo. This is the type of bullet used in the AR-15 style semi-automatic—the top-selling rifle in the country.

BATFE Director B. Todd Jones characterized the proposed new rule as “pure genius on the part of the President. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say anything about ammunition. By going after the bullets we skirt all the arguments the NRA uses to block government’s efforts to disarm the public.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) called Jones’ reasoning “lame. It makes no sense to separate the weapon from the ammunition. For the Amendment to effectively protect the citizens’ right to self defense it must protect both the firearm and the bullets.”

Jones attempted to rebut Goodlatte’s argument by asserting that “the need for self defense in our modern society is taken care of by the police. Since the police will be exempt from the ban their ability to defend the general population will be unimpeded by the new regulation.”

“The AR-15 is a particularly inappropriate weapon for ordinary citizens to own,” Jones maintained. “It is the type of firearm that is more properly within the sphere of the military. If such weapons are in the hands of the general public it conveys a notion of possible opposition to the government in a quasi-military way. It could give people the idea that using these weapons to oppose their government is a possibility. The President was emphatic about derailing such an idea by any means possible. That’s what we intend to do.”

Lawyers for Accused Boston Marathon Bomber Demand Charges Be Dropped

Lawyers for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the person accused of complicity in the Boston Marathon bombing, are demanding that charges against their client be dropped.

“The law guarantees every person accused of a crime will be judged by a jury of his peers,” said Judith Mizner, lead attorney for the defense. “Mr. Tsarnaev’s peers are his fellow jihadis. None of them can set foot in the courtroom without fear of being arrested. Consequently, Mr. Tsarnaev’s fundamental civil right to a jury of his peers cannot be fulfilled. His indictment should be dismissed.”

The federal appeals court in Massachusetts, though, denied Mizner’s request. “Brought to its logical conclusion, the defense’s argument would insist that only criminals could sit on juries hearing criminal cases,” the Court wrote in rendering its ruling. “The ‘peers’ requirement is considered met as long as a jury can be randomly selected from a pool of citizens in the jurisdiction.”

The Court’s decision, though, was not unanimous. Judge Juan Torruella wrote in a dissent that “in light of the fact that the crime for which the defendant is being tried was a random attack in a public place, any member of the community may consider himself or herself a target. It is impossible to draw an unbiased jury from such a pool. Further, the crime is so notorious that it is unlikely that an untainted jury pool can be found within the United States. The request to dismiss the indictment and switch the venue to the Islamic State should have been granted.”

In related news, Benjamin Wagner, U.S. Attorney for California’s Eastern District, averred that “an anti-Muslim backlash is, in the Administration’s view, a greater threat than terrorism itself. Our best estimate is that about 150 Americans have joined ISIL. In contrast, there are around 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens in this country. A significant percentage of these armed citizens are likely to harbor ill will toward President Obama. Dealing with this clearly has to take precedence over worrying about the comparatively smaller risk we face from Muslim extremists.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire column for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties that our nation’s Founding Fathers tried to protect.

Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

TAC to ASU Evolutionist: Open America’s Classrooms to Reason and Free Speech

On By AZ ConservativeIn Education, The Arizona Conservative University, The LeftLeave a comment

Donald Johanson gave a remarkable speech October 24, 2014 at the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s 37th annual convention in Los Angeles. Johanson is an internationally known paleoanthropologist whose graduate student discovered the remains of the famous fossil “Lucy” — a small ape. Evolutionists claim Lucy is the ancient ancestor of modern humans, and her remains are supposedly 3.2 million years old.

Johanson is the founding director of the Institute of Human Origins, a so-called “evolution think tank” at Arizona State University. He lives in San Francisco.

We have taken selected portions of his speech in order to engage in “debate” with him. This is a lengthy read, but it is highly beneficial for those who want to understand the nature of the debate between creation and evolution; it will you in your arguments against those on the Left. Johanson’s comments appear as they were made. Our response is identified by our initials TAC:

This has been a very important part of my life, the study of who we are and where we come from. It has immense implications, philosophical and otherwise, everything from medicine to how we look at and treat one another.

As I was saying, it wasn’t necessarily that I was hoping to make this colossal discovery of a creature that has become pretty much an icon in terms of paleontology or paleoanthropology, but it was to understand our place in nature. The book that launched my intrigue about where we’ve come from was a book entitled Man’s Place in Nature by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a tea-drinking buddy of Charles Darwin.

They often sat and noodled on the question of human evolution. I can see them in Darwin’s garden in Kent while they discussed how they were going to bring this shocker to the Victorian world of Great Britain, that we actually descended from the apes. Darwin, as you well know, was very reluctant to do that because he didn’t want to upset the household, as his wife Emma was very religious.

And he only said that light would be thrown on the origin of man, until 1871 in his Descent of Man, when he articulated a number of scenarios for that. I read Man’s Place in Nature and realized the importance of this subject, for which paleoanthropology wasn’t really a moniker until the late ’50s or so. I realized that we have a remarkable record preserved in Earth’s geological strata that connects us with the past, with each other, and I think very importantly, connects us with the natural world.

We know, every single one of us in this room, who the creator was — Mother Nature. I will have much more to say about that as we get into this discussion.

I’ve also been asked to comment on why I’m an atheist. I’ve always been an atheist. I didn’t have to be converted. … And she [his mother] said, this little uneducated housekeeper from Sweden who immigrated when she was 16, deciding the New World was where everything was happening, “The first thing they’ll do is control you, then they will instill fear in you, and then they will take your money.”

TAC: This is an apt description of today’s public university setting. Students are indoctrinated, with grading held over their heads by autocratic professors.

I began to realize that believing in a creator being — someone I couldn’t see, someone who’s keeping track of me, someone I’d be afraid of — was really not my cup of tea. I was much more of a free thinker, as we say, and as I went through high school, I had a very adequate education at a public high school, which we should all bring back.

TAC: Bring back? That public school you attended never went anywhere. It is still run by people who share your worldview and who will not allow any dissent from the government position of naturalism. And as we’ll see below, you demonize others who disagree with you and refuse to recognize them as “free thinkers.” Why are America’s biology classrooms closed to free thought?

I lived in Berkeley for years, and my favorite bumper sticker said, “If you think education’s expensive, try ignorance.” During my education, I began to really understand that if I were to believe in this mythical creator — you know we only had one choice, right, since the downsizing? If you lived in Greece, we’d have a whole bunch of gods we could have prayed to, but now, with cutbacks and so on, we’re down to one — that I would have to unfortunately totally reject my objectivity and logic and leap into total fantasy. I just couldn’t see the benefit of that.

TAC: The same can be said of evolution and earth worship.

Science is such a rewarding, creative and charming way of looking at the universe. So why do people so resist evolution, the grand unifying theory of biology?

TAC: Softball question. Evolution has no foundation in truth. It is based on sinking sand. Why are America’s biology classrooms closed to free thought?

Yet a retiring Englishman who went off on a five-year boat cruise once figured out the grand unifying theory of biology. The robustness of the “theory” of evolution is that: The same tenets that Darwin suggested and proffered in the middle 1800s are still the core ideas of biology. If Darwin were sitting in the back of the room and I mentioned DNA, he wouldn’t have a clue. He didn’t know things were inherited. He observed and interpreted and understood how important that elusive thing natural selection is, and how powerfully explanatory it is.

TAC: The world has moved well beyond Darwin’s unenlightened time, to DNA and molecular science and a better understanding of the building blocks of life and the reality of how life originated. Darwin interpreted incorrectly, yet men and women of great technological times are still following his disproven theory of pseudo biology.

I suspect most people just don’t think. I don’t want to be too anti-clerical or anti-church; I respect people’s beliefs and I don’t try to destroy them. I understand that if you were born in X culture, you believe in X god, and if you were in Z culture, you believe in Z god, and so on. Before I knew about FFRF, I used to say that we have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion in America.

TAC: As this debate unfolds, it becomes clear you do not respect the beliefs of people who disagree with you. In fact, those held captive to America’s biology class rooms are not really permitted to engage in free thinking. … And if you were born in the home of an atheist, you’re more likely to be an atheist. The First Amendment allows for free speech and the free exercise of religion — which also allows for the freedom not to worship. You’ve always had freedom from religion. We have freedom from your religion of humanism, but only outside the classrooms of public schools and universities.

Darwin, if he were alive today, would probably be very happy with this poster [“In Reason We Trust”]. I want you to support science and reason. So take God’s name off our money we all worship and replace it with “In Science We Trust.” I don’t think we’ll do that, but we do need to get God’s name off our money. There’s no question.

TAC: You and the evolution industry are not afraid to rake in those dollars bearing God’s name — billions of them fueling your careers. Science and reason are open to free thought and inquiry — outside government classrooms, that is. The pseudo science forced on students today does not meet the definition of science.

The anti-science aspect of religion is what bothers me most intensely. It’s personified in this cartoon: “Welcome to church, you won’t be needing that [your brain] in here.” Just take this brilliant organ out that has evolved over 6 million years of natural selection, that happens to put us at the pinnacle of intelligent life on the planet, in the solar system, and maybe even in the universe, to be so bold.

TAC: Were Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Bacon, and so many others anti-science? They were Christians and scientific pioneers. … Welcome to the biology class room, students of the 21st century. Please check your brain at the door; this class room is closed to science and reason, and your professor has already done your thinking for you.

There’s something very impersonal to most people about natural selection. It isn’t touchy-feely like a god that creates us in his image. Who’d he look like? You? You? You? We created him in our image, obviously, not in his image.

TAC: You have it backwards: God created us in His image.

You often see, and sometimes even television documentaries go at this from the wrong perspective, that Darwin is dead. No argument with that. He is dead, I agree. Evolution is just a theory. Right, you know what? Isaac Newton is dead, too. But gravity ain’t going away, even if his ideas were called the “theory” of gravity.

TAC: It’s a stretch to compare Newton to Darwin. Newton’s theory is verifiable and has stood the test of time. Darwin’s theory has not. Evolution has never been observed. It’s not verifiable. Yet, TLC, the Discovery Channel, the Animal Planet, the History Channel and many other cable channels and documentaries repeatedly refer to evolution — without offering a shred of evidence or citations of proof. They expect us to take it on faith.

I regularly lecture at colleges, universities and museums.

TAC: Lecture or indoctrinate?

It’s always interesting to say, “Raise your hand if you believe in evolution.” And you know, there’s a certain percentage that do. I say, “It may all surprise you that I don’t believe in evolution” — there’s this big sigh of relief — “any more than I believe in gravity.” It doesn’t take belief; this is a fact. If you let something go, it’s going to fall to the ground. You don’t have to believe in gravity, it is a fact.

TAC: You’re right. When speaking of gravity and evolution, gravity is factually evident.

In biology, going back to Darwin, I think it was Dobzhansky, the great geneticist, who said that “In biology, nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Evolution is a fact, it’s not good, it’s not bad, it has no moral compass.

TAC: The great geneticist sells biology short. A reasoning person can very easily lack faith in evolution, its so-called icons, its advocates (many of whom have been proven wrong), and especially the hollow claims of a sl-called supporting fossil record.

We need to cherish that, and we have to understand that this is an exciting opportunity to be alive and not sit around and worry about some omnipotent being keeping score to decide whether we’re going to end up in eternal ecstasy or unending damnation. As I say, how could he have time to keep score on each one of us? He’s so damn busy helping people sink 6-foot putts in Arizona and get extra points in football games. He doesn’t have time to keep track of us.

TAC: You also sell God short. We actually make the decision ourselves whether or not to accept God’s free offer of salvation. We have the free will to decide. And God abides by the decisions we make.

The problem is that people’s prayers don’t get answered. Why? Well, here it was in The New Yorker [cartoon]: “God finds all the prayers of mankind in his spam folder.” We now have an explanation.

TAC: Not all prayers are in alignment with God’s will. We pray for many things we think we need, sometimes we don’t get them answered, and then later we are thankful. We realize God had a better plan for us than what we prayed for. We aimed low, and God had a plan far better than what we envisioned.

One of the things about natural selection, which we all grow up learning, is the survival of the fittest. I was taught by my mentor at age 13 that it’s really the elimination of the unfit. If you think about it, that’s a better way to look at it.

TAC: How did we all grow up learning natural selection if we had to return to that time, as you asserted earlier? It is the worldview which has given us Margaret Sanger and eugenics, forced sterilization, euthanasia, the profit-driven Planned Parenthood and abortion, and genocide. These horrors were orchestrated by those who assumed they had the right to determine who was unfit and undeserving of life. They shared one thing in common: the religion of humanism.

The problem with natural selection is you can’t weigh it, you can’t see it …

TAC: But you better drink the Kool-Aid in biology class, or you might be a “bigot” and a “fool.”

Atheists, and I guess there are a few in this room, get a pretty bad rap, very often. Religious people accuse us of lacking morals, having no family values. Well, unless I’m reading the wrong newspapers, I don’t recall any atheists out there beheading people, stoning women or burning people at the stake.

TAC: Read the papers again. People who shared your humanist religion — Stalin, Hitler, Mao — were all atheists. The current beheading crisis in Islamic countries is the work of those who believe in Mohammed.

Our world is filled with endless moments of inspiration, real inspiration, available to each and every human being endowed with a conscious brain created by evolution. We need not rely on creation myths for inspiration.

TAC: Call creation a myth. But answer this question: how did evolution create so something so extraordinary as a human brain? How did it create the 11 different bodily systems which operate in compatibility to make the miracle of life? How did all 11 evolve at the same time? How would human life have originated if the 11 systems evolved a couple or a few at a time? How did evolution create the complexity of the human jaw with its ligaments and muscles working in coordination? How did evolution wrap a human’s abdominal muscles in such a precise way? How did evolution create the incredibly intricate network of nerves serving our bodies? Was it just plain luck? An accident? Evolution can’t answer any these questions because the complexity of life is light years beyond it … and because evolution does in fact not exist. “Evolution” has created nothing … but a fervent imagination and a worldview needed by people desperate for an alternative to Creator God.

Atheists are accused of not playing fair since we don’t teach creationism in science class.

TAC: It’s a well-earned charge, too. Because atheists control the government schools and use that power to control the curriculum, tilting the playing field, shutting off fair examination of alternative theories of creation, sending children to the principal’s office for disagreeing with evolution. If atheists were so confident of their belief, their worldview, they would welcome a fair playing field allowing free speech, reason, and open debate. But they are opposed to these — in thought, word and deed. Hear this: open America’s biology classrooms to free thinking and honest inquiry.

Well, if you’re going to teach creationism, why don’t we teach astrology with astronomy? In medical school we’d have to teach witchcraft along with medicine, and alchemy with chemistry. Where’s it going to end?

TAC: Since you are already teaching mythology in science classes, why not give students all the relevant theories of life and let them decide? Instead of indoctrinating them? Instead of coercing students, teachers, and professors to believe in the theory of evolution, or to walk the academic plank? You can’t handle the truth and you force-feed the unwilling with something you have never proven to be true.

OK, you American Airlines pilots, today we’re going to discuss the flat Earth. You get on a plane in L.A., you’re hoping to see the Metropolitan Opera in New York, and the pilot believes in a flat Earth? You’ll never get there.

TAC: Flat earth is an interesting analogy for those who follow a 19th century dreamer and claim the debate is over because they know they do not have to allow a real debate among captive audiences of children — with the threat of grade reduction held over their young heads. Flat earth appropriately describes the classrooms of humanist schools today.

Our main duty in getting to one of the core issues of what I’m talking about tonight is to reawaken a “reverence” for the natural world and our place in it. [We have a duty] to respect the creativity of the true creator, Mother Nature, to protect her, to take seriously our responsibilities as the most creative, but also the most destructive species that’s ever lived on Earth.

TAC: Re-awaken a reverence for evolution? When you are in full control of the nation’s public school and university science classes and faculties? When the mass media is indoctrinating the public to take evolution on faith, without evidence? When the so-called Learning Channel repeatedly alleges life evolved and offers no supporting evidence? In a nation where earth worshipping is common, due to years of public education indoctrination? You can’t be real.

The future is in our hands, and it is time that we stop turning our back on the natural world and start listening to her and working with her.

TAC: It’s time to stop turning our back on the scientific method, on free speech, reason, freedom of thought and academic rigor.

The Creation Museum [in Petersburg, Ky.] is one of our favorite places. Where else can you witness the science of cavemen cavorting with their favorite pet dinosaur, Skippy, 5,000 years ago? Is this a time warp and we’re back in the Dark Ages or something?

TAC: Time warp? From one who worships at the altar of a 19th century dreamer and one who believes the earth and universe are billions and billions of years old. Talk about darkened ages! LOL!

This is lying, cheating, deceiving, warping and perverting people’s knowledge. To make what? Money. How much money does the Creation Museum make at the same time it destroys young peoples’ opportunities to look at the world through an open mind. That’s what upsets me probably more than anything else about the museum.

TAC: Science teachers beholden to the god of evolution wouldn’t know an open mind if it kicked them in the shins. The study of evolution is a career launcher, and sustainer and golden parachute — with billions of taxpayers’ dollars, courtesy of the National Science Foundation and other government agencies and foundations. Thousands of taxpayer-funded research professors are working with large teams of taxpayer-funded graduate students, on the frivolous study of evolution — and proving nothing. Careers are based on this study; it is very, very profitable — thanks to taxpayers. So you might not want to talk about the Creation Museum charging an admission fee to pay its employees’ salaries.

And one would expect a “free thinker” to welcome various viewpoints and theories on the origins of life and the universe. You mean that trapping young people in government school science classes isn’t destroying their opportunities to look at the world — or freedom to visit the Creation Museum — with an open mind? If evolution is so right, why do you so greatly fear other explanations of life? You’ve got all the public schools, the universities, the mass media, and government. Yet you can’t let one ministry offer another view without condemnation.

Well, part of my mission in life has been to educate people about the fossil evidence for human evolution.

TAC: This empty mission can be completed in the blink of an eye. There is no fossil evidence of evolution. Lucy and her friends were apes, and that’s why their descendants can be seen in zoos. If she had lived a billion years and birthed a billion offspring, none of them would have ever developed the capability to advance to a higher order, much less human.

A born-again, Francis Collins, asked me to give the single most important talk that I’ve given in years, on Darwin’s 200th birthday, at the National Institutes of Health. He’s deeply religious and is the head of the National Institutes of Health. … Collins, whom I knew and had debated, and I had a huge interchange where he said, “Well, there are just some things that science can’t explain.” I said, “Yes, then it’s not science.”

TAC: Just a few years ago, one of the leading scientists at a major research university told me that a satellite sent photos of Saturn to earth rendered all the text books about that planet useless. So I assume the knowledge existing before these transmissions wasn’t science either. And furthermore, much of the so-called “science” posited by evolutionists in earlier times was proven fraudulent. That’s why you won’t want to discuss the Piltdown Man, the discredited experiment of Stanley Miller, or the other hoaxes and unsubstantiated claims of evolutionists. And how about the moths that were nailed to a tree for a photograph by an evolutionist?

Lucy is really the poster child for paleoanthropology and human origins. When you read about new fossil finds, they’re either younger than Lucy, older than Lucy, more complete than Lucy, not as primitive as Lucy, or whatever. So this was a remarkable discovery for me. It launched an incredible 20-year series of expeditions. We now have over 400 specimens of Lucy’s species, Australopithecus afarensis.

TAC: 400 specimens of an ape, with no linkage to humans. Lucy was just another ape. Take it on faith. You won’t want to do that, but that’s what you are telling people to do with your unproven claim that she was an early fore-runner of humans.

And if you go to the Creation Museum, there she is. She’s a four-legged, quadrupedal knuckle-walker. This is because of Dr. Ham. I don’t know what he got his doctorate in, may have been one of those things you get at Sears [Dr. of literature, Liberty University].
There ain’t no way that Lucy was walking on her knuckles and forelegs. A child goes in, sees this and is impressed by it. The child doesn’t know one way or another.

TAC: Were you there to see how this ape walked? If this child attends public school, she has been indoctrinated by evolution-touting teachers. And in response to your insolent remarks about Ken Ham, you and your evolution colleagues are living proof that years and careers spent in academia are not guarantees that academics are truly open to the scientific method, and they are not immune to biases and the dictates of their worldviews. Take the so-called most respected universities in the U.S., (Stanford, Ivy League, et al) and you can’t guarantee that an education at any one of these humanist/evolution indoctrination centers offers a more truth-oriented education than the tiniest Christian college … or a creation museum. While speaking of museums: we have a dinosaur museum in Mesa with signage claiming life ascended through a family tree over eons of time. There are no footnotes or corroboration; we’re supposed to take it on faith. And we don’t.

It’s terribly important that we don’t shut these minds down so early. The longer you have a mind that is shut down the more time there is to develop and reinforce bigotry.

TAC: Truer words were never spoken, but for the opposite reason you intended your statement. Thirteen years of public school, plus four years of college, plus 2-10 years of graduate education is an awful long period of shutting minds down. Open the schools and universities to science, to reason, to genuine debate and an authentic search for truth. Open the door to open inquiry, freedom of thought and speech. Stop firing professors for exploring non-evolutionary theories! End the bigotry now!

Here [in a cartoon] he’s saying, “Look, it’s not personal, it’s religious.” There have been so many sacrifices in religion — burning at the stake, beheading people, stoning people to death or ripping their hearts out and eating a live pumping heart (if you’re an Aztec) — what’s that left us with? A bunch of dead bodies.

TAC: Humanist dictators murdered 100 million innocent people in the 20th century. Sadly, America’s government and education establishment have adopted their religion of secular humanism. It is convenient for you when you want to demonize Christians to lump them in with Muslims, Aztecs, and Canaanites. The God Christians worship says to “choose life.” Who is killing children today? Planned Parenthood. God says: love your neighbor.

Make some real sacrifices, sacrifices to Mother Nature, who will, unlike the false gods to whom we have made sacrifices, reward you.

TAC: This so-called “Mother Earth” had a Creator.

We will be rewarded with what? Healthy clean air with reduced pulmonary disease, and we’ll all breathe a sigh of relief. I could go on and on about this, but I think you all get the gist. We live in a beautiful world.

TAC: Created by a majestic God.

We need to stop being Homo egocentricus and start to become a more deeply contemplative species that makes decisions intelligently, not out of fear or self-interest and not because of how much money we’re going to make. Make decisions that will help us regain the balance between ourselves and our creator, Mother Nature.

TAC: Set the example. Give up your stubborn predisposition to evolution and allow students free speech and freedom of thought. Listen to their reason. Give up your self-interest in perpetuating myths. Along with the taxpayer dollars funding your career. Give up your entitlement mentality.

It’s time, really, that as we look back on 4 million years of evolution, 3 million with Lucy. She is a link, not the missing link but one that reminds us of our link to the natural world.

TAC: Glad to hear you admit the so-called evolutionary link is still indeed missing. Game, set, match.

Lucy didn’t know where she was going; we don’t know where we’re going. She didn’t know that her descendants would end up as Homo sapiens, but it’s an interesting perspective to know that we are united by our past, that we have this commonality of beginning, that we undoubtedly will have a common future, and I think a common destiny globally.

TAC: I’m sorry you do not know where you are going. You are not related to Lucy or to any other apes. Your only common destination with apes is visiting jungles and zoos. You were wonderfully made by a Creator, God.

The most important thing from here on forth is to stop acting as if there’s some place else for us to move to. We are destined to be on, as my late friend Carl Sagan said, “this pale blue dot.” Let’s take those responsibilities seriously.

TAC: The late Carl knows so much more now than he did when he made that audacious statement. He has met his Maker and changed his worldview. If he could come back now, he would urge you to do the same.

Republican Turncoats (Like Bob Worsley) Help Dems Defeat Photo Radar Bill

On By AZ ConservativeIn Arizona, Big Government, Constitution, LegislatureLeave a comment

The bill to ban photo radar and red light cameras, SB 1167, received a recorded vote yesterday, thanks to the tireless work of bill sponsor Kelli Ward (R – LD5).

Unfortunately, the bill failed by a vote of 15-13, but there is still hope to revive it.

Of the 15 NO votes, 4 were Republicans who, so far, haven’t listened to their constituents – despite the barrage of phone calls and emails over the past several weeks.

Senator Bob Worsley, Senator Adam Driggs, Senator Nancy Barto, and Senator Steve Pierce chose to bend to high-powered lobbyists from Redflex and American Traffic Solutions.

Every single Democrat and these Republican turncoats voted to continue violating your rights and stealing your hard-earned money – all while putting your lives and property at risk.

Senator Ward has publicly vowed this fight is not over yet.

But she needs your help moving the 4 Republicans to a YES vote on SB 1167.

It’s critical you contact the following State Senators immediately and demand they change their vote on SB 1167.

Senator Bob Worsley (R – LD 25):
bworsley@azleg.gov 602-926-5760

Senator Adam Driggs (R – LD 28):
adriggs@azleg.gov 602-926-3016

Senator Nancy Barto (R – LD 15):
nbarto@azleg.gov 602-926-5766

Senator Steve Pierce (R – LD 1):
spierce@azleg.gov 602-926-5584

There are many ways the bill could be revived in this session.

In fact, another vote on SB 1167 could happen at any time while the legislature is in session, so these phone calls and emails are incredibly urgent.

With their vote, Senator Bob Worsley, Senator Adam Driggs, Senator Nancy Barto, and Senator Steve Pierce told Arizona citizens they have no problem with:

  • Violating the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  • Violating Arizona’s Constitution by depriving you of your right to equal protection under the law.
  • Scanning the license plates of every driver passing by and keeping them in a foreign-owned database (Redflex – Australia).
  • Thwarting their own party platform, which calls for a ban on photo ticketing.
  • Voting YES on the same scam that Rahm Emanuel refused to get rid of in Chicago.
  • Putting your life and property at risk so they and their buddies can fund their campaigns through “Clean” Elections (10% of every ticket goes to this fund).
  • The hazard of shortened yellow light times, which SCAMera companies like Redflex and ATS demand in order to drive up revenues. Motorists then slam on their brakes to avoid a ticket, which causes more accidents.
  • Handing over law enforcement to politically connected, crony capitalist companies
  • Ignoring the calls from major police organizations around the state – like MCSO, PCSO, and PLEA – demanding support for the bill and banning this scam for good.

We can still pass SB 1167 this session, but you must take action TODAY.

In Liberty,

Arizona Campaign for Liberty Team

P.S. SB 1167 can still be revived, but it won’t do any good unless we flip at least 2 of the 4 Republican NO votes.

It’s critical you contact the following State Senators immediately and demand they change their vote on SB 1167.

Senator Bob Worsley (R – LD 25):
bworsley@azleg.gov 602-926-5760

Senator Adam Driggs (R – LD 28):
adriggs@azleg.gov 602-926-3016

Senator Nancy Barto (R – LD 15):
nbarto@azleg.gov 602-926-5766

Senator Steve Pierce (R – LD 1):
spierce@azleg.gov 602-926-5584

An Open Letter to the Judge Who Disenfranchised 1.2 Million Voters

On By AZ ConservativeIn Arizona, Culture, Judicial activism, Marriage, The LeftLeave a comment

An Open Letter to U.S. District Judge John Sedwick:

I am one of the more than 1.2 million Arizonans who was disenfranchised last fall when you exceeded your authority and redefined marriage in our state. The nature of highly important issues like marriage is best left to the voice of their people or their elected representatives in the legislative branch. Arbitrary decisions like yours were never intended to be left to the judicial branch. You acted without the authority to do so.

Here’s how your regrettable decision will impact our communities:

More children will grow up without their father. Fatherlessness has wrought a devastating effect on our society.

More children will grow up without the nurturing care of their mother

More children will struggle in school.

More children will grow up in confusion about themselves and their sexuality.

More children will be subject to pornography. More of them will act out what they’ve seen, on other children.

More children will be placed at higher risks of sexual assault and rape. They’ll carry this trauma with them the rest of their lives.

More adults will be subject to domestic violence. This will create a greater drain on public resources left to pick the pieces.

There will be more divorce.

Your actions will reward alcohol and drug abuse.

There will be more STDs and AIDs in our Arizona communities traceable directly to your decision.

And you can’t have more drug and alcohol abuse and more disease without having more absenteeism in our work places.

All of these claims are backed up by decades of social science research in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you doubt that, please scan The Arizona Conservative website or contact us for the data.

Furthermore, you have seriously damaged the democratic process in Arizona. How many Arizonans will now be skeptical about engaging in the proposition process? How many more people are now left with an attitude that asks, “why should I bother to vote when a single judge can just throw my vote in the trash?”

You may never realize the damage you have wrought. But as we wrote to you before: when you come to a gate in the road, stop and ponder why it was placed there in the first place before you remove it.

Arizona, and America, need a strong marriage culture. It can’t be strengthened by redefining it, as you did. Nor can you lightly brush off the disenfranchising of 1.2 million Arizonans who enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment with good intentions and for good reason.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

The Arizona Conservative

Government Panel Calls for Measures to Upgrade Our Health

On By AZ ConservativeIn John SemmensLeave a comment

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnThe Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) issued a 571 page report outlining its recommendations for transforming Americans’ health. Citing persistent high levels of overweight and obesity, the report proposed “strategies across multiple settings, including health care, communities, schools, work sites, and families.”

First Lady Michelle Obama hailed the report as “the guiding light toward a healthier and happier America. The notion that individuals can be left on their own to choose what they eat and how much to exercise has proven to be a failure. DGAC’s call for ‘trained interventionists’ to take charge is the right message at the right time.”

These “interventions” are expected to include “limiting access to high calorie foods, censoring advertisements for unhealthy choices, and punitive taxes on foods with high sugar or salt content.” The DGAC report also urged a shift toward a more vegetarian diet. “While most people have a very negative view of the role Adolf Hitler has played in human history, one thing that is repeatedly overlooked was his dedication to vegetarianism,” the report said. “His efforts to set an example that others might follow is an under appreciated aspect of his contribution toward a healthier human race—both in terms of what we put in our bodies and in the positive impact on global climate change that a shift away from meat consumption would accomplish.”

“What people ingest is only part of the problem,” the First Lady pointed out. “Too many of us camp out in front of the TV and neglect to get enough exercise. We have the means now to track everything people watch and how much time they spend watching it. We can use this information to target individuals needing more external influence over their choices for how they use their leisure time.”

The DGAC report characterized personal health as “a human right that the government must guarantee to everyone, whether they want it or not. Individual deviation from healthy choices affects the collective well-being of others. Deterring this deviationism is a crucial step toward a healthier society.”

Beheadings in Libya Said to Vindicate Obama’s Warning

The Islamic State’s claim that the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians was justified as vengeance for the Crusades was cited by US Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest “as a total vindication of the President’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast two weeks ago.”

“That a cycle of violence initiated by Christians centuries ago would come back to haunt practitioners of that faith today should not have been unexpected,” Earnest maintained. “The Crusaders killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. The ISIL reprisals in Libya were modest and restrained in comparison. Once again, the President’s wisdom and insight have clarified what others have either failed to see or have attempted to distort.”

Earnest also chided those who have lampooned deputy spokesperson for the US Department of State, Marie Harf’s suggestion that the long run remedy for dealing with Islamic terrorism is to give them jobs. “Even if we ignore the possibility that a job might remove the incentive for violence, it should be obvious that the hours a person is working for a wage are hours that are unavailable for engaging in jihad,” Earnest argued.

Whether the Obama Administration’s plan to offer would-be jihadis jobs has any chance of success was thrown into doubt by reports from Uruguay that Gitmo detainees released to that country are refusing to accept employment. Abu Wa’el, one of the former detainees, went on TV to reject the idea that he and his comrades should join the workforce. “We are fighters for Allah,” he boasted. “We cannot waste our time laboring like kafirs. In a just world they would be serving us as our price for letting them live.”

Wa’el demands that “the Uruguayan government should bear the cost of our upkeep so that we can remain free to work toward the ultimate victory of Islam.” President of Uruguay Pepe Mujica is said to be ruing what he thought would be a humanitarian gesture of gaining these men their release from an American prison. “Their evil intent is moderated only by their sloth,” Mujica lamented. “I now fear we will never dislodge this wretched refuse from our shores.”

In related news, CNN host Carol Costello asserted that “right wing extremists are more dangerous than ISIS. As bad as ISIS might be perceived, there is no risk that they will topple our government. Despite their rhetoric, even they must understand that anyone who would succeed President Obama would be much less sympathetic to their cause. Right wingers, on the other hand, wouldn’t think twice about bringing down the Obama Administration. Clearly, they are the greater threat to our government.”

Democrat Defends Obama’s “Tough Love” for America

In the wake of his questioning of President Obama’s love for this country, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is catching flak from Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“This kind of comment is unwelcome and dangerous,” Schultz said. “The President is the most powerful person on the planet. Insulting him like this is tantamount to poking a lion with a stick. What can Giuliani be thinking?”

“What people need to understand is that President Obama is not a ‘rah-rah’ or ‘God bless America’ type of patriot,” Schultz explained. “He’s just the only president to be completely honest about how bad America and its people have been to humanity. This nation’s history of slavery and discrimination have forever besmirched its reputation. No Republican would’ve had the courage to be so honest.”

“Neither would any Republican dare to assail the selfishness of the successful as forthrightly as President Obama has,” Schultz continued. “Their hesitancy to face the need for the government to seize the superfluous wealth of those lucky enough to have the energy, motivation, and intelligence to thrive in the marketplace is a mark of their cowardice.’

“The President’s love for this country is what we call ‘tough love,’” Schultz concluded. “He’s not afraid to kick our asses and demand that we be better than we want to be. For a slacker like Giuliani to show such disrespect to the President for doing what he has to do to shape us up is horrible.”

One American whose ass was kicked in a demonstration of government’s “tough love” is 71-year-old Barronelle Stutzman. Stutzman is set to lose her home and life’s savings for refusing to sell flowers to a couple for their gay wedding. Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled that “the fact that the couple had no problem obtaining flowers from another vendor doesn’t mitigate the fact that she broke the law—which allows for no exceptions due to religious beliefs. The severity of her punishment serves as a deterrent to others who might place their own opinions ahead of the dictates of the statute.”

Vice-President Joe Biden praised Ekstrom’s ruling saying “it’s the kind of bitter medicine we must force down the throats of those who use the Bible as an excuse to defy the government’s creation of new human rights for formerly oppressed persons. It is my devout wish that the ruin inflicted on this grandmother, as well as others who espouse this kind of hate, will prompt the obedience the President is trying to instill across the land. Without obedience there can be no fundamental transformation.”

Court Ruling Won’t Impede Amnesty

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling against the Obama Administration’s unilateral rewriting of the nation’s immigration laws has Democrats incensed. Hanen demolished the Administration’s contention that President Obama’s actions were within his “prosecutorial discretion.” “It is within the President’s discretion not to prosecute individuals who have broken our laws,” the Judge said. “It is not within his discretion to create new laws without Congressional legislation.”

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson vowed to press ahead regardless of the ruling. “The opinion of a single judge in Texas can’t overturn the decision of the President to revamp the way this country handles immigration,” Johnson decreed. “President Obama was elected by the people to be the sovereign ruler of the United States. Hanen wasn’t elected by anyone. The scope of his authority does not entitle him to scrutinize, much less void, the actions taken by the President.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) predicted that “this court’s ruling will be ignored. The immigrants will continue to come and the President will provide them with the papers they need to establish themselves as full citizens. A tidal wave of their votes will sweep all amnesty opponents out of office in 2016.”

Mexico’s Foreign Minister José Antonio Meade Kuribreña denounced the court ruling calling it “a futile attempt to derail the reconquista. No one will obey it. With the assistance of President Obama, our people will reclaim the lands stolen from Mexico by President Polk and his army in 1848.”

In related news, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) demanded federal legislation that would bar states from requiring voters to be registered. “Voting should be a universal human right,” Ellison claimed. “No state should be allowed to restrict any human from exercising this right. The whole process should be simple—every human who shows up at the polls should be given a ballot to cast.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire column for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties that our nation’s Founding Fathers tried to protect.

Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Pro-Life Warriors: Call Your Lawmaker in Support of SB 1318

On By AZ ConservativeIn Arizona, Big Abortion, Legislature, LifeLeave a comment

Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod reports …

A CAP-supported bill to keep taxpayer money from subsidizing abortion insurance coverage will be considered by the Arizona Senate in the next few days. Your senators need to hear from you on this issue!

Abortion should not be paid for with tax dollars, yet 41 out of 199 insurance plans available on Arizona’s federally-run healthcare exchange are doing exactly that. What’s more, last year, nearly 90% of those purchasing plans on the exchange got some sort of taxpayer-funded subsidy.

SB 1318 will ensure Arizonans are fully protected from having their tax dollars subsidize abortions by ensuring no plans offered on the exchange include elective abortion coverage.

As usual, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union want to force Arizonans to pay for abortions. That’s why it’s critical that you contact your elected officials today and ask them to vote YES on SB 1318!

SB 1318 also ensures abortion clinics are complying with Arizona law by requiring them to provide verification that they have admitting privileges at a hospital as prescribed by law.

Use these talking points to craft your message to legislators. Don’t forget to add a custom Subject Line. It can be as simple as “Please Vote YES on SB 1318” or “Please Support SB 1318”.

  • SB 1318 will ensure that taxpayer dollars are not funding abortion in Arizona. This bill simply clarifies a law already in place to guarantee that no tax dollars will fund abortion.
  • Seventeen other states have the same law as SB 1318. And a total of 23 other states have restricted the circumstances under which plans on their exchanges may provide abortions.
  • SB 1318 also ensures that compliance with current clinic regulations is followed. Allowing DHS to verify that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital as prescribed by law ensures the safety of the women walking into the clinic.
  • A woman’s legal right to choose an abortion does not demand that taxpayers subsidize or pay for an abortion. SB 1318 does not restrict women from having an abortion but simply does not allow taxpayers to have to pay for that abortion procedure.

Does Abuse Contribute to the Development of Same-Sex Attraction?

On By AZ ConservativeIn Culture, Left-Stream Media, The Arizona Conservative University, The LeftLeave a comment

You won’t get the following scientific information from the left-stream media or the government schools. They are purposely withholding the truth about same-sex attraction. To be fully informed about the truth, please read below:

Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday. People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the ‘non-exclusively heterosexual” groups. Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.  Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behavior.”

http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/117336/sexual-orientation-link-past-study

Several studies have demonstrated that lesbian and bisexual women are more likely than heterosexual women to report childhood abuse and adult sexual assault. It is unknown, however, which sexual minority women are most likely to experience such abuse. We recruited adult sexual minority women living in the US through electronic fliers sent to listservs and website groups inviting them to complete an online survey (N=1,243). We examined differences in both childhood abuse and adult sexual assault by women’s current gender identity (i.e., butch, femme, androgynous, or other) and a continuous measure of gender expression (from butch/masculine to femme/feminine), adjusting for sexual orientation identity, age, education, and income. Results indicated that a more butch/masculine current self-assessment of gender expression, but not gender identity, was associated with more overall reported childhood trauma. Although one aspect of gender expression, a more butch/masculine gender role, was associated with adult sexual assault, feminine appearance and a femme gender identity also significantly predicted adult sexual assault. These findings highlight the significance of gender identity and expression in identifying women at greater risk for various abuse experiences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758810/

43 percent of males with same sex attraction reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of males with opposite sex attraction.

Source: Manosevitz, “Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males,” Journal of abnormal psychology, 76 (1970), 396-402.

A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became same sex attracted, versus opposite sex attracted.

Source: Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, Sexual preference: Its development in men and women (1981). 7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.

Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became same sex attracted suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse did not.

Source: Sheir and Johnson, Sexual victimization of boys:… (1988) pp. 1189-93

“This report describes the high prevalence and context of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) among men who have sex with men (MSM) across 3 independent qualitative studies.” ‘Childhood sexual abuse in men who have sex with men: results from three qualitative studies.’”

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY…2008 Oct;14(4):385-90.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954175

One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner. They are only 2-3% of the entire population. And the median age of first contact was as young as 10 years old!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1486514

The Archives of Sexual Behavior: “One of the most salient findings was that 46% of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. 22% of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.”

(Marie, E. Tomeo “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons.” Source:Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)

..homosexual attraction was greater in pedophiles than in other adults involved with sexual crimes with nearly a 2:1 difference.”

‘Review of 554 Medical Reports on Pedophilia’

Dr. John Hughes D.M.,M.D.,PhD., Medline Clinical Pediatrics: (See here & here).

A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: “More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years.”

Source: Harry W. Haverkos, et al., “The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1737828/

A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:”In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged ‘very often’ in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred ‘sometimes.’”

Source: Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, “Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.

A National Institute of Justice report states that “the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people who experienced no victimization as children.”

Source: Cathy Spatz Widom, “Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences,” Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.

A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been “victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.”

Source: Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): pg. 582.

The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that “there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim.”

Source: Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, “The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research,” Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995). p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

Some homosexual activists have argued that sexual abuse shows no causal effects for lesbianism. Feel free to dig around on this point. You will find that is probable that self-identified lesbians have been participants in the samples of these studies, but they rarely have been studied separately from their heterosexual counterparts ( Source: Baker, 2003. Lesbian survivors of childhood sexual abuse: Community, identity, and resilience. Canadian Journal of Community, 22, 31-45).

So the reality is that there hasn’t really been a big effort to study a link between child sex abuse and lesbianism, but it looks like some have more recently…

“Using survey data from 63,028 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study II, we investigated sexual orientation group differences in emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence. Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women. Comparing physical abuse victimization occurring in both childhood and adolescence, lesbian (30%, prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40, 1.84) and bisexual (24%, PR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00, 1.60) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (19%). Similarly, comparing sexual abuse victimization occurring in both age periods, lesbian (19%, PR 2.16, 95% CI 1.80, 2.60) and bisexual (20%, PR 2.29, 95% CI 1.76, 2.98) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (9%).” (2008 May;17)

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447763/

“…lesbians reported a greater incidence than their sisters of childhood physical and sexual abuse, as well as adult sexual abuse.” ‘Sexual and physical abuse: a comparison between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters’”

University of California, Davis, Davis, California, 2009;56(4):407-20

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19418332

“Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013) presented evidence that childhood maltreatment is related to adult homosexuality, using an instrumental variables regression analysis. Briefly, several instrumental variables—presence of a stepparent, poverty, parental alcohol abuse, and parental mental illness—were related to adult homosexuality, but these relations were statistically mediated by childhood maltreatment. Roberts et al. concluded that childhood maltreatment causes adult homosexuality.”
 
Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0269-3

And more independent data found within this link:

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/