Of all the wicked organizations currently in operation in the United States, the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has to be among the worst.  What makes this radical homosexual group especially dangerous is the carefully crafted public image they have concocted that effectively masks the depths of their depravity.  It's an image that is painstakingly guarded by a complicit mainstream media that balks at any notion of holding them accountable for their offensive behavior.

GLSEN touts itself as an organization designed to combat the bullying and mistreatment of gay and lesbian students in public school across America.  Certainly, this is an objective that anyone should support.  Regardless of how you feel about the issue of homosexuality, school is a place where any student should feel safe, and be free of threats, intimidation, and bullying.

It is this image that GLSEN uses to work its way into school systems across America, conducting their vaunted "Day of Silence" to raise awareness of the mistreatment of homosexual young people bullied into the shadows.  And it's GLSEN's supposed fight to stop bullying that undoubtedly led President Obama to promote the group's founder and executive director Kevin Jennings to head up the office of Safe and Drug Free Schools within the Department of Education.

But the reality of GLSEN is something quite different from its public persona.  In fact, as a school teacher myself, my experiences with GLSEN and its materials have demonstrated that their interest is not in ending bullying, but rather redirecting the intimidation onto new targets - specifically, young children and teenagers who profess traditional moral values and who have been raised in Christian homes. 

GLSEN's own curriculum guides to teachers advise them to - without parental knowledge or consent - question their students on the validity of their religious upbringing.  Their tactics are to create an atmosphere where any objection to the practice of homosexuality (no matter how legitimate, loving, or reasoned that objection might be) is perceived as a threat of violence, and therefore must be dealt with by the school through disciplinary action.  If that isn't bullying into silence, I don't know what is.

But GLSEN is far more sinister than just their hypocritical position on intimidation in schools.  They are also disgustingly depraved, and take every opportunity to lead young people into dangerous and sometimes deadly practices.

For example, back in 2000, GLSEN held its annual convention at Tufts University in Massachusetts.  There, student attendees as young as 14 sat through sexually provocative sessions that involved discussion over homosexual oral sex and the depraved practice of "fisting."  Though the conference was closed to media, undercover journalists managed to break the story by revealing a secretly recorded audio tape from one of these sex sessions.  The resulting embarrassment was minimized because the national media is an ally of GLSEN and ignored the story entirely. 

As a consequence, the 2001 conference was much of the same, with an estimated 400 student attendees being given a "fisting kit" of plastic gloves as well as "dental dams" for use during oral sex.  In 2005, GLSEN was caught distributing gay "leather" bar guides to teens in attendance.  Not only would it be illegal for many of these young people to even enter the bars, but with the indisputable prevalence of pedophilia in the male homosexual culture, these guides are nothing more than attempts to lure young people into extremely dangerous surroundings.

Kevin Jennings, who orchestrated these events and actually delivered the keynote address at that vulgar 2000 conference, said these realities provide no justification for questioning his organization.  Apparently our new president agreed, as he tabbed the architect of these perversion-fests to be his "safe school czar."

Perhaps Mr. Obama could explain how leading kids towards deadly sexual behavior - something Mr. Jennings dedicated his life to - is promoting "safe schools?"

And consider also the sexually explicit reading list that was endorsed for your children by Mr. Jennings himself.  "Reflections of a Rock Lobster" is on that list - a story that includes five and six year old boys playing "sex therapist" with one another.  Then there's "Passages of Pride" where your kids can read about a boy having sexual encounters and fondling the private parts of other boys beginning at the age of five.  And let's not forget "In Your Face," where your child can read about the homosexual and incestuous relationships of the author, replete with extraordinarily graphic language.

Conservative author Michelle Malkin asks a very good question: would Mr. Obama be okay with his daughters Sasha and Malia reading these works of depravity?  If not, why is he subjecting public school students and families across the country to the degenerate mind of Mr. Jennings and his GLSEN cohorts?  If we want schools that promote the safety and well being of our children, we will ensure that GLSEN isn't anywhere near them.

To say it was the most reckless thing Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ever said might be underestimating his reputation of irresponsibility, but it had to be close.  In attempting to shame Senate Republicans for not supporting a plan to destroy the quality and affordability of healthcare in the United States, Reid made the following statement:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right.  When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'...When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Who is advising this man? 

There are so many reasons this statement is foolishly unwise, it is tough to know where to start.  First of all, Reid might want to remember that it was the Democratic Party that was the Party of slavery.  While Lincoln and the Republicans fought for the abolition of this terrible practice, it was Reid's progenitors that bitterly clung to the racist institution of enslavement.  Mr. Reid, it's best not to reference the cowardly effort to perpetuate slavery when that legacy belongs to your own party.

Secondly, Reid's comment about the civil rights filibuster is undoubtedly a reference to Strom Thurmond's famous 1957 effort against that legislation.  But at the time Thurmond led the filibuster, he was a Democrat.  His switch to the Republican Party wouldn't happen until several years later.  In fact, over 80% of those who filibustered in an effort to kill the civil rights legislation were of the same party as Harry Reid.  Mr. Reid, it's best not to reference the cowardly effort to prevent civil rights advancements when that legacy belongs to your own party.

Next, it evidently hasn't occurred to Mr. Reid that the consequence of this healthcare legislation would be to restrict the freedom of choice to individuals.  It would require government approval of healthcare decisions, government approval of health insurers, an individual mandate that doesn't allow a person the option to choose not to purchase some government approved insurance, and (as nearly all of its supporters recognize) is a step towards the complete abolition of the private insurance industry.  That means socialized medicine.  Mr. Reid, it's odd that someone who favors stripping people of their freedom of choice in something as significant as their health and well being (making individuals completely at the mercy of government for it) would be referencing slavery at all.

But what makes Reid's slavery remark most incoherent is that he apparently fails to recognize that there is but one issue in modern American politics comparable to slavery, and it has nothing to do with legislation currently before Congress. There is only one other similar issue where the basic rights of man are being denied by those in power, and that's the issue of abortion. And it is Reid and his Democratic party that have taken the slaveholders' position.  Mr. Reid, it is you who boldly stands in the shadow and proudly walks in the footsteps of the plantation owners.

Remember, those plantation owners were the "pro-choicers" of their day. They believed that anyone should have the choice to own another human being and do with them whatever they pleased. And when the abolitionists spoke up and said that every human had value and should be granted unalienable rights, the pro-choice slave owners scoffed. That is exactly what Harry Reid and the Democrats in Washington are doing right now with regard to innocent life in the womb. 

In the name of choice, they are saying that it's okay for one human being to own another human being and do with them what they please - even if that means killing them. And when the human rights advocates known as "pro-lifers" speak up and say that every human has value and should be granted unalienable rights, Reid and his Party scoff.

Mr. Reid, there is but one party and one Senate leader that is comparable to the slavery advocates, and you needn't look further than a mirror to find him. 

For the first time since September 11, 2001, I find myself seriously questioning whether or not the United States is capable of winning the War on Terror.  And it's not because of my lack of faith in our supremely naïve Commander-in-Chief.  Though his discomfort in even identifying our enemy and his indecision in how best to pursue them is cause for great concern, my questions are motivated by something much deeper and much more sinister. 

America's moral confusion has now reached the point where it has become routine for us to treat the good guys as the bad guys, and vice versa.  The most recent example of this tragic reality came with the news that three U.S. Navy SEALs will face court-martials for the mistreatment of an enemy terrorist they captured.  In 2004, Ahmed Hashim Abed masterminded a successful plot to ambush, murder, mutilate and burn the bodies of four American security agents.  Abed's ruthless cohorts then hung the charred remains of these Americans from a bridge in Fallujah to allow the world press to photograph and publicize.

Abed came into U.S. custody when a team of the Navy's elite commando squad captured him just recently.  But Abed is a trained al-Qaeda fighter and knows all to well the Achilles heal of the mightiest military force the world has ever known: political correctness.  After being taken into custody, Abed cried that he had been punched by his American captors, resulting in a bloody lip. 

In a sane culture, this plea would have elicited uproarious laughter at Abed's plight.  This is a man who has excelled at sawing innocent people's heads off, and he is complaining about a bloody lip?!  These SEALs should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for demonstrating the remarkable restraint to only punch this murderous savage.  But we don't live in a sane culture, and consequently Navy SEALs Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe, and Julio Huertas are now facing court-martial trials for prisoner abuse that could unbelievably end their military career in shame.

The real shame rests with a society that allows such a backwards travesty to occur.

But it's not the first time.  Following an intense firefight in Haditha, Iraq in November of 2005, eight U.S. Marines were charged with the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians.  While the liberal "tolerance" police evidently want us to avoid rushing to judgment when a Muslim radical murders 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, they aren't that interested in waiting for due process when it comes to charges brought against our own troops.

Keith Olbermann called the Haditha incident, "willful targeted brutality."  The liberal rag "The Nation" reported that there was enough evidence to prove the Marines had committed a "massacre."  The New York Times called it the "nightmare defining atrocity" of the Iraq war.

But worst of all, Democrat Representative John Murtha (a former Marine himself) stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and, taking the word of our enemy over the word of our soldiers, slandered those Marines by stating, "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." 

As it turns out, these liberal loudmouths were dead wrong.  Charges have been completely dropped against seven of the eight Marines, and the one who still faces trial is being charged with not properly investigating the incident.  In other words, there was no massacre.  Our soldiers acted properly and responsibly, which is far more than can be said for these left-wing elitists here at home.

To this point, neither Olbermann, The Nation, the New York Times, nor Rep. John Murtha have uttered one word of apology for acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury in their false condemnation of our soldiers.  And stunningly, Congressional Democrats are so void of any conscience and integrity, Rep. Murtha still maintains his position of leadership within their party.  It's an embarrassment to Democrats, but also to the country at large.

Which brings me to my larger point.  There's a reason that confiscated al-Qaeda training manuals show that the first lesson they teach their converts is this: when captured by the Americans, immediately allege abuse.  And why?  Because it works.  Just ask the three Navy SEALs, the eight Marines, and countless other brave defenders of freedom who are falling victim to this culture's viral stupidity born out of backwards, politically correct liberalism.

And if Americans of both parties don't speak up to stop it, that is the one force on earth that I am sure will defeat us.