Genocide For Jesus

Andrew Breitbart on the “threat” of unarmed liberals.

2011-10-04T01:36:00.013-04:00

Andrew Breitbart, shares with us the Tea Party Dominionists' affinity for violence. ...and then cries victim

From The Ed Show:

SCHULTZ: …this is one of the most outrageous things I think I`ve ever heard. "We outnumber them and we have the guns." That`s a direct quote. That was right wing commentator Andrew Breitbart. It`s what he told a Massachusetts Tea Party group of people about their advantage over progressives.

Breitbart suggested that literal armed combat is the best way to go.

Transcript:

ANDREW BREITBART, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: And so there are times where I`m not thinking as clearly as I should. And in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, fire the first shot, bring it on, because I know who is on our side. And they know that. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war.

They can not win. We outnumber them in this country and we have the guns. So -- I`m not kidding. They talk a mean game. But they will not cross that line because they know what they`re dealing with. And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, thank you for what you`re doing. We`ve got your back.

They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know. They know who’s on their side, they’ve got Janeane Garofalo, we are freaked out by that. When push comes to shove, they know who’s on our side. They are the bullies on the playground, and they’re starting to realize, what if we were to fight back, what if we were to slap back?

"They are the bullies on the playground"

Those evil unarmed liberals, always harassing those poor defenseless gun owners.

Rick Santorum: Anti-American

2011-09-24T02:15:00.013-04:00

Here’s a soldier, ready, willing and committed to fight and die for people like Rick Santorum for the freedom to spout their hatred for gay Americans, and Santorum essentially says f-you, go back in the closet.

GOP Debate - Rick Santorum On Reinstating 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell':

Moderator: [former senator and presidential candidate, Rick] Senator Santorum, this question stirred a whole lot of controversy on line. It comes from Steven Hill, who is a soldier serving in Iraq.

Stephen Hill: In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier and I didn’t want to lose my job.

My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military

[crowd boos]

Santorum: I would say, any type of sexual activity has no place in the military, and the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people, and give them … and removing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most effective and protective of our men and women in uniform, and I believe this undermines this ability.

[crowd roars]

Moderator:So what would you with soldiers like Stephen Hill? Now he’s out. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face, now he’s out - so what would you do as president?

Santorum: What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now, and that’s tragic. I would just say that going forward, we would institute that policy, period. That policy would be re-instituted, and as far as people who are in to it, I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past -- which was, sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it to yourself, whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual. [crowd roars]

But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past [DADT].

The hell you would! You'd sign an executive order criminalizing any LGBT person found to be in service of their country.

Wikipedia:

Santorum: the right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, and that sodomy laws (Lawrence v Texas)
properly exist to prevent acts which undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"

Gays = bad
Criminals = AOK

Washington times:

The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.

It has offered larger enlistment cash bonuses, allowed more high school dropouts and applicants with low scores on its aptitude test to join, and loosened weight and age restrictions.

It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.

Keith's Special Comment: The Four Great Hypocrisies of the Debt Deal

2011-08-10T07:06:00.007-04:00

Keith Olbermann
August 1, 2011 at 10:00 am

Keith's Special Comment covers the "four great hypocrisies" of the debt deal and the necessity of taking the governance of this nation back from politicians.

Transcript:

I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.

Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.

We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.

We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.

We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets - and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political "points" because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.

It would be comical if it were not tragic.

Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.

Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical "Super Congress" committee.

For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other - albeit far better - politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don't like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.

Except this one.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?

This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional "Super Congress" and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.

Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it. And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren't spending, and the consumers aren't spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis - then and now - the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.

Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.

What happens if there's ever another… war?

Or another… terrorist attack?

Or another… natural disaster?

Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar morethan it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.

And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. TheSuper Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a "trigger" that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more - but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can't manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.

We're cutting Defense. Unless we're not.

The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable - permanent.

The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded -- later.

By a committee.

A committee that has yet to be formed.

There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen's cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can't spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.

Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don't buy newspapers or can't leap website paywalls or could not afford cable tv?

Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it's right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?

Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?

Where is the outrage to come from?

From you!

It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.

It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the 'free press,' the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive details about exactly how the bank robbers emptied the public's pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.

It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can't hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.

The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing ofhatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.

And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960's and early 1970's and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs - but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.

It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you've got to get mad.

I cannot say to you, meet there or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.

Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.

Good night, and good luck.

Since Liberal values preclude violence as a means to an end, it would appear that information -- transformed into talking points -- and the viral spreading of that information, is one of, if not the greatest weapon in our arsenal. But that requires a degree organization -- something progressives aren’t normally inclined to be. Unlike extremist conservatives who need to be spoon-fed their thoughts and beliefs by their reigning sociopaths.

At 25% of the population, an army of do-anything-for-any-reason “as long as I get mine” -ers, is a formidable force to reckon with.

The shite is already starting to hit the fan, and while things are still salvageable, I suggest we start organizing that information into talking points that STICK, and somehow get our pundits and congressmen to spew them forth with the intensity of water from a fire hose.

Conservatives already have this methodology down pat, it needs to be matched and outdone. Beginning with the education of the public that whatever conservatives say in regard to liberals/progressives/democrats, is usually, but unknowingly, what they are saying about themselves.

And secondly, the belief amongst liberals (even activists!!!) themselves, that these people can be reasoned with, needs to be squashed. There are a scant few who can be reached, but recognize when they will not so you know when to switch tactics in order to reach the lurking fence-sitters. Remember, they are the real goal.

To give a couple of examples of talking points that stick in your mind:

This recent debt “deal” has brought out the term “hostage politics.” “Hostage” is a perfectly accurate description of how Republicans have been playing the game since Obama was elected, but conveys MUCH more malicious intent.

And as far as water-boarding being “torture” goes, it should be explained that it’s torture because it’s the sensation of suffocation. Few people have experience with drowning, but many more -- at one point or another -- have, or will have some experience of feeling like you’re not getting enough air/oxygen, and the terror that accompanies it.

I have much more to say, but it’ll have to wait. For now, here are a couple of must-reads dealing with our nation’s current state of affairs:

Speculations On The Causes Of The "Culture Wars"

Not With A Whimper But A Bang - How Capitalism Will End

I think this guy is brilliant (Scott Bidstrup), so I highly recommend browsing his site further.

Teens hopped up on Shamanism

2010-12-19T19:21:00.004-05:00

I swear, the unique thing about the Onion is their deadpan. You just have to wonder how many times these guys cracked up while they were filming this.
--
Do Glass Pipes, Incense Prove Teens Are Practicing Shamanism?

Happy belated Thanksgiving

2010-11-26T06:04:00.005-05:00

Obama Outlines Moral, Philosophical Justifications For Turkey Pardon

It Get's Better

2010-10-26T06:06:00.005-04:00

Mission

The Trevor Project is determined to end suicide among LGBTQ youth by providing life-saving and life-affirming resources including our nationwide, 24/7 crisis intervention lifeline [1-866-488-7386], digital community and advocacy/educational programs that create a safe, supportive and positive environment for everyone.

Via The Trevor Project: "It Get's Better"

Thank a Liberal

2010-10-26T04:30:00.003-04:00

I used to get angry when my parents would talk conservative politics by just repeating what they'd heard on Fox. Until, that is, I realized that I had the upper hand.

Reason having failed to reach them, I decided on a new strategy--mock.

I was with my dad the other day and something on the radio was talking about some safety regulation, and as conservatives go, at least recently, they've never seen a regulation they didn't hate, loathe and despise.

So I said "Those damn liberals and their safety regulations." And my dad stopped to think for a moment, then kind of chuckled and said "Yeah."

So whenever politics comes up, I freely admit that I'm a bleeding heart liberal -- so that thay know that I know what they think of people like me.

Now I have even more material to work with. This was on Countdown last night:

...for the mind of the republican those things are proxies for something else.

For their characterization of liberals as tree hugging, whale saving, wishy washy, namby pamby, flip flopping bed wetters who think they can reason with the Taliban and sit down with Osama Bin Laden and read John Stewart Mills on liberty and sing Kumbaya and somehow come to a peaceful resolution.

Here's some more cannon fodder. Lots of examples here:

Thank a Liberal

“Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful and most powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people…” – Joe Conason

[I've cut this up for easier reading:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It’s noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

If you do not have skin cancer, and have ever stood outside without having a peeling sunburn within moments, thank the ozone layer, thank the ban on CFCs, and thank a liberal.

If you have not died in a heat wave, drought, hurricane, flood, wildfire, or other climate change disaster, and like the idea of your children and grandchildren not living in desert wastelands, thank a liberal.

If you have ever breathed clean air or drank clean water, thank a liberal.

If no woman you know has died or been maimed in a back-alley Abortion, thank a liberal.

If you have never been lynched, or had your children firebombed in a church, thank a liberal.

If you are glad we don’t live in a right-wing dictatorship along the lines of what conservatives overtly and covertly created in Iran, Guatamala, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, the Congo, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, the Phillipines, Indonesia and many others, thank a liberal.

If you have ever used Medicare, thank a liberal.

If you have not gotten cancer from radiation, thank the Nuclear test ban and thank a liberal.

If you have ever sat on a public seat, drank from a drinking fountain, stood on a bus, or done anything in public without worrying about being beaten up for being in the wrong section for your skin color, thank a liberal.

If you’ve ever driven on an interstate highway, thank a liberal.

If you grew up in a family of less than 12 kids, like the idea of being able to choose if you have 12 kids or not, if you don’t live in an overpopulated third world slum, or just think birth control is a good idea, thank a liberal.

If your family benefited from the GI Bill of Rights, FHA Mortgages, and so forth, thank a liberal.

If you have ever bought anything from Europe, and are glad the Marshall plan kept it from remained a bombed-out shell or falling to communism or neo-fascism, thank a liberal.

If you are glad that the Nazis don’t control half the world (conservatives opposed joining World War 2 until it was forced on them) thank a liberal.

If you have ever eaten food (agricultural subsidies), flicked on a light switch (rural electrification) or benefited from the Tennessee Valley Authority, thank a liberal.

If you ever drank a beer or a glass of wine without being thrown in jail, thank a liberal.

If you are not a land-owning white male, but have voted, thank a liberal.

If you have not died from tainted meat, been prescribed something useless or poisonous by a quack doctor, have not given your children cough syrup which turned out to have heroin as its secret ingredient, thank a liberal. (and Nixon)

If your workplace is safe and you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights without being lynched, thank a liberal.

If you’ve ever seen a national park, and it hadn’t been strip mined and clearcut into a desert wasteland, thank a liberal.
If you have never suffered from an economy of massive deflation, and have never even heard of an economic phenomenon called a “panic”, thank a liberal.

If your children go to school instead of working in coal mines, thank a liberal.

If you’re a Native American and have not been killed or died in a concentration camp, or if you live near Native Americans and are not at war with them, thank a liberal.

If you have an industrial or high-tech job – or really, any job other than those available in a slave-powered cash crop economy (ie, a third world economy) thank a liberal.

If you’re not a slave or “indentured servant” (white slave), don’t think protection of slavery belongs in the constitution, if you’ve never been chained to a boat where half the passengers die, been whipped, had your family split up, been forced to “breed” with another slave you’ve never met, been raped by your boss, or killed for not being profitable, thank a liberal.

If you oppose political parties starting massive wars to destroy America, just because they lost the election, and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in process – if you just don’t have that much fanatical hatred of Lincoln’s policy of to restricting slavery to states where it already existed, thank a liberal.

If you’re part-Irish, Catholic, Jewish, or for that matter anything not Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and are allowed to live in America, and are not harassed and attacked for failing to be born Anglo-Saxon Protestant, or if you’ve ever bought or used anything built by a non-ASP American, thank a liberal.

If you kind of like freedom of speech, and don’t want the state government to be able to censor you – (you think the 14th amendment is a good idea) – thank a liberal.

If you have ever bought or sold anything transported by the transcontinental railroad, or eaten food from a farm created by the railroad, thank a liberal.

If you think the US constitution is pretty cool, and have ever traveled too or done business with a country whose democracy was inspired by the American revolution, thank a liberal.

If you have not been drafted and used as cannon-fodder in some war caused by some petty insult between nobles, clan leaders, or other various overfed dictators, or suffered rape or looting in one of those countless wars, thank a liberal.

If you have not been tortured to death in a religious inquisition, thank a liberal.

If you don’t have to walk though ankle-deep sewage in the streets (because sewers are big gummint), thank a liberal.

If you have ever done anything that is a religious or superstitious taboo (ie, done anything at all) without being stoned to death or cast out as a heretic, thank a liberal.

If you have never been raped, and then had the rapist escape punishment on the grounds that he marry you, thank a liberal.

If you are not a slave toiling to build a pyramid for some lazy dictator who’s so spoiled he thinks he’s god, and won’t even see it until he’s dead, thank a liberal.

If you have not been killed as a human sacrifice in the name of some god, thank a liberal.

In short, if you’ve ever enjoyed anything of the post-stone-age world, thank a liberal.

…And if not, become a conservative.

Focus on the Family: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" vote next week

2010-09-17T14:34:00.010-04:00

From an email:

Of course, repealing DADT isn't just social tinkering with our armed forces.

It threatens the safety and morale of troops--who must trust and rely upon each other--by introducing sexual tension in the barracks.

It would also endanger the religious-liberty rights of chaplains and servicemen and women to share their beliefs about God's design for human sexuality.

--social tinkering
--threatens troop safety
--adds sexual tension
--endangers religious-liberty

One might think that the very moral fabric of time itself was at stake.

Not to worry:

$25 will print and mail voter registration packets to more than 25 concerned citizens in target states;
- $50 will send 25,000 "Get Out the Vote" reminder e-mails before Election Day
- $75 or more will help us continue to send these weekly e-mail updates to keep you and other values-minded voters up-to-date on key family issues and how you can be involved.

...consider giving ... voter-education ... vital efforts ... recurring gift ... monthly expenses.

And the solution...

Army Giving More Waivers in Recruiting

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
Published: February 14, 2007
It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.

Assault: Definition: attack

Synonyms: abuse, advance, assail, bash, beset, blast, blitz, bushwhack, charge, come down on, go for, haul off on, invade, jump, jump down one's throat, jump on one's case, lay into, let have it, light into, rape, ruin, set upon, shoot down, slam, slap around, storm, strike, trash, violate, work over, zap

Why yes, Mr. Minnery, bonding with an abusive theif who's driving habits have been proven to be fatal is just the kind of confidence building cohesion that a unit needs. That, and dropping the soap in the shower in front of an ex-con.

Manhattan Declaration's statement on marriage.

2010-04-17T12:17:00.001-04:00

"We, no less than they, are sinners"

No, that's not the statement, but it tells you where this is going.
--
I ran across this a few times lately and finally decided to Check it out.

MANHATTAN DECLARATION: A CALL OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE
Drafted October 20, 2009 & Released November 20, 2009

Founded by anti-gay hate monger, Chuck Colson, and drafted by himself, Robert George and Timothy George.

The Manhattan Declaration has a preamble, a declaration, and follows with articles on "life" "marriage" and "religious liberty," and boasts of nearly half a million signatories.

Naturally I was drawn to the section on marriage, to see what was being said about me homsexuality.

They begin with a couple of Bible verses, here's one of them:

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

They then soften us up with some “acknowledgement” of mistakes (without the anti-gay parts):

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage ... we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce ... we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

And then proceed to bash gay-marriage.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex [marriage] ... would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation..."

Yes, I'm sure "romance" and "adult satisfactions" are the reasons why so many gay couples want to adopt.

We'll get back to that "procreation" song and dancee thing later.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity

Yes, I felt more "dignified" by the syllable.

There's really nothing quite like having someone express their love and support for you than by characterizing the most precious moments of your life, shared with someone you love more than life itself, as a matter of good and evil.

Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation.

That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

So, in order to blunt the accusation of hypocrisy in regard to having no problem with non-procreative heterosexual-marriages, they now maintain that gays shouldn't be able to marry because LGBT-sex DOESN'T LOOK LIKE hetero-sex?

Anyone?

…the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships;

it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No.

No. No it could not be asserted with equal validity.

And here's why:

1) Slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

2) Slippery Slope Fallacy

The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong.

So there's that, plus all this stuff:

-Given that incest is Biblically-approved (see Genesis), why would you even have a problem with incestuous marriage?

-Unlike same-gender attraction, being attracted to one's siblings is NOT a sexual orientation.

-There are direct social consequences to the legalization of incestuous marriage.

If the family unit, as you say, is indeed the cornerstone of society, then the home should the safest place. Legalizing incestuous marriages could fundamentally undermine the perceived sincerity of familial affection.

On to polygamy and Polyamory:

-slippery slope fallacy
-Polygamy, also God approved
-The desire to marry ONE partner is not the same as the desire to marry additional partners
-Also, there are direct social consequences of legalizing polygamous marriages.

The wealthiest would marry up hundreds if not thousands of potential mates for other men. Marriage would become a highly coveted privilege. Now add an ocean of testosterone with no place to go. The incidences of rape and molestation would skyrocket.
--
And while we’re at it, whenever they compare the “sin” of homosexuality with the “sin” of adultery, they’re comparing having a partner with cheating on one’s partner.
---
I am left to conclude one of three things about the drafters and many, if not most of the signatories of this "Declaration."

1. They know these arguments are bogus and are fully aware that they are lying.
2. They just don't care about the truth.
3. They really are that stupid.

Inquiring eyes want to know.

“It’s Gay, Not SSA”

2010-04-13T03:22:00.000-04:00

I've been mulling on this since I first read the article and I think I've finally come to a conclusion.
--
From Truth Wins Out: February 12th, 2010 by Wayne Besen

Why I Loathe The Term ‘Same-Sex Attraction’(SSA)

Personally, I don’t like the bogus term “SSA”, which stands for “same-sex attraction.” There is no such thing (or diagnosis) as SSA and it is a manipulative attempt to separate LGBT people from their natural, inborn sexuality.

The term SSA is skillfully employed to make it appear as if fundamentalist bigots are not attacking the person, just their sexual feelings.

He then quotes from this article to show the power of words. Note, this is a different quote from the article that TWO uses:

New Poll Shows Support for Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
February 11, 2010
By DALIA SUSSMAN

As the Obama administration proposes repealing the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

There’s less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.

As one commenter put it: "The reason the far right uses the term “homosexual” is that it implies that our community consists of nothing but unfettered sexual urges on a daily basis."

Agreed. By using the term homosexuality, they are essentially able to characterize our equality-agenda as being sexually motivated. The use of the term "same-sex marriage" is no different.

When we hear "same-sex marriage," we think of marriage equality.

When they hear the term, they hear "sex marriage," reducing our motive for marriage-equality as being nothing more than a selfish desire to earn governmental recognition of our ~~relationships~~ promiscuity with the same person. Ergo, "sex marriage."

Another commenter had this to say: "SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE (SGM): Now, there’s a term I can understand and believe in. It’s not ambiguous to me at all."

I try to be consistent when using opposing terms, like, gay/straight heterosexual/homosexual, etc. It depends on what I'm writing and how I'm using the words.

So that much I'll defend in regard to the use of SSA, SSM, homosexual, etc.--sometimes they just fit.

But I will say that I have been, and will continue to use the terms "same-gender attraction" and "same-gender marriage" to help ensure that they are being taken in the context they were meant to be. As opposed to the anti-gay industry's use of the terms to reduce us, and the intimacy we share with our partners, as being nothing more than recurring sex acts.

Maddow at her maddest

2010-04-10T12:02:00.003-04:00

Now, as I was assembling some facts today to put this decision into context---about the senator‘s voting record, his subsidized residence at C Street, his role as hush money negotiator between Sen. John Ensign and Sen. Ensign‘s mistress and all that---Sen. Coburn said this to the “Daily Caller” Web site. He said, quote, “Look at Rachel Maddow. She comes at me on the basis of emotion. She demonizes me. I don‘t want conservatives to win on the basis of emotion. If we lower ourselves to the level they operate on, we hurt ourselves and our arguments.”

I was trying to do my work. But then, that pops up in my Google alert and then I read it and I become ultimately so blindingly enraged and then hysterically upset and then inconsolably morose and then hyperactively giddy and then happy and then sad and then mad and then happy again.

But I couldn‘t make sense of any of the facts that I was gathering, all of which I was trying to read through the tears of joy and anger and anxiety, but I just can‘t control it. Can you tell? I‘m falling apart right now. [I've got to memorize that for my next party]

So I promise - I‘m getting emotional by this promise. I promise that tomorrow I will gather myself and offer a full analysis of today‘s Tom Coburn news. I hope you will join us. If I can hold it together long enough, there is plenty of evidentiary facts to present and I will do it if I can, tomorrow night, right here.

Will you excuse me? I need a minute. So we‘re going to be right back. OK? OK. Sorry.

Next Day's evisceration of Tom Coburn:

Politicians should know by now not to F with Rachel Maddow.

Father Corapi on homosexuality

2010-04-08T03:00:00.005-04:00

While sifting through my parents’ library of propaganda I came across a 2002 DVD called " Contemporary Attacks on the Family: A powerful sermon by Fr. John Corapi"

I was familiar with him from (before the anti-gay movement kicked into overdrive) when I saw one of his inspiring sermons (on TV).

The second time I ran across him, he basically said that the root cause of same-gender attraction is the result of confusion. Which I take to mean that every gay person on the planet is just to stupid to see that they are attracted to the opposite sex.

So this time, I was naturally curious to see if he’d broach the subject. And broach he did.I’d add a caveat about the age of this DVD, and how his views may be different now, but the video is still for sale on his website.

Father John Corapi: So the P squad, that’s an attack--a contemporary attack on the family. The attack of the P squad: permissiveness, promiscuity, potions [drugs], pornography, prostitution and progressivism.

Homosexuality. So called alternative lifestyles. Whenever I have talked about this, someone always misunderstands me, even though I do take great pains to try clarify what I’m saying. But I always begin by saying “Look, we are called all people. You can’t hate any class of persons. Everyone is to be loved as God loves them. A person may have a particularly loathsome---to you---habit, persuasion, be in a certain class, maybe ethnics.

You know, when I was a kid, it wasn’t fashionable, yet, to be Italian. I remember being called those names, derogatory names, when I was a little kid. I kinda hurt me. And Irish people were discriminated against. In my home area in upstate New York, it was settled by the Dutch, and the English--Protestant. And in the 1850’s the Irish came, and they were persecuted by the Protestants--Christians. And then the Italians came and low and behold, the Irish persecuted the Italians. And then the Polish came, and low and behold the Pols were persecuted by the Italians and the Irish. And then the Hispanics came, and the Hispanics were looked down upon by the Pols, the Italians and the Irish, and everybody.

So I think we’re getting better. I think there’s less of that kind of thing. But we’ve got to be careful, we don’t want to look down. We don’t want to be derisive, we don’t want to be hateful, we don’t want to be bigoted--for whatever reason a person has that sexual orientation toward a person of the same sex, we don’t quite understand it yet.

It may be a variety of environmental, and societal things. It may even have a genetic component, I don’t know, but you want to know what I tell gay people? And I don’t hate them. Many of the very creative, sensitive--beautiful people. I’m not homophobic, at all, I’m not afraid of them. I say, you know what, you’re just like me---no, not that way---you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.

That’s the answer. For whatever reason you are the way you are, and I sympathize, with being the way you are. It must be tough--It must be tough. But if you are in fact that way, then you are called to celibacy, just like me. I am human, there are days when I might be tempted to this that or the other thing. I’m called to celibacy, and I don’t question it, and I don’t doubt it, I know it. And may I die having been faithful to it, all the days of my priestly life--I don’t mess with that, that’s a fact. And I tell them, same for you until you can resolve that, or maybe you never will, you’re called to be celibate.

That’s an attack on the family. This nonsense of giving legal recognition to samesex partners. It’s a terrible contemporary attack on the family.

It will undermine society, and society will go from bad to worse. And it will unravel, it will crash, and it will burn.

First time I’ve ever heard this one:

“…you want to know what I tell gay people? …I say, you know what, you’re just like me, you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.”

Alan Chambers of Exodus: This is why I believe that it is so important to clarify that just living a celibate gay life is just as sinful as living a sexually promiscuous one. The sin is in identifying with anything that is contrary to Christ, which homosexuality clearly is. (218)

So, every same-sex attracted human being on the earth is not just “called” to a life of celibacy, but "called" to hate themselves on top of it.

It also goes to show the disingenuousness of those who so rabidly condemn the symptom: "homosexual behavior,” rather than the so-called "cause" of the problem: “identifying with anything that is contrary to Christ”

“…you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.”

Calling: impulse to follow particular job: a strong urge to follow a particular career or do a particular type of work

Impulse? Urge? That which one is drawn to most? Seems to me that homosexuality would fit more in line with the definition of "calling" than does celibacy, besides, human sexuality is not a "calling," it's an empirical fact.

“…you’re just like me because like me, you’re called to celibacy.”

First of all, who the hell are you to decide what another person's calling is, especially when it is based, arbitrarily, on an unverifiable third party source?

Secondly, I was supposedly “called” to celibacy AGAINST MY WILL---the very antithesis of what it means to be "called."

Third, what do you say to those who tell you that their “calling” is to fall in love? Oh that's right:

"This nonsense of giving legal recognition to samesex partners."

"Nonsense" being code for 'their love is fake, and their relationships irrelevant.'
--
We are NOT just like you, Fr. Corapi, there’s quite a difference between “a calling” and the perversion of its meaning.

We are called, by you (et al), to rebel against our own human-nature, yet no Golden Rule has been broken. Which puts your moral credibility into serious question.
--
Celibacy is not a “calling” for homosexuals any more than lefties are "called" not write with their left hand. In this case, it's a "calling" to a life sentence of solitary confinement. The kind of "calling" you suggest is IMMORAL.

And for the record, I don’t recall him having said anything about the effect of violence---and the promotion of it---as being an attack on the family (but he had plenty to say on the evils of birth control).
--
And then there's this:

Fr. Corapi: “we’ve got to be careful, we don’t want to look down. We don’t want to be derisive, we don’t want to be hateful, we don’t want to be bigoted.”

Father Corapi, I have no respect for those who preach that I'm too stupid to know what love is, or to recognize intentionally veiled condescension.

Until you can decipher the true meaning of right and wrong, you’re "calling" will remain as an atheist generator.

Maafa 21: anti-abortion propaganda bait and switch

2010-04-04T02:49:00.008-04:00

(Pronounced Ma-afa)

The following DVD, Maafa 21, was given to me by a card carrying member of the "Obama is Satan" club.

------------------------
Propaganda:

Definition: information that is designed to mislead or persuade

Synonyms: advertising, advertising, agitprop, announcement, brainwashing, disinformation, doctrine, evangelism, handout, hogwash, hype, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, newspeak, promotion, promulgation, proselytism, publication, publicity

Antonyms: truth
---------------
The ending line (before the preacher’s rant) of the movie gave it away:

“As long as abortion remains legal, the Maafa cannot end.”

In word, in deed and in timing, pitch perfect propaganda.

Yet the time it took for those words to come out of that man’s mouth, is the time it took to throw the entire two hour history lesson I had just received, out the window.
---
You can argue the conspiratorial racist history and inception of Planned Parenthood all you like, but at this point, for some people, their services are vital. But exposing Planned Parenthood’s past was never the point of the movie, attempting to “secularize” the issue, was. A common political tack: Guilt by association (much of the anti-gay industry is built on this premise).

It was designed to appeal mostly to people of faith and those sympathetic to the cause, who may be on the fence about abortion. In this case, demonize Planned Parenthood’s sordid past in order to depict abortion and birth control as tools of genocide--and voilà, elective abortion = racial genocide.

The producers of this film, exploited the very history of the exploitation of blacks, in order to blur the line between genocidal intentions and abortion itself. It was never about eugenics, as the back cover of the DVD suggests:

Black Genocide in 21st Century America

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America's wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.

What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don't think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it's happening right now.

The back of the DVD cover also leads one to the Maafa website, where you can find that quote, as well as, after a little digging, this (PDF):

The claim is that the abortion issue is about privacy, and women’s rights, and reproductive freedom.

But that’s just marketing hype. In reality, it was EUGENICS that drove the legalization of abortion. And now, a stunning new movie lays it all out with incredible documentation.
--
The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now. It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel. It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.

The rest of the Maafa 21 website seems a bit coy in revealing its anti-abortion agenda, unlike its producers, Life Dynamics Incorporated--who’s website was curiously NOT listed on the back of the DVD jacket. Even the LifeDynamics hyperlink on their YT trailer page only leads to their YT video library.

Something to hide, perhaps?

“This is the mindset that is behind everything that Life Dynamics does. We are fighting to return full legal protection for every unborn child, from the moment of conception. Because of this our motto is, "Pro-Life: without compromise, without exception, without apology."

As I said, that last line gives it all away:

“As long as abortion remains legal, the Maafa cannot end.”

A more productive and success oriented approach might be to suggest the end of unwanted pregnancies. It’s not a secret that abortions occur regardless of legality--and often with fatal consequences. But who cares about those lives, right?

That last line, and the rhetoric of every anti-abortionist that I’ve ever heard, is not at all interested in preventing the reason for abortion, but in controlling, via religiously influenced BIG government, what women do with their bodies. Misogyny at its best.

-The anti-abortion movement, as far as I have seen in my life, is intent on illegalizing not just abortion, but birth control of any kind, as well as comprehensive sex ed---all of which lead to more unwanted pregnancies, which then lead to more abortions.
--
Again, from Life Dynamics, the producers of the video:

This is the mindset that is behind everything that Life Dynamics does. We are fighting to return full legal protection for every unborn child, from the moment of conception. Because of this our motto is, "Pro-Life: without compromise, without exception, without apology."
--
I take it that that means “Life begins at conception,” which means that a new eternal soul is created upon conception?

Unfortunately, no anti-abortionist that I’ve seen interviewed has ever explained it like that. It would offer their “secular” audience the reason why anti-abortionists are so fervent about their opposition. Not that they would change that many minds, but it would plant some seeds of respect for their position/beliefs. Until, that is, that extra support finds out that they are also against all birth control and sexual education (sans ~~ignorance only~~ abstinence only education). Not to mention the resounding call for BIG government to implement this religious supremacist master plan.

“We are fighting to return full legal protection for every unborn child, from the moment of conception”

-Am I to understand that an eternal soul is created at the very moment that the lucky sperm fully penetrates the egg?

-Why would God need humans to create souls?

-How can a physical act create something non-physical?

-And if physical conception is required to create a new soul, how then did Adam and Eve come about?

And what about spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, which amount to about 20-50% of all pregnancies?

What happens if the zygote (fertilized egg) fails to adhere to the uterine wall as it often does? Where do all those eternal souls go?

Why isn’t the anti-abortion industry doing all it can to ensure that these eternal souls make it to term? Funding research to preventing spontaneous abortions and miscarriages is something practical that can be done right now, but why aren’t the leaders of the anti-abortion movement doing this? Are they that unaware of reproductive facts? Or are they intentionally keeping the focus on late term abortions that people can emotionally identify with for the sake of fundraising purposes?

They must despise their fundraising audience.

Further, The Catholic Church abolished limbo a few years back, but to my knowledge, hasn’t replaced it with another place for these aborted souls to go.
--
There is a reason some of us refer to the “pro-life” movement as “anti-abortion,” or “anti-choice.” In my opinion, they are actuality pro-death.

-Support of the unnecessary Iraq war, which has resulted in tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths.

-Neglect of the 40, 000 already alive people that die of starvation and preventable diseases every day.

-Support for the Bush administration’s ravaging of funding for low income children. (It was a real “treat” to hear republicans on the House Floor decry funding to enforce “dead-beat dads” to pay their alimony to mom‘s with kids.)
--
Again, why aren’t they funding research to prevent spontaneous abortions/miscarriages with the millions upon millions they rake in each year? Think of all the liberal$ who would actually support that cause?

It seems clear to me that credibility and solutions are at the bottom of their priority list.

Ask your abortion leaders those questions, I would LOVE to hear their answers.

Once again, the point, even if this eugenics conspiracy is as true as they say, we have a Planned Parenthood right here in Caucasian conservative central, should they too be shut down on the basis of unrelated genocidal intentions?
--
I had an idea the other day that religion is mostly for the faithless. Only someone who doesn’t believe in God would need to be reminded of its existence, or need “His” book to remind them that there is life after death.

Anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research, these are all symptoms of the same disease: Fear of Death--or more accurately, the suppression of the fear of death.

Terri Schiavo lived for 13 days after being cut off from all food and water. Essentially, she was tortured to death. Not because she was euthanized---as per her wishes---but because the anti-euthanasia rabble refuse to allow for any legal means of dying humanely.

Faith, eh?

It seems to me that they are against anyone being euthanized, et al, because they are afraid of being reminded of death.

In that context, those who proclaim the loudest of their belief in God, and life after death, are the most terrified of death...thus the need to scream about it.
~~~~~
I highly recommend this article:

Anti-Choice Doc[umentary] Aims to Link Reproductive Rights to ‘Black Genocide’
By Michelle Goldberg
March 9, 2010

It digs into the misuses of what was presented to be factual history and makes it clear that Maafa 21 was designed as a piece of propaganda. Worse, inherent in its design is the exploitation of the exploitation of racism.
___________________________
Update: 4-6-10, 3ish AM

For the sake of disclosure, I’ve just been informed by a poster that Michelle Goldberg is biased.

One of the websites the poster lead me to included this video of Michelle talking about the importance of taking a more expansive and global look at reproductive health, and the unseen connections that exist.

Focus on the Family seeks to deprive children of parents.

2010-03-21T15:26:00.015-04:00

Citizenlink blog, Mar 17, 2010 by Jenny

Stark bill promotes agenda over children’s needs

A federal bill reintroduced this week would place children and their need for a mother and a father at the mercy of an agenda to promote gay and lesbian couples.

Implying that the only reason gay couples adopt children is so that the kids can be used as props to “normalize” their own relationship in the eyes of the public.

If passed, the bill would make it illegal for states that give priority to married mother and father couples for foster care and adoption placement, to receive federal funds for the purpose. Read about it here.

Yep. From the link:

The bill would make it illegal for any entity involved with adoption or foster care placement that receives federal funding to discriminate in its placement decisions based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. States whose statutes or policies conflict with the laws would need to change those policies or risk losing federal adoption funds.

And voilà, “big government” finds a family, and “small government” becomes an orphan.

There's some interesting stuff in section 2 of the bill that you may want to check out:

(4) As of 2007, gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents were raising 4 percent of all adopted children and fostering for 3 percent of all foster children. A report from the Evan B. Donaldson Institute found that an additional 2,000,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are interested in adoption.

(5) According to the Urban Institute, same-sex couples raising adopted children tend to be older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents. Studies confirm that children with same-sex parents have the same advantages and same expectations for health, social and psychological adjustment, and development as children whose parents are heterosexual.

Unlike FOTF's disingenuous show of concern for the wefare of foster kids, This bill really is about improving their lives.
---
Extrapolating from the ‘bigotry should be government sanctioned' stance, Ms. Jenny decries this potential LGBT measure of equality as a travesty, managing to take swipes at gay marriage along the way:

1) …State policies favoring the most stable family structure for orphaned children would necessarily be thrown out in order to comply with the federal law.
2) …faith-based foster care and adoption organizations … [will] lose business with the state.
3) People of sincere religious faith will marginalized…
4) …Catholic Charities in D.C. had to drop its foster care services when the city council redefined marriage.
5) …Catholic Charities of Boston was run out of that state, too—just after same-sex marriage became law.

And apparently it’s all our fault.

~The Sociopath Next Door, p59:

Using fear-based propaganda to amplify a destructive ideology, such a leader can bring the members of a frightened society to see the its as the sole impediment to the good life, for themselves and maybe even for humanity as a whole, and the conflict as and epic battle between good and evil. Once these beliefs have been disseminated, crushing the its without pity or conscience can, with chilling ease, become and incontrovertible mandate.

And if there’s one thing the anti-gay industry knows how to do best, it’s how to portray a gay as an it. Gays are promiscuous, disease ridden, drug addicted, child molesters, to name just a few of the dehumanizing terms they use to turn us into its.

Also, did you know that CHILDREN NEED A MOTHER AND A FATHER!!!!

Six out of nine paragraphs include some combination of the words “mother” and “father,” the rest implied it:

1) need for a mother and a father
2) married mother and father
3) both a mother and a father
4) mother-father homes
5) a mother and a father.
6) need a mother and a father, and the best way to make that happen is still marriage.

~~~~
To use Jenny’s words; “It’s hard to know where to begin with all that is wrong with this.”

1) Let's start with the Gay Bashing used to decry LGBT adoptions:

a) …children…at the mercy of an agenda to promote gay and lesbian couples.

b) We all know that difficult situations arise and family policy should address those situations, but it shouldn’t create them.

c) The “family”… …[is] more specific than two adults—or the current fad in social engineering.

2) Faith based adoption agencies will be forced to shut down.

a) According to the article you linked to, That's only if they can't pay their own discriminatory way.

b) If an organization wants to discriminate against a certain group, then I think it's only ethical to not receive their tax dollars in doing so.

Why should discriminatory agencies be allowed to receive federal funding that includes a portion of the tax dollars of LGBT citizens and their supporters? Otherwise it's thievery.

c) Being organizations of faith, shouldn’t this be where your “faith” kicks in?

d) And finally, If a child-placement service---especially a faith based one---is willing to sacrifice the welfare of the many in order to starve the few, I think it’s fair to question the integrity of that organization.
---
This was an interesting article in regard to how Catholic Charities of Boston was “run out of that state”:

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions

Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction [1/55th] of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.

Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.

3) “Children need a Mother and a Father”

OMG, by far the most irritating of all.

a) A motherload of a lie. If that was their concern they’d be fundraising to make divorce illegal.

One of the quotes they love to bash us with:

Mark 10:5-9

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Yet man separates “one flesh” all the time. But who cares what the Bible says, right, FOTF?

b) Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better for a child to live in an abusive home with “a mother and a father,” than to live in a same-gender parented household that was safe?

c) The studies that FOTF points to that prove the power of the mom and dad, are too often (if not always), irrelevant and/or misleading in some way, but that’s whole ‘nother can of worms.

d) Placing so much emphasis on the importance of gender cheapens this theoretical “mother and father” down to an “Any married p and v will do” position.

~The Sociopath Next Door, p109:

When deciding whom to trust, bear in mind that the combination of consistently bad or egregiously inadequate behavior with frequent plays for your pity is as close to a warning mark on a conscienceless person’s forehead as you will ever be given.

Pity the “victims” of gay adoption, and then pity us, and our loss of yet another government subsidized expression of ~~faith based hate~~ religious freedom.

Boo. Hoo.
---
The results of the studies on the welfare of kids in foster care are appalling. That’s a long article, you can get a sense of it here:

Now, consider a study released on April 7, 2005 by a large, Washington State-based foster-care provider, Casey Family Programs, and Harvard Medical School. The study used case records and interviews to assess the status of young adult “alumni” of foster care.

When compared to adults of the same age and ethnic background who did not endure foster care:

· Only 20 percent of the alumni could be said to be “doing well.” Thus, foster care failed for 80 percent.
· They have double the rate of mental illness.
· Their rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was double the rate for Iraq War veterans.
· The former foster children were three times more likely to be living in poverty – and fifteen times less likely to have finished college.
· And nearly one-third of the alumni reported that they had been abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home.
---
Why, then, do we continue to pour billions of dollars into a system which fails 80 percent of the time and actually abuses at least one-third of those forced into it?

We do it because, over 150 years, we’ve built up a huge, powerful network of foster-care “providers” – “a foster care-industrial complex” with an enormous vested interest in perpetuating the status quo.

The author of that article links to another article entitled Twelve Ways To Do Child Welfare Right.

If you click on one link in this article, that’s the one. It offers a variety of solutions to fix the broken foster-care system, focusing mainly on prevention. This is where Focus on the Family’s priorities should lie--ON THE FAMILY.

Focus on the Family has an annual budget of over 100 million dollars and boasts of a 38 state network of “Fully Associated Family Policy Councils.” So far, twenty-nine states have been successful in their bid to bash gay relationships by legal decree.

They’ve raised millions upon millions upon millions through campaigns of lies and deception. The sociopaths at the top make them up, and their nonthinking followers repeat them.

Bush’s trillion dollar deficit, a-okay. An unnecessary war that cost the lives of tens of thousands (at least), to the tune of another trillion, a-okay. Children languishing in foster care, children in foster care unnecessarily, families that can’t make ends meet--also, a-okay.

But two gay people in love who want to wed? That, classily enough, opens up the floodgates. Wallets open, volunteers appear, press releases claiming victimhood are “rushed” out, and church networking explodes in the effort to prevent any chance of it.

However, when it comes to raising funds for actual families in need, Focus and their 38 state network of "family" groups are MIA.

For Shame.

_________________________________________________
Additional resources.

Rosie O’Donnell’s movie, America
-Resources and disturbing facts section.

The sociopath next door-Amazon.
-This book changed my life. It really helped me to better understand the atrocious behavior of the anti-gay industry’s talking heads and their non-thinking flocks.

Sociopaths: the predators among us.
-one of my essays (long).
_____________________________________________

God hates staying together for the kids

2010-03-15T12:32:00.005-04:00

New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

Focus on the Family upset about too much respect

2010-03-12T00:46:00.013-05:00

Citizenlink
3-11-10
Gay Agenda in New York Classrooms

New York City schools are hosting a Respect for All week.
---
Citizenlink was apparently unable to provide a link to these gay-agenda shenanigans, so I took the liberty of Googling the event to find out for myself.

[NYC] Council, DOE Launch First Annual “Respect for All Week”

Anti-Bullying and Harassment Week Will Kick Off on March 8 and Run through March 12, 2010

...The Department’s “Respect for All” initiative is New York City’s effort to combat bullying and harassment based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other characteristics...

Re video below: The two city advocates featured here, more than ‘made the case’ for the Respect For All program and seemed genuinely and passionately interested in its success (I especially enjoyed the reasons, facts and examples portion of the adult conversation ;).

Christine Quinn: But it was just very exciting today at the kickoff precedent, just to have such a hugely diverse group of New Yorkers standing behind us. Rabbis, Imams, Reverends, ..coalition, everybody there with a united message that everyone has to be respected in our public school system if children are going to have the ability to get a quality education.

Naturally, Focus on the Family---via Citizenlink---is having none of it. One of the characteristics listed on the scale of bullying is sexual orientation, which they invariably interpret to mean homosexuality:

Joseph Mattera, presiding bishop of the Christ Covenant Coalition, said that gives GLSEN a permanent foothold in New York City classrooms.

"The whole idea is just to soften up the students so that there will be a receptivity in the future to same-sex marriage or other gay-friendly curriculum," Mattera said.

“The whole idea ... gay-friendly curriculum”

Yes. And an ethnic-friendly curriculum, and a nationality-friendly curriculum, and a religion-friendly curriculum, and a disability-friendly curriculum, and a gender-friendly curriculum, etc --- As the sign says: Respect for All.

They end with this link:

There are ways to deal with promotion of homosexuality in schools.

Which goes to a place called truetolerance.org; “a project of focus on the family”:

Concerned about the pro-gay agenda in your child’s public school? It’s sad, but many public schools have, in the name of “tolerance,” stifled free speech and true diversity by silencing students of faith, and those with conservative perspectives.

This isn’t true tolerance. True Tolerance means a free and respectful exchange of ideas.

One of those free and respectful exchanges of ideas might include the “truly tolerant” way of smearing any program that supports LGBT persons.

Such as thse participants of the Day of Silence:

The Day of Silence is a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. ...The event is designed to illustrate the silencing effect of this bullying and harassment on LGBT students and those perceived to be LGBT.

And this is how truetolerance.org characterizes the participants of the pro-gay Day of Silence. definition (PDF) of the Day of Silence:

GLSEN claims its “Day of Silence” event, held annually in mid April, is about tolerance and safety. But if you pay close attention to the materials being distributed for this event, it’s clear there is a one-sided political agenda beneath the rhetoric.

They define concern for LGBT bullying as “rhetoric,” and then charge that “there is a one-sided political agenda beneath” it.

IMNSHO, truetolerance.org is essentially another site designed to bash any program that brings attention to gay-bashing.

Exodus’ Jayson Graves keeps the focus on the anus.

2010-03-01T13:57:00.005-05:00

Jayson Graves, a board member of Exodus International, co-hosts a show called “Pure Passion” (now in reruns). A show that highlights those who’ve supposedly overcome “sexual bondage.” Personally, I think it gives genuine testimony of changed (for the better) lives, and actually helps some people.

Unless you’re gay. Then you will get AIDS and die because of your “sinful behavior.” At least according to this program.

Jayson Graves (intro): Welcome to Pure Passion. My name is Jayson Graves and I’m your host for today’s program.

Did you know that the US Center for Disease Control has a fact sheet they’ve issued, which says that in 2006, 54% of HIV infections among males age 13-29, were caused by homosexual contact. As well, that demographic is the only one that is seeing an increased rate of HIV infection in this country. Sadly, there were over 56,000 people in the US who were newly infected with HIV that same year, most of them being homosexual men.

The CDC fact sheet went on to say that 77% of HIV positive homosexual men, between the ages of 15 and 29, do not know they’ve been infected.

Another study shows that HIV positive, practicing homosexual men, are 9000% more likely to develop anal cancer.

Even in Canada, the HIV / AIDS rates have risen sharply, 51% of infections are now found among homosexual men.

On today’s program, we’re going to talk with a man who has AIDS. These are always sobering stories, but it’s important that we become informed on the subject.

So let’s hear Dan’s testimony, and let it be a witness not only to the consequences of sinful behavior, but, also to the power and love of God, to cleanse us, and forgive us, from all unrighteousness.

The entire intro was devoted to the conclusion that HIV/AIDS are due to "sinful behavior."

From the Exodus website: "In brief, AIDS is better seen as a reaping of consequences than as God's wrath on a specific group."

Exodus leaves it up to the reader to decide whether or not AIDS is God's punishment.

Timothy Kicaid of Box Turtle Bulletin crunched some numbers and estimates that there is a "5.9% incidence of gay people (men and women) who are living with HIV/AIDS"

Instead of expressing a desire to find a cure and/or vaccine for the disease, they exploit, in God's name, the 6% of us who are suffering and dying, to suggest to their audience that anyone GLB or T are are warehouses of infectious disease.

An expression of what is referred to as the "Second Coming."

2010-02-26T05:44:00.013-05:00

Tenth Avenue North

Let the Book Burning Begin

2010-01-23T05:46:00.007-05:00

Re: Supreme Court‘s ruling, Jan 21, 2010, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Transcript here)

My words:

As the result of this ruling, and in the name of free speech, corporations are now allowed to spend infinite money to influence the political process. Corporate shills will whine of the equality of such a measure, claiming that ALL corporations can do the same.

NOT TRUE.

Green corporations, renewable fuel corporations, corporations that exist to improve life on this planet in any way shape or form, by their very nature, exist to help, or at the very least, do no harm. And so will be the nature of their political influence, benign. They are guarded by conscience.

Such is NOT the case with corporations who’s ONLY GOAL is to accrue more power for themselves. Lives lost, maimed and ruined do not fit into the equation when it comes to their bottom line: More.

Karl Popper: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. Read more...

Similarly, capitalism without regulation cannot be sustained.

Without regulation, restriction or limit, the stronger corporations buy up the lesser ones, and so on and so on, until there is one monopolizing interest that decides the prices, the wages, the laws, everything. A tyranny. The Supreme Court of the United States just legalized tyrannical rule. Democracy is dead.

So, congratulations all you non-thinking, Bush-loving, gun-toting, flag-waving, war-mongering, anti-environmentalist, climate-change denying, materialistic, ego-addicted, religious supremacist, creationist, “pro-life,” gay-bashing, imbecilic, sociopathic, holier-than-thou bastions of hypocrisy, you’ll finally get the theocratic police state you’ve been longing for.

And for the rest of us, welcome to the beginning of hell on Earth.

Gay marriage, no longer just about a P and a V.

2009-12-20T23:21:00.005-05:00

Conservatives Warn Quick Sex Change Only Barrier Between Gays, Marriage

Sen. Sam Brownback (R Kansas), ponders the criminalization of same-sex attraction.

2009-12-16T14:03:00.007-05:00

The Rachel Maddow Show, Re Uganda, December 14th, 2009

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think it‘s appropriate to criminalize homosexual conduct anymore?

BROWNBACK: I can‘t - I don‘t know the specifics of the bill. I‘ve learned you need to know what‘s actually -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, just in general terms?

BROWNBACK: Well, I‘m not going to comment on something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Well, thanks, senator.

"Do you think it‘s appropriate to criminalize homosexual conduct anymore?"

Brownback took it in his mind to respond to "the specifics of the Bill" in lieu of addressing the most pertinent part of the issue---the criminalization of homosexuality.
---
Reconstructionism/Dominionism:

The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these "crimes" to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used.

Bishop Harry Jackson loves like a rusty gate.

2009-12-16T06:03:00.007-05:00

Re; DC votes to legalize gay marriage. Tip from Right Wing Watch.

RWW links to an article that addresses the DC's City Counsel's vote to legalize gay marriage.

From that article:

Opponents, however, said the issue is far from settled. Members of a group called Stand4Marriage, led by local pastor Bishop Harry Jackson, have met with members of Congress to urge them to oppose the bill...

..."If it gets to the vote, we win," he said, referencing the other states where residents overturned same-sex marriage laws.

One of the Biblical passages [1 Corinthians 13:1] Stand4Marriage quotes is thus:

If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate.

Stand4marriage then goes on to state the rest of the verse that explains the 'true' meaning of love, (essentially, that it's unconditional).

This coming from a man who asserts in his book---The Truth in Black & white---that homosexuality is a choice [p147].

This chosen belief about LGBT persons is a common excuse to justify the non-passage of pro-equality laws.

I vote that his love is of the "rusty gate" kind.
---
Much more on Jackson here.

Conservatives have no voice in the media.

2009-12-15T12:08:00.005-05:00

Keith Olbermann: There is no liberal media. The media, which is, after all, owned by corporations, naturally leans to the right. Corporations, by definition, lean to the right, towards the status quo.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript update:

And to paraphrase something from the web from several years ago, written by a fellow identifying himself as Bart-cop, if Mr. Beck disagrees or Mr. Goldberg disagrees or Mr. O‘Reilly disagrees or Mr. Breitbart disagrees, and they think they‘re being crushed under the weight of this vast left-wing media conspiracy, they can go on the Orly Tate‘s Limbaugh show, where Orly will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on the Sean Hannity show, where Sean will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on Cluster Fox and Friends, where Brian Kilmeade will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on Mike Huckabee‘s show, where Mike will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on G. Gordon Liddy‘s radio show, where G. will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on Michael Medved‘s show, where Michael will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on Mark Levin‘s high pitched radio show, where Mark will insist conservatives have no high pitched voice in the media.

Or go on the Neil Boortz show, where Neil will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on the Lou Dobbs radio show, where Lou will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on the Laura Ingraham radio show, where Laura will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on the Neil Cavuto show, where Neil will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or go on the John Stossel show, where John will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get David Horowitz to write a column in which David will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Bill Kristol to write a column in which Bill will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Coulter-geist to write a column in which Coulter-geist will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Peggy Noonan to write a column in which Peggy will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Jonah Goldberg to write a column in which Jonah will insist his mom told him conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get John Fund to write a column in which John will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Brent Bozell to write a column in which Brent will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Cal Thomas to write a column in which Cal will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Charles Krauthammer to write a column in which Charles will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get George Will to write a column in which George will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Sarah Palin to post something somebody wrote for her on Facebook in which Sarah‘s ghost writer insists conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or get Matt Drudge to steal somebody else‘s column in which somebody else will insist conservatives have no voice in the media.

Or pay Armstrong Williams cash to write a column in which Armstrong will insist conservatives have no voice in the media, and then he‘ll expense it.

Because, to conclude where we started, with Dick Wolf and “Law & Order,” “in the right wing dominated media system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the right-wing media who instigate crime, and the right-wing media who prosecute the imaginary liberal media.”

Absence makes some hearts grow colder.

2009-12-15T09:40:00.015-05:00

TRMS, December 14th, 2009

Katy Parker, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina, explains how there could be any legal basis for removing an atheist from public office for not believing in God.

Rachel Maddow: Article six of the north carolina state constitution, includes a list of things that disqualify a person from public office in the state. Things like…

…Sec. 8 Disqualifications for office first, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Make sure not to let Him out of the box though, He's been known to blow a mind or two.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow addresses situation in Uganda, and she’s naming names.

2009-12-03T03:23:00.011-05:00

Maddow's coverage on Ugandagate (to my recollection) began this Monday 11-30, and has been ongoing since. I have included the video clips of these segments as well as their corresponding transcripts for the sake of full coverage and ease of quotation.

I wish to emphasize the point that we often feel that we are “preaching to the choir” in regard to pro-gay watchdog sites.

What we may not remember is that the “choir” still needs to be preached to. Too many in the LGBT community are CLUELESS as to the threats we face in the political arena.

I was talking with a friend of mine (gay) from high school awhile back, about the threats we face from mostly, the religious right, in regard to marriage equality. He replied, paraphrased: “I think all they really want is to keep the name ‘marriage’.” A ridiculous assertion to those of us who are actively engaged in the current culture war.

I also attended the recent Anti-Heterosexism Conference in West Palm Beach and spoke with several activists who organized the nearby NARTH conference protest and this past march on Washington, and they told me stories of how difficult it was to get support and involvement with not only LGBT persons, but also with pro-LGBT groups. So this kind of apathy seems to be epidemic.

My point being, in regard to this post, is that the importance of in depth MSM coverage like this should not be underestimated. The Rachel Maddow show, I suspect, has an almost exclusively liberal/progressive audience, and so it’s expose´s like this that may help to waken some of those in our community, and allies, who continue to slumber.

A point of note, you can now edit the portions of the Rachel Maddow clips you wish to embed. I don’t know if that extends to all MSNBC shows, but it was a welcome discovery in putting this post together.

And with that...

Rachel Maddow clip from Monday November 30th, 2009

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript:

MADDOW: The government of Uganda is considering passing a law to execute gay people. Execute as in by hanging a, quote, “serial offender” or an HIV-positive person who commits same sex act. If enacted, this law would also impose a three-year prison sentence on anyone who knows of a gay person in the country but doesn‘t report that gay person to the government within 24 hours.

Who is supporting and promoting this legislation? Well, one of the proponents is a minister named Pastor Martin Ssempa. He was a familiar face to American conservative Evangelicals, because Mr. Ssempa has been a frequent guest of Pastor Rick Warren at One Saddleback Church in California.

Do you remember Rick Warren? Him being selected to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama‘s inauguration was the little black cloud that crawled inside the silver lining that day for a lot of Americans who support gay rights.

Given with Rick Warren‘s deep involvement with Pastor Ssempa on matters including gay rights and AIDS issues in Uganda, “Newsweek” magazine asked Pastor Rick Warren his opinion of this proposed “kill the gays” law in Uganda.

Mr. Warren responded by distancing himself from Martin Ssempa, but also by refusing to condemn the proposal saying, quote, “It is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.”

In a moment, we‘ll speak with Jeff Sharlet who has written extensively about the secret of Evangelical religious organization called The Family. We first started discussing The Family on this show when it emerged as a player in, not two, but three Republican sex scandals - those of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Nevada Senator John Ensign and the alleged sex scandal involving former Mississippi Congressman Chip Pickering.

The Family, among other things, provides well-below market rent housing for a select group of members of Congress at its, until recently, nearly tax-exempt church on Capitol Hill - a house called C Street.

Jeff Sharlet is now reporting that there aren‘t just ties between American Evangelical Rick Warren and the “kill the gays” bill in Uganda. He reports that, in fact, the president of Uganda and the legislator who introduced the “kill the gays” bill are more than just supported by American Evangelicals. They are both members of The Family.

Joining us now is Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” He is also a contributing editor to “Harper‘s” magazine. Jeff, it‘s nice to see you again. Thanks for joining us.

JEFF SHARLET, AUTHOR, “THE FAMILY”: Good to be back, Rachel. Thanks.

MADDOW: So who introduced the “kill the gays” bill and what‘s his connection to The Family?

SHARLET: It‘s a member of parliament named David Bahati who has been very involved with a sort of conservative Evangelical revival in Uganda, very involved with a lot of American Evangelical groups and has also taken a leadership role in The Family‘s Uganda operation through something called the African Student Leadership Program at the Uganda‘s National Prayer Breakfast, which is an offshoot of the prayer breakfast The Family hosts every year here in the United States.

So he‘s got this leadership role that puts him not just at the sort of the margin of things, but functioning as one of their key men on the ground in Uganda.

MADDOW: In the big picture, why is The Family interested in Uganda? Why are they interested in operating there? And what are their goals there?

SHARLET: Well, The Family has always viewed its religious outreach, its worldwide spiritual offensive, as they describe it, in very clear geopolitical terms. Uganda, right now, is an incredibly important country for world politics. It‘s functioning in many ways as a U.S. proxy with Sudan, with Congo, with Rwanda.

There‘s oil in that general region and The Family needs to have a presence out there. They‘ve had that presence in Uganda since 1986 when they sent over a man to recruit Museveni who was then the new leader. Didn‘t look like a bright Democratic spot in African leadership. And they recruited him to be one of their main brothers, as they put it, for the whole continent.

MADDOW: So President Museveni in Uganda - he‘s not explicitly backing this horrendous bill. But it is thought that he tacitly supports it, at least as far as I can tell, and that the ethics and integrity minister in his government is vocally in favor of this thing. You‘re saying he has Family connections that go back decades.

SHARLET: Yes, to 1986. And it‘s hard to call it passive support when he‘s coming out there and saying that homosexuality is a plot that‘s sort of being imposed on Africa by Europe and that this is a time for Africans to rally together against sort of the foreign influence of homosexuality.

Now, Museveni is - the thought in Ugandan politics is that he‘s sort of letting other guys take the lead on this. But through his ethics minister, who is the main organizer of the National Prayer Breakfast in Uganda and it‘s his right-hand man - he‘s got a direct involvement.

And just last week, in fact, Museveni responded to questions from Uganda‘s main newspaper, is he a part of The Family. And his press secretary said, “Well, I can‘t answer that.” But it certainly sounds like an organization the president would like to be a part of but only if they really, really hate homosexuals.

MADDOW: Wow. That bastardization of that Groucho Marx quote is running through my head right now. Back in July, Jeff, you uncovered a video and we played it on the show, of Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican senator in the United States. He‘s got admitted association with C Street and The Family.

We played video that you found of him talking about his trips taken to Africa on the urging of leaders of The Family. I just want a real quick clip to remind folks here.

SEN. JIM INHOFE(R-OK): If you‘re a member of the United States Senate, in Africa, they think you are important, so you can always go to see the kings.

MADDOW: You always get in to see the kings. Is Sen. Inhofe or any other American politician powerful enough among Ugandan politicians that they could derail this legislation if they wanted to?

SHARLET: Well, working with colleagues, I‘ve reached out to Inhofe‘s office and he refuses to say a word about it despite the fact that he likes to boast of his incredibly close relationship with Ugandan politics. He‘s attended the Uganda National Prayer Breakfast. He says, in fact, he has adopted the nation and he regularly travels over there in behalf of The Family. Yet, he‘s refused to condemn it. Does he have the influence? We don‘t know because he‘s not exerting it. It‘s just like Rick Warren. Could Rick Warren, who has designated Uganda a purpose-driven nation, make a difference?

We don‘t know because they‘re not trying. And I think that‘s the kind of the bottom line with the American involvement. There‘s been a lot of American support for the guys who are promoting this bill and no pushback against this incredibly hateful piece of violence put in the legislation.

MADDOW: Jeff Sharlet is author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” Thanks, as always, for joining us, Jeff. I really appreciate it.

SHARLET: Thanks, Rachel.
--
Onto the clip from December 1st, 2009:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript:

Rachel Maddow: [T]oday is world AIDS Day. And for that occasion, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced a ground-breaking Obama administration policy which, awkwardly enough, reverses a policy implemented during the Reagan administration that was codified into law during the Clinton administration. It‘s a law that banned HIV positive people from traveling to the United States. The Obama administration has finally dropped that inexplicable ban and one immediate consequence of that is that the world‘s largest AIDS conference can once again be held in the United States. For the first time since 1990, when you might recall Paula Abdul‘s “Opposites Attract” was the No. 1 hit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: Today, I‘m pleased to announce that with the repeal of the ban, the International AIDS Society will hold the 2012 International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton also using World AIDS Day to make a legacy-defining statement that the United States would not tolerate homophobia on the international stage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community, worldwide. It is an unacceptable step backwards on behalf of human rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: And if that sounded to you like an oblique reference to the Kill the Gay‘s bill in Uganda which we covered last night on this show, yes, it sounded like that to me, too.

We are learning more today about anti-gay extremism in Uganda and its connections to American extremists. Last night, investigative journalist, Jeff Charlotte, laid out for us the web connecting the author of the bill, calling for the death penalty for so-called “aggravated homosexuality” in Uganda. The connections between him and Pastor Rick Warren. And to our favorite denizens of “C” Street, the family.

But three other Americans are also closely linked to the proposed Kill the Gay‘s law. They are members of the so-called, “Ex-gay Movement,” who back, in March, spoke at a conference in Uganda, and riling up anti-gay fervor in that country.

The direct result of that conference, according to in-depth coverage in London‘s “Guardian” newspaper, was this bill that‘s now before the Ugandan parliament. So, who were the Americans who went to Uganda to stir up anti-gay fervor? And why are at least two of them now distancing themselves from the harsh consequences of their rhetoric? We‘ll have much more about them on tomorrow night‘s show, you may want to clear your schedule.
--
And finally, the most recent clip from December 2nd, 2009:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript mine:

Rachel Maddow: Bill number 18, The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, section 2, subsection 2: A person who commits the offense of homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

Section 3, subsection 2: A person who commit’s the offense of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

Section 4, subsection 1: A person who attempts to commit the offense of homosexuality commits a felony, and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for 7 years.

If you attempt to commit aggravated homosexuality, that’s life imprisonment.

Then there’s Section 13, subsection 1B: A person who funds or sponsors homosexuality is liable on conviction to a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 7 years imprisonment.

Then there’s Section 14: Where if you know if someone who’s gay, you can get 3 years for not reporting that person to the authorities.

Then there’s section 16, where they will extradite their citizens from anywhere in the world, back to this country for prosecution if that citizen commits any of these crimes of homosexuality, somewhere else on God’s green Earth.

This is Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 [PDF, courtesy Warren Throckmorton, via the Rachel Maddow show]. It was introduced this fall after 3 American evangelical activists, who proclaim that homosexuality can be cured, traveled to Uganda this spring to lead an anti-homosexuality inspirational seminar. The more we investigate, the more Americans we’ve turned up with links to this, so I will warn you that you can expect some continuing coverage from us on this issue.

But tonight, we’ve obtained some reactions from the three anti-gay American activists who’s travel to Uganda is credited with inspiring the kill-the-gays legislation.

They are Don Schmierer of the group Exodus International, a group that claims that Christianity can cure you of being gay. Also, Caleb Lee Brundidge of the group The International Healing Foundation, which also says that it tries to change gay people into straight people. And there’s Scott Lively, president of a group called Defend the Family, and author a book call The Pink Swastika.

These are the three American anti-gay gay-people-can-be-cured speakers who traveled to Uganda earlier this year, and who are credited with having inspired the kill-the-gays bill that is being considered in that country now.

Mr. Schmierer has said the he is opposed to the kill-the-gays legislation, and he says that he’s signed onto a letter to Uganda’s president, against it.

The group with which Mr. Brundidge is associated, first, denied knowing anything about the bill’s existence, and asked us for a copy of it. After we emailed them the legislation, they issued a statement that quote “We condemn any harsh and extreme punishment of persons who identify as homosexual or engage in homosexual behavior. Instead, we advocate education and counseling for those who experience unwanted Same-Sex Attraction.”

Education and counseling to cure you of ’the gay.’

Then there’s the last one, Mr. Scott Lively, the Pink Swastika guy. He told Lifesite news.com that the law is too harsh, but quoting “Dr. Lively explained that the impetus for the bill was "a lot of external interference from European and American gay activists attempting to do in Uganda what they've done around the world - homosexualize that society." One of their main concerns, explained Mr. Lively, "are the many male homosexuals coming in to the country and abusing boys who are on the streets."

So I mean, can you really blame them? I mean, of course Uganda wants to execute people for being gay. May be a little harsh, but it’s a normal reaction to all this pressure they’ve been getting. Can you blame them?

We thank Mr. Lively, Mr. Schmierer, and Mr. Brundidge, for giving us their reactions to the bill they reportedly inspired, to the extent that they responded to our calls for comment.

If American anti-gay activists inspired this bill, are there other Americans who have the clout to stop it from passing? You bet there are, and it turns out that a lot of them are household names. And so far, as far as we can tell, they have done nothing. We continue to investigate this, our next segment on the kill-the-gays bill tomorrow will familiarize you with some of the Americans who probably could stop this, who apparently don’t want to. That’s tomorrow.
-----------------
So stay tuned. Literally, The Rachel Maddow show airs on MSNBC @ 9E 8C

When Goodness is a Sin

2009-12-01T05:08:00.008-05:00

Citizenlink 11-30-09: Humanist Group Wages War on Christmas

The American Humanist Association has launched a nationwide promotion to undermine Christmas. The "National Godless Holiday" campaign includes a series of bus and rail ads that take a swipe at the Christmas celebration, exhorting people to "Be Good for Goodness' Sake."

Oh the humanity. What a bad thing it is to "Be Good for Goodness' Sake." Unlike those who need to be told by the Bible to be good. How ever will supremacist Christians regain their monopoly on goodness?

According the The American Humanist Association, they are "driven by a desire to meet the needs of people in the here and now, and "The positions we hold and the actions we take are not simply for our own benefit, but for the betterment of all of society."

Pretty ominous, eh?

Back to the Citizenlink article:

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, said the ads are insensitive and mean.

"It is wrong to belittle Jews for celebrating Hanukkah during the holiday season, and it is wrong to offend all religions during Christmas."

Of course, Jews and the members of all other religions are going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity---by a loving god no less. But that doesn't discourage Staver and Focus on the Family from exploiting them--No doubt for goodness' sake.

And as far as “insensitive and mean” goes, that’s quite rich coming from Matt Staver. This is a man who argued in front of the California Supreme Court to deny marriage equality.

One of his arguments was thus:

Same sex relations will not accidentally, unintentionally, in an unplanned fashion, produce children.

This is also a man who penned a book called “Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk." A book that contains some of the most hateful and vile rhetoric and slander that I have ever read in an anti-gay book.

In Chapter 3: Our Children At Risk, he had this to say on p46:

Another study found a significant increase in the risk of incest among children raised by homosexual parents. “A disproportionate percentage---29 percent of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of the adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent…Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor about 50.” (92)

And what does footnote 92 list as its source, you ask. *drum roll please*…The long-time discredited lord of virulently anti-gay fake studies, Paul Cameron.
--
Psychopath: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

Happy Thanksgiving 2009

2009-11-25T17:01:00.009-05:00

Sarah-pocalypse Now

2009-11-25T14:22:00.016-05:00

All the Youtube and other clips of this have been sucked up, presumably due to copyright infringement.

Perhaps I didn’t look hard enough, but I couldn’t even find this clip on the Saturday Night Live website. (Sure, if you want to go wading through the entire episode, but what if you have ADD like me?).

Countdown’s Keith Olbermann seems to have the only remaining clip.

The Nation’s coverage of the Countdown clip includes this quote which sums up SNL’s excoriating Palin/2012 montage.

Saturday Night Live recently produced a fake film trailer of a movie called Palin 2012, an obvious parody of the doomsday film 2012. SNL's version captures what the world will be like if Sarah Palin is elected President (with Glenn Beck as her VP). On Countdown, Keith Olbermann sounds off on her apocalyptic political career, and what we can really expect in the future.

--Alana Levinson

Also, from the Countdown transcript:

OLBERMANN: The man who was effectively John McCain's campaign manager served it up like the proverbial softball. Steve Schmidt said months ago, if she were the Republican nominee, 2012 would be a, quote, "catastrophic election." Our number one story, Sister Sarah is denied permission to make a speech on a US Army base, but does manage to solicit political contributions while signing books there. "Saturday Night Live" decided to illustrate the motion picture possibilities of Mr. Schmidt's remark: Sarah-pocalypse now.

The "Going Rogue" tour bus rolling into Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Army regulations banning any politician from using politicians for political platforms. But a Fort Bragg spokesman says Palin falls into a gray area because she's, quote, not a political figure per se.

So instead the military offered her a compromise, no speeches, no posing for pictures, no personalized messages in books. But as the Associated Press reports, that did not stop the Palin camp from encouraging donations to her political action committee. Allowing Palin's father, Chuck Heath (ph), to call President Obama's handling of the military, quote, "scary. People used to be afraid of us and respect us. They're not afraid of us and don't respect us anymore."

I guess he's in touch with Kim Jong-il. The scary extending beyond the fort Bragg stop to the Mayan calendar's warning of Armageddon and the Hollywood CGI spectacle chronicling of civilization end. "SNL" pitched perfect.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34118721

Maine guidance counselor defends right to abuse GLBT students.

2009-11-25T10:37:00.010-05:00

Citizenlink 11-24-09 Maine Counselor Called Out for Marriage Support

Don Mendell, a guidance counselor at Nokomis Regional High School in Newport, Maine, is getting flack for appearing in an ad supporting repeal of the state's same-sex marriage law.

The ad:

I have to admit, there must be nothing quite like seeing your High School guidance counselor appear on TV, to express to the world, what a piece of shit you are if you are GLB or T---AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SO!

Just catching up on my politics...

2009-11-23T09:47:00.006-05:00

MSNBC's Countdown puts together uproarious montage of late night Palin jokes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Rachel Maddow show puts together a video montage (below) of Media Matters’ documentation and use of the word "rape" to describe the evil liberal agenda--equal opportunity for all:

Media Matters: Conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage frequently employ rape metaphors when discussing progressives or progressive policies. For example, Beck said that New Yorkers are "being raped by [their] government," while Limbaugh, during a discussion of health care, told his listeners: "Get ready to get gang-raped again.

And now for Maddow's (and panel) take:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Troglodytes disprove evolution

2009-11-21T04:12:00.006-05:00

CitizenLink 11-20-09
Friday Five: Dr. Stephen Meyer, Discovery Institute
by Kim Trobee, editor

With the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species fast approaching, Dr. Meyer explains the holes in the theory of evolution and the magnificent ode to intelligent design.

Dr. Stephen Meyer is director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

Gosh golly gee, Ms. Trobee, what is this Discovery Institute that you speak of?

Wikipedia:

The Discovery Institute is ... best known for its advocacy of intelligent design.

Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.

The Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

"What will it take for the scientific community to open up to the possibility of intelligent design?"

Dearest, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Intelligent Design is something that can be proven scientifically.

Intelligent Design is a religion. Defining religion as science is a lie.

And for those of you who are interested in fully appreciating the richness of the deceit and dishonesty of the Intelligent Design movement, watch PBS’s Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. They have plenty of resources, including a transcript of the show.

Oh, and by the way, since when is “materialistic” science required to prove the already-known "fact" of Adam and Eve?

Lily Allen - Fuck You [ HQ live ]

2009-11-21T02:41:00.003-05:00

For reference's sake...

aaaaaaaaaaaand live...........

Rick Scarborough on hate-crime legislation: "I’m not here to hurt anyone"

2009-11-20T07:36:00.009-05:00

Re; Right Wing Watch.

Anti-Hate Crimes Legislation Rally
Washington, D.C.
November 16, 2009

Compiled Footage of Religious Right 'Rally' on Hate Crimes (Edited)

They isolate gays as being unworthy of hate-crime protection, attempt to hide that fact by pretending that they are against ALL hate-crime legislation, and then claim it’s not about hate.

Rick Scarborough highlights these points, and then some:

Rick Scarborough: But I don’t believe hate-crimes legislation is about protecting homosexuals, I think it’s about silencing alternate speech.

For the first time in American Jurisprudence, we now have laws on the books, and this adds to those laws, where lady justice has to drop the blindfold, speak out, and see who it is that’s being protected, and then mitigate justice based upon one person as being superior to another person. One of our speakers hit that hard and very clear. That’s the problem I have with it.
---
I think it’s much superior to have a life in a world, I should say, or a country, where this group [pro-gay] can have their rallies, we can have our rallies--let the superior idea win.

I’m not here to hurt anyone, or to infringe on anyone’s rights, but I’m going to die protecting my own. And that is the American way.

"justice based upon one person as being superior to another person"

That’s a load of garbage, as he is equally protected under the same hate-crime legislation, as per religion and sexual orientation.

"I think it’s much superior to … let the superior idea win"

That “superior idea” being that GLBT Americans are inferior, a "right" he is willing to “die” for, and considers to be the “American way.”

More on that “superior idea”:

Rick Scarborough: So listen, homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. Therefore homosexuals, and this is just going to burn people that disagree. But homosexuals by definition are immoral people. They’re breaking the moral codes and standards of God.

Now, if a man will commit the act of sodomy, you can pretty well decide he will do about anything, include lying.

Nope, not hateful or hurtful at all.

Hate houses Churches in Maine threatened by evil homosexual activists FOR NO REASON AT ALL!

2009-11-16T07:42:00.008-05:00

11-12-09 by Nima Reza, reporter

Maine Churches Threatened Over Marriage Support

Opponents of Question 1 call on activists to turn churches in to the IRS in an attempt to revoke tax-exempt status.

Ken Graves, senior pastor at Calvary Chapel in Bangor, said..."We've directly consulted the ethics commission here in the state of Maine with regard to our political involvement."

Graves said they must stand up for biblical values.

First of all, notice that this Focus on the Family "reporter," spelled Bible---THE Bible---with a small b. Apparently, Focus on the Family's Nima Reza doesn't think God's Word is worth capitalizing.

As far as "Biblical values" go, we know that by sheer logic, Adam and Eve's children (and possibly them) "committed" incest in order to "be fruitful and multiply."

Also, polygamy is God approved:

2 Samuel 12:8: I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

And, remarriage is defined as adultery by none other than Jesus Christ Himself:

Luke 16:18: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So much for "Biblical values," or should I say "biblical values"

Pastor Ken Graves states that they've reported their political involvement to the "ethics commission here in the state of Maine...". Implying, of course, that his motives were "ethical."

Here's what they had to work with, as per Stand for Marriage Maine dot com:

From the "Myths and Facts about the People’s Veto of homosexual marriage Legislation (LD 1020)" page:

does not discriminate against gays
restores the meaning of marriage
marriage is between a man and a woman.
marriage is between a man and a woman
does not take away any rights from gay and lesbian
Gays and lesbians…enjoy…the legal rights and benefits of marriage
same-sex marriage…redefines marriage for all of society.
Mainers will have to accept a radical new understanding of marriage
healthy marriages will be eliminated
instruct…kindergartners about marriage
teaching our kids that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage.
marriage is between a man and a woman
gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of marriage
gays living the lifestyle they choose
redefine marriage for the rest of society.
the legal meaning of marriage
definition of marriage
definition of marriage
marriage is only between a man and a woman.

According to that page, they needed to pass this pro-hatred legislation in order to protect their thoughts on the matter.

Meanwhile, over on the "Questions & Answers About Question 1" page, we find mountains more of that same insidious crap, and...

What does a Yes Vote Mean?

It maintains the rights and benefits of Maine same-sex couples who are covered by our domestic partners law. A YES vote does not take anything away from homosexual couples, but protects traditional marriage.

What does a NO Vote Mean?

Maine law will no longer promote monogamous marriages and the interests of children. Marriage’s powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost.

No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration.

would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society

Question 1 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian partners who are covered by Maine’s domestic partners law.

parents will lose control over what their kids learn in school about marriage and sexual orientation

parents who do not want their children exposed to this homosexual marriage instruction have been denied an opportunity to opt their children out.

As is usual for these morally bankrupt "family" groups, it's a literal feast of distortion, deception and lies.

From their "Fact Sheet" page:

Voting Yes on Question 1, A People’s Veto does three simple things.

•It restores the definition of marriage to what Maine law has always been and what human history has always understood marriage to be. [protect fragile thoughts about marriage]

•It strengthens democracy and places the power to alter or overturn laws where it always should be- with the people. [tyranny of the majority]

•It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. [protects children from thinking that gays are equal to straights]

Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Pastor Graves, where in the Bible does it say that God approves of fraud?

Focus on the Family smarter than the AMA

2009-11-11T20:39:00.008-05:00

11-11-09

Once again, from Focus on the Family's Citizenlink magazine:

AMA Opposes 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' Says Gay Marriage Bans are Unhealthy

The country's largest professional organization for doctors takes a position on homosexual issues.

Gary Rose, a consultant with the conservative Medical Institute for Sexual Health, said the AMA should stick to medicine.

The AMA “should stick to medicine” eh? Here’s a Citizenlink quote from last July:

A third major finding of the study is that there is significantly greater medical, psychological and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.

So there you have it. FOTF’s anti-gay Citizenlink knows more about medicine than the American Medical Association.

And in regard to the “study” they speak of:

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction.

No cigar, Dobson.

Congress considers sodomizing religious freedom

2009-11-10T07:10:00.008-05:00

From Citizenlink: 11-6-09 "Lawmakers Consider Special Rights for Homosexuals"

"ENDA would enshrine special rights"

Indeed, it virtually rapes the "Christian" custom of arbitrary discrimination.

Craig Parshall was the only witness to speak against the bill...Parshall heard cries for fundamental fairness and rights.

"What about the civil rights, the civil opportunities and privileges of private enterprise," he said, "to conduct its business free of these exotic new value systems?"

Exotic: not native or usual; mysterious, alien, alluring, avant garde, bizarre, colorful, curious, different, enticing, external, extraneous, extraordinary, extrinsic, far out, fascinating, foreign, glamorous, imported, introduced, kinky*, outlandish, outside, peculiar, peregrine, romantic, strange, striking, unfamiliar, unusual, way out, weird

That leaves us with quite a range of "exotic value systems" to choose from.

Bill sponsors claim there is a religious exemption in the bill, but Parshall said it won't protect for-profit Christian organizations.

Should we also then assume that Craig Parshall is a “For profit Christian?”

"They will be required to hire… [those] …that violate Scripture's mandate."

And now to use the word mandate in sentence form:

--My mandate and I decided to take a cab instead of driving.

--Me and my mandate went for a walk last week.

--I said to my mandate, yes, and then let us sup and feast from a fancy restaurant...
---
So, at least three idioms here:

1) exotic new value systems
2) for-profit Christians
3) Scripture's mandate

And now back to anti-gay hell on Earth.

Love Won Out protest in Alabama

2009-11-04T19:38:00.003-05:00

Ala black Christian news.com:

"They're telling you to hate your child unless he lives the way you tell him to live," said Johnathan Quinn, president of Central Alabama Pride, one of the protesting organizations. "Their literature tells the parents to abandon their children unless they go this route: forcing them to be straight."

[[Melissa] Fryrear, director of gender issues for Focus on the Family and one of the speakers.] Fryrear said Focus on the Family does not want parents to shun homosexual children.

"One of our messages is helping parents stay in a relationship with their gay-identified child," Fryrear said. "Moms and dads shouldn't have to relinquish their religious convictions."

As described above, she confuses the issue by describing same-sex attraction as both an uncontrollable condition, and one that is a chosen identification.

This is the kind of doublespeak that leads me to conclude that Focus on the Family is a corrupt organization.

As I mocked on my facebook page; "Yay! I want parents who love their “religious convictions” more than they love me!"

I JUST WANNA [FUCKING] DANCE: Alison Jiear

2009-11-04T17:23:00.006-05:00

Via Anthony Venn-Brown:

DC councilman takes Maryland's Dr. Ruth Jacobs to task on marriage equality

2009-11-04T10:12:00.006-05:00

Please feel free to use the transcript of the video below, in full or in part. No credit requested.
--
Re Metro Weekly, Washington DC’s GLBT Newsmagazine:

Public hearing on the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009”

Dr. Ruth Jacobs of Rockville, MD, against Gay Marriage Bill, Public Witness at Washington, DC Hearing. DC Council, Monday, November 2, 2009:

Synopsis: Conservative activist Dr. Ruth Jacobs presenting ridiculous testimony as a public witness during the DC City Council's hearing about a pending same-sex marriage equality bill. It's not clear why Jacobs was there since she appears to have traveled down from Rockville, MD, and that she knew nothing about existing District law. In 2007, Jacobs led an effort against a transgender equality bill in Montgomery County claiming that men would expose their genitalia to women and girls, and testifying that the bill would discriminate against ''ex-transgenders.'' During a questioning period, she admitted to Council chair Phil Mendelson that she had no evidence of her claims of a connection between same-sex marriage and HIV infection. Councilman David Catania asked her what gay male sex had to do with lesbians and marriage, especially since lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV infection. Jacobs became flustered and said she wasn't there to talk about that fact. (City Council via Office of Cable Television)

Full transcript. Note, I’ve skipped the first 41 seconds provided in the Metro Weekly article (all of which is reiterated below). Again, please feel free to use this transcript, in full or in part. No credit requested.

Beginning @ 41 seconds:

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Dr. Jacobs…

Dr. Ruth Jacobs: My name is Dr. Jacobs. I’m an infectious disease specialist, and I have seen the pain and hurt of the AIDS epidemic. This has been identified as one of the most sever health problems facing the District. It’s a generalized and severe epidemic, affecting the good citizens of D.C. A shockingly high number of 6% of heterosexual black men, 3% of black women, and Hispanic men in the District are HIV positive. But this number pales when compared to 46% of black and 20% of men who have sex with men who are HIV positive. The immediate action of passing the same-sex marriage bill 18 40 82, is to normalize, predominantly, homosexual activity, such as anal sex, and require the promotion in school as a legal normal activity, and part of the sex education.

We have a man who lost his daughter in Massachusetts for simply expressing disagreement with same-sex marriage. Brookstone’s termination letter to Peter states that “In the state of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.”

The Centers for Disease Control, Federal [drug?] Administration, and Nation Institutes of Health tell us that while new HIV infections have decreased among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men, has been steadily increasing since the 90’s. The Surgeon General has stated “condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice,” and this is on an updated FDA website. Anal sex has higher HIV transmission than vaginal sex. Estimates are as high as 1 life altering HIV deadly conversion for every 20 anal sex acts. The people of the District who are already suffering more than anyone who should suffer from HIV / AIDS, should be able to vote on bill 18 40 82. Who will speak truthfully about the risks of same-sexual activity in the Districts after 18 40 82 is passed, who will protect the children? There are more new HIV infections among young black men who have sex with men, age 13-29, than among any other age group, and racial group of men who have sex with men.

In a Washington Post article, “AIDS Crisis: serious times calls for serious measures,” the author exhorts “down low brothers, to don’t go so low as to become a murder too.” The people of the District who are already suffering more than anyone should suffer from HIV / AIDS, should be able to be informed about the risks, and vote on this issue, which is of life and death importance to themselves, their families and their children. Let the people vote.

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Thank you Dr. Jacobs and Reverend…

Dr Jacobs: The anus was designed for exit, not entrance.

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Dr. Jacobs, I had one question for you. Did you attach to your testimony, or do you have any research that’s been done with regard to the effect on HIV / AIDS, which is the essence of your testimony, in the 6 states that have legalized same-sex marriage?

Dr. Jacobs: I don’t have those statistics, but I know that there has been people from Massachusetts that have been saying that they feel that there are increased funds being spent. But, I think the immediate effect of any law---all of these are all 1 or 2 years---is the longer term and right now, for example, in Montgomery County, there are various classes of people may or may not accept. Once this becomes law, it is part of the health education. If you want to avoid your child being taught that anal sex is just as safe as vaginal sex, you can opt yourself out. Once this [is] law, you will not be able to opt yourself out.

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Thank you. Mr. Cantania, do you have any questions?

Councilman David Cantania: I do Mr. Chairman, I just have to respond. Miss Jacobs, are you a District resident?

Dr. Jacobs: No, I am an infectious disease in Rockville Maryland, but I do have patients that come from the District, and I have become involved in the schools because of concerns about that.

Councilman David Cantania: You’re not a District resident?

Dr. Jacobs: I am a physician who cares for people who come from the D.C.

Councilman David Cantania: Now are you aware that homosexuality has been taught as pursuant to regulation since 1979 in D.C. public schools, but marriage is not now, nor has it ever been part of the curriculum, and nothing in this legislation would require it to be part of the curriculum?

Dr. Jacobs: In terms of, once it is the law---in Massachusetts, when it became the law---anal sex became taught as part of the curriculum as normal and healthy.

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, we’re talking about the District of Columbia, which is about 1000 miles south. Nothing in our law that we are passing today would require anything about marriage to be taught. And isn’t it also true that in the District, pursuant to our regulations and long standing law, that all sex education materials are to be shared with parents? Parents have the authority to object and to take their children out of sex-education in the District. Which is different than in Massachusetts. Are you aware of that, Dr. Jacobs?

Dr. Jacobs: I am aware that students are terrified to be taken out of sex-ed. They get on the knees and beg to their parents to be included. Because to be outside, is to be labeled as the conservative. To go to the library, while everybody else is in class, having sex-ed, means you are then, you then become--when you refuse to go to sex-ed, you then become the group that is discriminated against.

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, our law is very clear, parents are given the authority to pre-approve and to withhold that certain instructions from their children, it’s been a long standing part of our municipal regulations. I somehow thing that that is, it’s a nice compromise that respects the importance and the prerogative of the parent, while also allows us to have a curriculum that is consistent with the law of the city.

I’m a little perplexed, to be honest, by your legislation. You seem to be implying that because there’s a high rate of HIV among gay men, white or black, that that in and of itself should disqualify the population from the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Is that your testimony?

Dr. Jacobs: My testimony is that there is a significant risk to anal sex. The anus was designed for exit, not entrance. And when you normalize marriage, I’m telling you…

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, we’re on limited rounds. I know you’re new to the District, but the way it works here is, we ask questions of the witnesses. And so, if your testimony is that you’re only eligible to marry if your population has a low HIV rate, then the first in line, because the lowest HIV incidents in the city, according to our 2008 epidemiology, are lesbians. So based on your testimony, then we should only marry lesbians.

Dr. Jacobs: This is not my argument. I am putting… You haven’t allowed me to speak, Mr. Catania.

Councilman David Cantania: Ok, well then please, enlighten me.

Dr. Jacobs: You asked me if this--what I gave is a specific piece of information---as an infectious disease specialist---which raises concerns for me. And I think that the people of the city should be allowed to be aware of this information, and to vote. They may choose to say something, such as marriage and the vagina and the penis are designed to go together, and the penis and anus is not.

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, thank you very much, I think the people of this city are entitled to decide whether or not they marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, and that’s what this is about.

Dr. Jacobs: Yes, I hope they will get to vote.

Councilman David Cantania: I wish we would have had same-sex marriage 30 years ago, to be perfectly honest. Because I think there would be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of gay men who would be married and alive today if this society would have afforded them the same equality, and the same normalcy, and the same dignity, as is afforded opposite-sex couples. I believe, had in 1977, when the first marriage equality bill was introduced in this council, had it passed, had we exposed gay and lesbians to an appropriate dignified avenue to channel their love and affection, we would have far fewer people dead today. Than you Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Jacobs: May I respond?

Council chair Phil Mendelson: No, there’s not a question.
---
PS, on an inspirational note:

Joe Lieberman Says He'll Block Reid's Health Care Bill

2009-10-28T07:50:00.006-04:00

October 27, 2009 2:39 PM:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he would support a Republican filibuster of a health care bill that includes a public option."

This is from some time ago, but note the last square/rectangle (click on cartoon to see the louder image):

Brought to you by this link.

For more of Tom Tomorrow's satirical cartoonage...
http://thismodernworld.com/newest-comic/

GLSEN’s “Ally Week” makes lobbyists of gay allies

2009-10-21T04:58:00.004-04:00

Via Citizenlink:

10-20-09
'Ally Week' Pushes Gay Agenda

GLSEN's week long effort uses the anti-bullying message as a springboard to indoctrinate students with the homosexual agenda.
--
Cushman said events like Ally Week play directly into the activist's plans.

"GLSEN is using this so-called anti-bullying event to transform students into lobbyists for its adult agenda," she said, "for things like pro-gay legislation currently proposed in the U.S. House."

Is everyone terrified yet?

Here’s how GLSEN’s “Ally week” bills itself:

I believe all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression,deserve to feel safe and supported. That means I pledge to:

-Not use anti-LGBT language and slurs;
-Intervene, if I safely can, in situations where other students are being harassed;
-Support efforts to end bullying and harassment.

The nerve of those insidious gays and their agenda “to transform students into lobbyists” for the protection of their fellow students!
---
The news here is that they’re not promoting Exodus International’s “Allies Too” week:

Wait a minute, aren't you the ones who hate gays?

If that's what you think, it's about time you stop believing the lie that people with different beliefs about sexuality hate those who embrace homosexuality.

In other words, “We don't hate gay liars.”

I especially enjoy #4 and #6 from their “Core Principles” page:

4. We believe that a homosexual, bisexual or transgender identity and/or behavior are outside of the intentional design of human relationships and sexuality, and therefore aren’t what’s best for us, regardless of whether we are drawn to them.

6. We reject the notion that these beliefs somehow amount to hatred, bigotry, or a “phobia.”

You are free to “reject.” You are also free to be labeled hateful, bigoted, and homophobic.

[Candi] Cushman said events like Ally Week play directly into the activist's plans.

Again, Candi, why not counter these "gay activist" indoctrination techniques with Exodus International’s already tried and true “Allies, Too” week?
---
P.S. Focus on the Family also reminds us to hate Kevin Jennings.

Daily Show: October 12, 2009: CNN Leaves It There

2009-10-15T11:39:00.003-04:00

FOTF, miniscule cost of DP benefits evil. GW's $4 trillion debt AOK.

2009-10-14T21:30:00.009-04:00

Via Citizenlink:

Senate Hearing Focuses on Domestic-Partner Benefits

Lawmakers discuss expanding benefits for federal workers, but largely ignore the cost to taxpayers.
--
The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1102) includes health and disability insurance, an expansion of family-leave programs, life and long-term care insurance and other compensation.
--
The Congressional Budget Office has calculated the cost of implementing the bill at more than $1 billion over 10 years. Democrat committee members are expected to largely ignore the price tag.

Via CBS news:

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.

Each time you go up a notch, eg; thousand, million, billion, trillion, it is 1,000 times the previous number.

1000 thousand = 1 million
1000 million = 1 billion
1000 billion = 1 trillion
1000 trillion = 1 quadrillion

IOW, 1 billion = 1 thousanth of a trillion.

Focus on the Family, and their ~~conservative~~ ego-addicted cohorts (my parents included), are worried about 1 four thousanth of the debt left behind by their hero, George W. Bush.

4 trillion debt, AOK
1 four thousanth of that (over 10 years) for domestic partnerships, evil.
--
Two failed “wars,” tax cuts for the richest of the rich, billions funded in non-competition Iraq contracts, waste fraud and abuse in EVERY direction imaginable, and they claim that it’s the cost to taxpayers that they’re concerned with.

Clearly, Focus on the Family approves of this message:

Matthew Shepard: December 1, 1976 -- October 12, 1998

2009-10-12T14:07:00.003-04:00

Buffy from “The Gaytheist Agenda” reminds us that today is the 11th anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s death:

In Memorariam: Matthew Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998)

Linked to is an AP article on the event, and this YouTube video below:

The poster of that video, Michelle5451, writes:

This is for all you hate filled people who feel the need to spew your venom at people who live their lives different than your own. There is no bigger indication of self-hatred and deeply rooted fear than when a person throws hate and anger upon the world.

As if the story of Matthew Shepard isn't terrible enough - picture this, sit with it for awhile and bring it to mind the next time you want to attack a "fag," "dyke" or "homo" - when Matt was found 18 hours after his beating, his head and face were caked with dried blood, and in the blood on his face was a trail leading down his cheeks from his eyes. This tells us Matt had been awake at some point after his beating and before he fell into a coma, he knew what had been done to him, he was in pain, he was scared and perhaps, he knew he was going to die - and so, he cried. Tied to a fence, unable to move, brain damaged and dying - this man cried. Does that break your heart? It should...if you have one. If the story of Matt Shepard doesn't shock and disgust you far greater than the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, you're the one not right with God.

Song written and performed by Melissa Etheridge. She wrote the song in memory of Matt Shepard.

And who can forget congresswoman, Virginia Foxx's, unconscionably callous remarks (note, Judy Shepard was on the House floor at the time):

Here’s what Exodus International has to say on the matter of hate crimes:

Thought Crimes Laws*

Exodus International believes that every human being is of equal value and worthy of the same treatment under the law. While Exodus International strongly opposes violent crimes and acts of aggression against any individual or group of individuals, thought crimes laws offer more legal protection to certain citizens based on their sexual preference alone. In addition, these laws pave the way to prosecute biblical beliefs about homosexuality, instead of prosecuting illegal actions that harm others.

* often called "hate crimes" laws by proponents

They want their religious hatred---and the consequences of it---protected at the expense of the safety of their LGBT brothers and sisters.

Excuse me while I vomit.

For more information see The Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Smoking leads to looking gay

2009-10-12T12:54:00.005-04:00

From the Onion:

Exodus/Focus favor the bullying and harassment of gay youth

2009-10-12T11:14:00.004-04:00

From Citizenlink:

Activists Push for Expanded Anti-Bullying Bill in New York

The New York City Department of Education is expanding its "Respect for All" anti-bullying program.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the New York Civil Liberties Union are lobbying school officials to include a homosexual agenda in the program, according to family experts.

Randy Thomas, vice president of Exodus International, said that parents need to be aware that similar organizations may be trying to promote homosexuality in their schools.

"What gay activists are trying to do is take a legitimate problem, which bullying is, and turn it into an opportunity to spread gay ideology," Thomas said.

From the NYC Dept. of Education:

Second Phase of ‘Respect for All’ Initiative Expands Trainings for School Staff, Creates New Accountability Standards

Last year, the Department of Education added mandated reporting and investigation guidelines to its anti-bias “Respect for All” initiative, making New York City a national leader in efforts to combat bullying and harassment based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other factors.

Hypocrisy aside, to use Mr. Thomas’ words:

"What anti-gay hate activists are trying to do is take a legitimate problem, which bullying is, and turn it into an opportunity to spread anti-gay hate ideology."

Is Being Gay a Choice

2009-10-10T18:59:00.006-04:00

Via Truth Wins Out:

From big93scott: Is Being Gay a Choice:

Transcript:

Today we’re going to talk about a notion that’s the backbone for a lot of the arguments against homosexuality. The argument that being gay is a choice.

I’ve answered this question before in a video, but I felt my answer was not personable enough. I thought this question could be better answered if I shared with a you part of my life that I don’t like reliving---to an extent that I have never before made public---before this video. I thought the question could be better answered if I took you back to the end of the summer between grade 6 and grade 7, and the beginning of grade 7. And it was in and around that time that I first realized that, well, I had very strong feelings for guys, and none for girls.

It was at that time that first realized that I might be gay. I never told myself that I was gay definitively. I felt that I couldn’t be. Not that it was impossible, but that I just…I couldn’t be. I never had anything against gay people, it’s just, I knew other people did.

I told myself that it was just a phase. I told myself that it was just a phase, and if it wasn’t a phase, that I’d change. Because growing up, I’d always believed that being gay was a choice. You hear so many people say it is, on TV, on the radio, on the internet. You hear so many people saying it’s a choice, that you believe them. Why wouldn’t you? It’s only those who go through it that really know the answer.

And so from about half way through grade 7 to half way through grade 8, I tried my hardest to not be gay. I tried my hardest to make the feeling go away. It was when I came to the realization that these feeling wouldn’t go away. It was when I came to the realization that the only choice I had about being gay, was acting on my feelings. It was when I came to that realization, that I lay before me two options. Option A) I could suppress my feelings, never tell a soul that I was gay, could marry a girl and have kids like a normal person and live a normal life, while secretly suppressing my feelings. I didn’t want that. I didn’t want to suppress anything about me, and so that lead me to option two, I could kill myself.

There was no option three. There was no, I could be true to myself but I could be gay, I never, I never wanted that. And so one day, in the dead of winter in grade 8, I came home from school, was home alone, and I took a knife from the kitchen, and I went upstairs, and I sat on the toilet across from my bathtub. I set the knife down on the counter beside me. And I cried for what must have been an about an hour.

I was so close to getting into the bathtub and cutting my wrists that day. I was so close that it scares me even today, but I realized something when I was sitting there contemplating my own death. I realized that I hadn’t given my family a chance.

I knew that the only way that I could ever accept myself, would be to tell my family and see if they accepted me. And so about a couple months later, I told my sister, and if you’ve seen my coming out story, you know that from there, I told my brother, and from there I told my parents, and they were all as accepting as you can possibly imagine. And that’s why I can tell you, without a doubt, that without my family’s acceptance, I wouldn’t be making this video today. Without my family’s acceptance, I would be dead.

You see, it was the notion that being gay was a choice, that almost killed me. ‘cause I believed it. And I put so much hope, I put so much hope in one day being straight, and one day not having to fear the things I feared. That when I came to the realization that I would never be straight, I was thrown off the deep end. I never accepted the fact that I was gay, until I knew that all of my family accepted me.

And so for those of you who say that being gay is a choice, I ask you this; if you approached me in my state of desperation as a thirteen year old contemplating suicide--if you told me that I didn’t have to fear getting kicked out of my house by my parents. If you told me that it is an act of fear, people who I used to call my friends, looking at me with disgust. If you told my I didn’t have to fear being physically assaulted or even looking at a country’s laws before traveling there with my future spouse. I you told me that I could be straight, do you not think that I would have said yes. Do you not think I didn’t try?

You see, it’s the notion that being gay is a choice that almost killed me. It’s the notion that being gay is a choice that kills thousands of gay teenagers, gay young adults. It leads them all to suicide. It almost lead me to suicide.

When someone stands on a podium, stands in front of a microphone, sends it out over the airwaves of the radio into peoples homes. When someone says that being gay is a choice, it’s nothing but another nail in a desperate teenagers coffin.

----------------------------
Exodus International on the suicide of gay youth:

Protect Insurance Companies PSA

2009-10-06T04:12:00.002-04:00

The Amazing Atheist OWNS The 9/12 Protesters

2009-09-15T03:50:00.003-04:00

Title stolen from steelmania75

It's over 6 minutes long, but it's worth it--and quite cathartic. The only thing I wholeheartedly don't endorse is the grenade sentiment.

Other than that, it's a soul satisfying rant.

"it essentially makes children adults at age 12...to make their own decision"

2009-09-15T02:24:00.006-04:00

Anti-Parent Bill Fails in California; Two Bad Bills Pass

Via Citizenlink:

Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, said the bill is an attack on the family.

"It takes away the parental control and authority from the parent or guardian," he said. "And it essentially makes children adults at age 12 with the capacity under the law to make their own decision regarding mental health services."

Because everybody knows that 12 year olds aren’t capable of assessing their own pain.

Especially in cases of parental molestation, the molester deserves the right to know when they’re being told on.

Two other bills hostile to families have successfully made it by lawmakers.

SB 54 recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages, even though voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment in November defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

It’s just a matter of time now before California falls into the sea. After, of course, being burnt to the ground by the wrath of God's wildfires.

SB 572, the Harvey Milk bill, passed the State Assembly by a vote of 45-27. It honors one of the first openly gay elected officials.

Or, what they were reeally thinking:

SB 572, the Harvey Milk bill, passed the State Assembly by a vote of 45-27. It honors ~~P in A behavior~~ one of the first openly gay elected officials.

Billionaires Take DC: The Movie

2009-09-15T00:53:00.004-04:00

Turned onto by the Rachel Maddow show, who gives a much better set up.
---
From the Billionaires for Wealthcare website:

Who we are:

Billionaires for Wealthcare is a grassroots network of health insurance CEOs, industry lobbyists, talk-show hosts, and others profiting off of our broken health care system.

We are not a political, religious or even particularly well-organized group. We're simple folk, thrilled profiteers pouring out of our corner offices to dance on the grave of "Change."

We'll do whatever it takes to ensure another decade where your pain is our gain. After all, when it comes to healthcare, if we ain't broke, why fix it?

billionairesforwealthcare.com

Aimee Mann: Stupid Thing

2009-08-28T07:52:00.004-04:00

2009-08-28T07:49:00.000-04:00

Exodus Youth condemns bullying by singling out gay students

Bryan Adams: Heat of the Night

2009-08-21T23:39:00.002-04:00

Bryan Adams |MTV Music

Randy Thomas: "tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions"

2009-08-16T22:08:00.011-04:00

Exodus International takes over 'Love Won Out' conferences

I know this has been covered, but there's something in this ~~AFA~~ OneNewsNow article that I wanted to highlight (And no, it's not the ancient Matt Damon-like photo of Thomas):

Focus on the Family is transferring the conferences to Exodus International, according to spokesman Randy Thomas.

"We're talking tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of people influenced by a redemptive view of homosexuality" Thomas says. "The Lord has raised up the ministry of Exodus International to bear witness to the world that he is alive and well and he has a loving response to homosexuality."

Millions "influenzed" is more like it.

Redemptive: liberating, redeeming, saving, rescuing, delivering, emancipating, releasing

Ah, redemption...

Patrick McAlvey, Ex-Gay Survivor

2009-08-14T04:43:00.017-04:00

Posted August 13th, 2009 by Wayne Besen

Last week, Truth Wins Out released a video by ex-gay survivor Patrick McAlvey of Lansing, Michigan. He has spoken out on local radio and will join me on Culture Shocks radio with Barry Lynn TODAY at 4PM (ET). I hope you will tune in and listen to the live broadcast on the Internet.

Transcript as follows -- and as always, feel free to use:

Patrick McAlvey: It was devastating and it confused and isolated me, I didn’t know how to process what I was thinking and what I was feeling and how to still have any sort of self-esteem and feel good about who I was, with the knowledge that this desire, that is beyond my control, is somehow sinful and wrong.

I think it does a lot of damage to people’s mental health

[I] picked up the phone and called the founder and director of the ministry, in sixth grade, and he had just spoken at my middle school youth group that year.

His name is Mike Jones, he’s the director of corduroy Stone [a referral ministry of Exodus International].

When I found out I could change, I mean, it was the only hope I could hold onto, ’cause I was so scared and felt very alone, so.

No, I didn’t tell any family or friends, I grew up in a very conservative Christian home and school, and didn’t think it was a safe thing to tell anybody.

In middle school, after I called Mike, the guy who ran the ministry, we started emailing regularly and exchanging letters and talking on the phone occasionally.

Well I distanced myself from Mike sometime in early high school, and really had very minimal contact, he sent a couple letters, but I had very minimal contact until I was 19. And so when I was 19 I was kicked out of a missionary training school and forced to move back home with my family, and I was kicked out because of my attraction to men, and so in that time, I was sort of in a crisis mode and was very low, very depressed and just trying to make sense of my life and mostly of my attraction, so I contacted Mike again, and we started meeting regularly.

That night he suggested we go over to his friend’s house so that we could do “holding therapy.” So we drove together to his friend’s house and had an hour where I was instructed to lay in his arms, chest to chest, and not talk, it was just an hour of silent holding and he told me to feel the strength of another man, smell the smell of another man, feel the security of another man’s arms. And it was supposed to replace, or fill a void that I had from some unmet childhood need.

I thought the holding therapy was very strange, and it made me uncomfortable, but I was willing to try anything, and trusted Mike.

Afterwards, he wanted to know if it felt good, if I had felt safe, and he said the he enjoyed it.

He would initiate prolonged hugs.

I responded with nervous laughter to a lot of his questions, but, again, I was not as skeptical as I should have been, just because I was so desperate for an answer.

As part of the therapy, he asked how large my penis was. He asked if I shaved my pubic hair. He asked about the type of underwear that I wore. On one occasion he asked me to take my shirt off and show him how many push-ups I could do, which I did not do, and he wanted me to describe my sexual fantasies to him, and the type of men I’m attracted to. And one time he asked me to rate my own attractiveness, on a scale of 1-10, with separate scores for my face, my hair, my body, and then an overall score. And then after I scored myself, he assigned scores for my attractiveness, each category, and I remember that my hair got the best score and my face got the worst score.

As part of the therapy, he had me come over to his house, and he rented the movie of the play Equus, and he had us watch it together, in his home. In the movie there was full frontal male nudity, and it made me rather uncomfortable to be watching it with him, but it was his idea, and afterwards he wanted to talk about some the dynamics of the play and then also how I felt about seeing the naked actor.

Well, he thought it would be a good idea to learn about home repair and maintenance, those types of things, used tools a little more often. And one time we went to a play together, again, as part of the therapy, and he had me pay for the tickets for the play that we went to, as part of my payment for receiving therapy from him.

I never felt like I was changing, I never saw a change.

We had a discussion and I told him that I wasn’t going to be coming. He said that he was scared for me in that--he reiterated many of the myths he had told me earlier about being gay, that no one was happy who was gay, and that the gay lifestyle was all about drugs and alcohol and random sex and everyone who was gay had STD’s. So, he said that he was scared for me because I was moving toward acceptance of my orientation.

I think that I’ve been damaged in a lot of ways by what Mike did and what the people who support him, or the people who even just allow him to be around, and continues to do what he’s doing. They’ve had an enormous impact on me and, there were years through middle school and high school where I just really came to hate myself, to loathe myself. I didn’t trust anyone, and didn’t allow anyone to get close to me, because I was terrified they might find out secret and that they would think less of me, so I spent many years locked in my room, crying by myself and it just--for no reason, for no good reason. If I had had a fair representation, if someone had told me that it was possible to be gay and happy and have sustained healthy relationships and families and everything that straight people have, then I could have avoided a lot of suffering.

And so I chose to finally embrace the person I was, including my orientation.

And I know there are a lot of people are confused and scared and aren’t sure what to do, and in that situation it’s easy to be taken advantage of and it’s easy to fall for a lot of the false information…

I would like to tell the man who did my ex-gay therapy, that he was wrong, and that the happiest I’ve ever been in my life is when I finally accepted myself. And I would encourage him to consider doing the same thing, and I would tell him that he is doing a lot of damage, and I would want him to know how much damage he’s done in my life, and how much sadness and hurt he’s caused, that could have been completely avoided if he was honest with me, and with himself, about his orientation, my orientation, and the fact that neither of them were going to change.

Needless Misery

James Dobson: "I have never said anything hateful about homosexuals"

2009-08-11T07:07:00.008-04:00

James Dobson ©2004: For nearly sixty years, the homosexual activist movement and related entities have been working to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family.

Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, the discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality , muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrination of children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.

It’s a perfect storm. (p19)

When Nazi Germany marched its troops into Austria and then “annexed” Czechoslovakia in the late 1930’s---signaling Adolf Hitler’s dangerous and frightening intentions---the response from the rest of Europe was startling: It did nothing. … Essentially their strategy was to ignore the threat, give Hitler what he wanted, and hope against hope that the trouble would soon pass. It didn’t. (p29)

Hitler … subjugated most of the people of Europe to tyranny and slavery. … Millions of men, women and children lost their lives

Today…we find ourselves in a terrible battle of a different sort, but one that also threatens the very existence of society. … The future of the nation is in crisis (p 29-30)

Like Adolf Hitler…those who would favor homosexual marriage are determined to make it legal, regardless of the democratic process that stands in their way. (p41)

The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. (p50)

The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays, It is marriage for no one. (p53)

homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime---some studies say it is typically more than one thousand (p54)

The apostle Paul described such a society in the book of Romans, referring apparently to ancient Rome: “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (1:29-31). (p55-56)

[Re Matthew Shepard] In 1998...Katie Couric of NBC’s Today Show asked a guest one morning if he thought the leaders of Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the Family Research Council were in directly responsible for Shepard’s murder because of the venom we espoused. …In twenty-seven years I have never said anything hateful about homosexuals on our broadcast, and I do not condone violence or disrespect for anyone. (p68)
~~~~Now, compare all that with what was recently observed on the Rachel Maddow show:

The Rachel Maddow Show
"Nazism is not a metaphor"
Friday, August 7, 2009

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transcript:
But we begin with the convergence of two of the great sources of jaw-dropping, I can‘t believe that just happened-ness in modern American politics. We have the mob rule, shut it down, screaming, don‘t talk about health care mobs and we have Sarah Palin.

The now unemployed former vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor, who turned to her Facebook page today to add this to our national conversation about reforming our health care system. She said, quote, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama‘s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide based on a subjective judgment of their level of productivity in society whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

I actually agree. Of course, such a system isn‘t actually being considered by anyone. But don‘t let that hold you back.

Last night, on this show, we hosted Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity. It‘s a beltway organization with significant corporate funding. They‘re staffed by experienced Republican campaign strategists, like Mr. Phillips himself.

Americans for Prosperity has churned out a number of what appear to be grassroots organizations. They have names like Patients First and Patients United Now. And these groups are formed to oppose health care reform and to get people to pack these town hall meetings about health care.

These groups direct people to town halls. They give them talking points to use there. And they try to get them fired up.

Here for example is the fire ‘em up message from a speaker on Mr. Phillips‘ Patients First bus tour, which yesterday held an event in Pueblo, Colorado.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If this new Obama-care program comes to fruition, when you reach 65 and every five years thereafter, you‘re going to have a counseling session with some federal airhead. Part of this process is called end-of-life counseling and part of the end-of-life counseling can be an end-of-life order.

Adolf Hitler issued 6 million end-of-life orders. He called his program the final solution.

I kind of wonder what we‘re going to call ours.

If you find all this stuff is as repugnant as I do, you need to take it to the next step. You need to notify your congressman. How do you that? How do you notify these people?

You can call them. You can write them. You can e-mail them. Or you can go to their office and put the fear of God in ‘em.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Put the fear of God in them—because what Obama is doing with killing all these people like Sarah Palin said, that‘s like what Hitler did and you know what Hitler deserved.

This is the rhetoric that corporate-funded, GOP-allied groups like Americans for Prosperity are funneling through which they set up to look like grassroots organizations to get people to go “put the fear of God” into elected officials.

“Politico” is reporting that an event planned by Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona was overrun by protestors who showed up after receiving robocalls encouraging them to show up and demonstrate. And, of course, the nice thing about robocalls is it‘s never easy to know exactly where they came from, but it is known that Conservatives for Patients‘ Rights—another one of the fake grassroots organizations, a 20 organization—a $20 million operation run by former hospital CEO Rick Scott—that group posted the time and location of these events on its Web site.

And what has started as rowdy and rude and mean-spirited disruptions has turned, in some cases, into actual violence, with several hospitalizations for minor injuries and some arrests being reported at health care town halls last night. What‘s also evident is that the antireform rhetoric increasingly is invoking specific references to Nazis and specific comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

Here for example is a 16-year-old wearing a -- 16-year-old at a Denver town hall event wearing a t-shirt with a picture of the president and the words on it, “Hitler gave good speeches, too.” Here‘s a toddler in a stroller at the same event carrying a sign with a swastika that reads, “No to Fascism.” Here‘s a protestor at a Michigan event held by Congressman John Dingell carrying a sign that depicts the president with a Hitler mustache.

Yesterday, talk show host Rush Limbaugh compared the president, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the proposed health care reform, and the president‘s health care logo to Nazism and/or Hitler. And despite criticism from, among others, the conservative “National Review Online,” the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and Rabbi Marvin Hier whose founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rush Limbaugh actually retrenched with the whole Hitler/Nazism thing today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: By the way, his health care logo looks damn like the Nazi logo. I‘m sorry but it does. I didn‘t create either logo, but I have two eyes and I can see. Infuriating Democrats—good. Is Obama not got a Web site where he‘s asking supporters to provide the names of people providing disinformation about the health care system? What did I say yesterday that is not true?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: You know, there are people alive today who barely survived the Holocaust. And there are many people alive today whose whole families were killed in the Holocaust. Nazism is not a metaphor for a political policy you disagree with. Used deliberately as a strategy to characterize a political opponent, it has a very specific resonance with people looking to justify violence. The implication of conjuring up the Third Reich is that, in the case of someone who‘s identified as a Nazi, as a modern day Hitler, violence against that person, even murder, would not only be seen as justified, it might be celebrated.

This rhetorical strategy sets the stage for political violence that the perpetrator could hope would be praised. As such the idea of assassination, other kinds of political violence are always in the subtext. And you know, sometimes assassination isn‘t even in the subtext. Sometimes it just bubbles right up to the surface.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS HOST: I wonder what it would be like seriously. I mean, if I could go, you know, to the speaker‘s shindig. Speaker Pelosi, I just wanted to—are you going to drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those eyes not work? There you go. I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink it. Drink it.

I really just wanted to thank you for having me over to wine country, you know? To be invited, I thought I had to be a major Democratic donor or long-time friend of yours which I‘m not. By the way, I put poison in your—no!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Yesterday, we played a tape of a Republican congressman joking about lynching Democratic members of Congress. Now, it‘s conservative national radio hosts calling the President Hitler and conservative national television hosts joking about assassinating the speaker of the House of Representatives.

Right wing media deliberately and systematically invoking both Nazism and political assassination; hostile crowds consistently displaying Nazi symbolism at these demonstrations; the corporate-funded anti-reform movement using Hitler as a rhetorical weapon against the president and against Democrats in Congress—it‘s scary, of course, if they don‘t understand the implications of their actions. And it‘s much, much scarier, still, if they do.

Joining us now is Frank Schaeffer. He‘s the author of “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All or Almost All of It Back.”

Mr. Schaefer, thank you so much for coming back on the show tonight.

FRANK SCHAEFFER, AUTHOR, “CRAZY FOR GOD”: Thanks for having me on, Rachel.

MADDOW: Do you think that calling the president a Nazi, calling the president Hitler is an implicit call for politically motivated violence?

SCHAEFFER: Yes, I do. In fact, this rings a big bell with me because my dad, who was a right-wing evangelical leader, wrote a book called “A Christian Manifesto” that sold over a million copies. And in that book, he compared anybody who was pro-abortion to the Nazi Germans and he said that using violence or force to overthrow Nazi Germany would have been appropriate for Christians, including the assassination of Hitler. He compared the Supreme Court‘s actions on abortion to that and that has ban note that has been following the right-wing movement that my father and I helped start in evangelical context all the way.

So, what‘s really being said here is two messages. There is the message to the predominantly white, middle-aged crowd, the people screaming at these meetings, trying to shut them down. But there‘s also a coded message to what I would call the “looneytunes,” the “fruitloops” on the side.

It‘s really like playing Russian roulette. You put a cartridge in the chamber, you spin, and once in a while it goes off. And we saw that happen with Dr. Tiller. We‘ve seen it happen numerous times in this country with the violence against political leaders whether it‘s Martin Luther King or whoever it might be. We have a history of being a well-armed, violent country.

And so, really, I think that these calls are incredibly irresponsible. The good news is that it shows a desperation. The far-right knows they have lost. They‘ve lost the hearts and minds of most American people, for instance, who want health care.

But they also know they have a large group of people who are not well-informed, who listen to only their own sources, who buy the lies, for instance, all this nonsense about euthanasia being mandatory and all the rest of it, and these people can be energized to go out and do really dreadful things. And we‘ve seen it in front of abortion clinics. I‘m afraid we‘re going to see it with some of our political leaders.

And the Glenn Becks of this world literally are responsible for unleashing what I regard as an anti-democratic, anti-American movement in this country that is trying to shut down legitimate debate and replace it with straight out intimidation. It is ironic they‘re drawing a parallel to Hitler.

I wouldn‘t draw such a parallel, but I would draw a parallel to the Brown Church (ph) of 1930s who got into a habit of shutting down dissent and making it look as if they had a majority by spreading out in groups just as these folks do, screaming the loudest and making debate impossible.

So, these are very, very bad signs and I‘m not at all optimistic about how this is going to end in terms of violence, although I do think Obama is going to win the day in terms of most Americans.

The problem is, we‘re not talking about most Americans, we‘re talking about a small, angry group of white people who to—you know, to paraphrase Bart Simpson, the election broke their brains. They‘re angry. And they are ready to do just about anything to stop the process at this point because they‘d rather see us all lose than admit defeat.

MADDOW: Mr. Schaeffer.

SCHAEFFER: That‘s where they‘re at.

MADDOW: . one of the reasons that I wanted to talk to you about this tonight is because what you describe as the potential that this could be a coded message. What we‘re seeing here is vituperative language like this from some members of Congress, from some people who are considered to be relatively mainstream, within conservative politics.

But we‘re also seeing it from movement organizers, from people who are organized, like this Americans for Prosperity group. It‘s a very well-connected group. We have the president of that organization on the show last night. He‘s a former political strategist partner of Ralph Reed. He‘s up in the Jack Abramoff scandal. I mean, these people who are—he was the campaign strategist for George Bush‘s primary campaign for president in 2000 -- these are people who are very much linked into the conservative movement.

And so, what I‘m trying to get down to is the question of whether or not this is a deliberate coded message, whether this is sort of a dog whistle that‘s going out on the right by using specific language about Nazism, it is a specific call for violence?

SCHAEFFER: Yes, I would like to just say this and I know this may come off as a little harsh to people, but I honestly think that there is a type of white middle-aged American male, I‘m a white-middle aged—well, I wish I was middle-aged, I‘m over middle age—but a white male about my age who has had a kind of mental collapse. I mean, you look at the way they went after Sotomayor and called her a racist. You look at them now using all these foundations and these groups, lobbyists and others pouring millions of dollars from the insurance industry and stirring up misinformed, right-wing white people, not terribly bright people, the sort of people who are yelling at these meetings.

There is a coded message here. And that is that you have a group of people who like Rush Limbaugh would rather see the president and the country fail, and their coded message to their own lunatic fringe is very simple—and that is go for broke.

When you start comparing a democratically-elected president, who is not only our first black president but a moderate progressive, to Adolf Hitler, you have arrived at a point where you are literally leading—leaving a loaded gun on the table, saying the first person who wants to come along and use this, go ahead. Be our guest.

Now, all these people, when something bad happens, will raise their holy hands in horror and say, of course, we didn‘t mean that. We were just talking about being Americans. It‘s American to protest.

B.S. They know exactly what‘s out there. There is a whole public there who went out and stopped up on ammunition and guns thinking Obama would take away their weapons. One such person shot down three policemen in Pittsburgh. I‘d like to know exactly what Glenn Beck and FOX News will say the morning after someone takes a shot at our president or kills a senator or congressman.

And if it‘s one of the people who we find a little note in their car or the literature or their television watching habits whose tied to these people who are stirring the pot, or tied to these foundations that people, like Dick Armey, are running, trying to use insurance company money to make look this fake grassroots movement then—then we‘ll see what happens. But at that point we‘ll be in a new zone and it‘ll be too late.

So, my warning to my old friends on the right and those who read my book, “Crazy for God,” knows that without the work of my father, Dr. C. Everett Koop and myself, there would have been no pro-life movement, no religious right to be fomenting these things from, it‘s the same cast of characters. I came to a place in my life when I realized I had made a big mistake.

Now, we‘ve crossed a line into which hate and vitriol have gone to a point where it is anti-democratic and anti-American. These people do not want America to succeed. They would rather see our system go down than have a black president, someone with different political views, someone appointing people like Sotomayor, Hispanic people, women and others. And we have arrived at a point where enough is enough.

So, these people are hatemongers, and they are distributing a kind of information on two levels. One the lies about the health care system requiring euthanasia and all this nonsense, but on another level, as I say leaving a loaded gun on the table, they‘re calling our president Hitler, they‘re spreading this rhetoric, they‘re spreading these lies.

It isn‘t just a question of being bad journalists anymore. These are bad Americans, and they are putting all of us at risk.

MADDOW: Frank Schaeffer, author of “Crazy for God”—thank you very much for coming on the show. Mr. Schaeffer, we really appreciate your insight. Thanks.

SCHAEFFER: Thanks.
_________________

James Dobson's book Marriage on Trial, et al, are those loaded guns "left" on the table.

They were designed as weapons of violence, to rip and tear lives apart.

Designed. Carefully, carefully, designed.

Sociopaths: The Predators Among Us.

2009-08-09T23:13:00.004-04:00

This is a repost from a thread I started on SoulForce, in response to a request to elaborate on a statement I made about sociopaths:

But, I can’t stress enough, it needs to be understood and accepted that some people do not have the brain capacity to feel normal emotions, and are human predators, just as sure as the brutality of any wild animal. And they don’t wear a bell, but often times wear an air of disarming charm.

Here’s an article (quoted from below) with some excerpts from another book I just read: Without Conscience: the Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us © 1993.

It pretty much confirmed what I had read in The Sociopath Next Door © 2005.

(Some simple Google searches will lead to a lot of articles on the subject.)

The subjects were asked to perform a simple task: hit a button as soon as they recognized a word flashed on a computer screen. While monitoring the subjects' brain waves, the researchers alternated nonsensical strings of letters with neutral words such as "table," and emotionally evocative words like "maggot" and "cancer." What they found was that normal subjects spent more time processing emotion-laden words than the psychopaths. "When you see a word like 'cancer,' you have all sorts of associations - fear, or you think of someone who's had cancer," says Hare. "But for psychopaths, the word 'cancer' and the word 'table' had the same emotional connotations - which is to say, not very many. It's as if they're emotionally color-blind."

Even more staggering were the findings of a study conducted by New York City psychiatrist Joanne Intrator, with Hare's collaboration, at the Bronx Veterans Administration hospital in 1993. The investigators employed the same language test, this time injecting the subjects with a radioactive tracer and scanning color images of their brains. As normal subjects processed the emotion-laden words, their brains lit up with activity, particularly in the areas around the ventromedial frontal cortex and amygdala. The former plays a crucial role in controlling impulses and long-term planning, while the amygdala is often described as "the seat of emotion." But in the psychopaths, those parts of the brain appeared to remain inactive while processing the emotion-laden words. That, says Hare, helps explain why a psychopath's conscience is only half-formed. "I showed the scans to several neurologists," recalls Hare. "They said that it did not even look like a human brain. One of them asked, 'Is this person from Mars?' "

Tests like these are scientific indicators, there are also checklists of behaviors that are taken into account in the attempt to diagnose a person as sociopathic/psychopathic.
___________
This is a long one, so if you're interested, you can read the rest of it here.

Condescension theater, with Dr. Michael Brown

2009-08-05T02:58:00.016-04:00

From Box Turtle Bulletin:

Speaking of Condemnations of Tel Aviv Shootings
Jim Burroway
August 4th, 2009

We would be remiss if we didn’t also point out that Charlotte, NC-based pastor Michael Brown was first out of the box with this statement early Sunday morning while most of Americas were waking up to the news

I left a comment there that I wish to expound on.

--Dr. Michael Brown… …has "categorically and unequivocally denounced" the murderous shootings

--he was "shocked and saddened" to hear the news of the killings

--"…this has all the markings of an act of raw hatred, and as such it must be utterly renounced.”

--“Whatever differences any of us may have… …we must maintain those differences with civility and respect.”

--“…it behooves us as leaders to set an example of civility and respect in the midst of our differences…”

It’s a relatively short article, yet he made good use of it.

The song and dance goes a little something like this: Denounce violence and hatred, plead for civility and respect, rinse and repeat.

Violence and hatred = bad
Civility and respect = good

Or so the story should go.

My favorite paragraph:

Brown points to the non-violent example of Jesus who instructed his followers to put down their swords and to take up their crosses – meaning, to renounce violence and to practice self-denial – noting that it was this example that inspired the non-violent social movements of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

And voilà, he is now associated with not only miraculous peacemakers, but also martyrdom.

And what does civility and respect look like in the land of Brown?

From his PDF Diversity or Perversity?:

In any debate over “gay rights,” the word “diversity” is sure to occur, and over the last decade, the word has been used brilliantly by gay activists and educators. After all, who would oppose diversity?
---
Recent developments in the Netherlands confirm the semantic association between diversity and perversity,
---
Specifically, the NVD [Neighborly Love (or, Charity), Freedom, and Diversity] wants to allow “individuals, from the age of 12, to vote, have sex, gamble, choose their place of residence, and use soft drugs. . . . They also intend to eliminate marriage in the law, permit public nudity anywhere . . . and to legalize private use of child pornography and allow non-violent pornography to be screened on daytime television” (as cited in Wikipedia). They also want to encourage bestiality, as long as it does not result in the “sexual mistreatment” of animals. All this in the name of maximizing diversity! One must ask again: Isn’t this perversity rather than diversity?
---
Let us learn a lesson from the Netherlands: Once “diversity” is associated with sexual behavior the sky – or, more accurately – the gutter is the limit. Now would be a good time to redefine our terms, and the sooner we desexualize “diversity,” the better. This is now a term behind which homosexual activism can no longer hide.

Just one of the many “civil” and “respectful” articles on his Coalition of Conscience website.

A couple weeks ago he compared SSA to gangrene.

Oh, and also:

Brown to commenter Dan: I’ve actually interacted extensively with Patrick in the past and understand his points and his methods quite well. He has also written more than one article attacking me and my statements, so I think there’s actually more of a “connect” — and strong disagreement — between us than you realize.

“Strong disagreement” is an understatement. IMNSHO, he’s a sociopath, or at the very least, his sociopathic tendencies are in full bloom. I also put him in the Barber / LaBarbera camp when it comes to longing for the day that LGBT Americans can be legally put to death. He’s just a bit more refined about hiding it.

Further, to the extent that his statements are unwarranted attacks, they are worthy of attack. And to that extent, so too is his behavior.

So, yes, I’m attacking his character and his statements, but he ain’t no victim.

Gaslighting: [I]s a technique used to either scare a person, or to cause them to appear to discredit their own judgment or even sanity in front of others.

In this case, he gets a royal kick out of convincing members of the pro-LGBT community that his stated motives are genuine. Double points if he can persuade someone to make a 180º turn around. The prize is getting us to second guess ourselves in the face of his hate speech.

Hate speech = hatred = hate crime. You’d have to be stupid to not see that hate speech leads to violence, and I’m sure there are many people who are that stupid, Brown, however, is not one of them. He oozes cunning, and all we degenerates are just pawns in his world, to be toyed with for his amusement.

From “The Sociopath Next Door”:

“The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.”

And as we all know by now, poor defenseless little Dr. Brown is under assault by we big bad “militant homosexual activists”…simply because he has deeply held “moral” beliefs...which he holds…deeply.

Like the belief that it’s a noble and Christlike thing to portray every LGBT person on the planet as a drug-abusing, child-molesting, bestiality-loving pervert.

“this has all the markings of an act of raw hatred, and as such it must be utterly renounced.”

You have your work cut out for you, Dr. Brown.

The Big Lie About Universal Health Care

2009-08-04T18:31:00.010-04:00

Set up: I'm only using Virginia Foxx's statements as an example of the talking points that so many Republicans and their brainless followers are regurgitating.

I want to highlight some "socialized" health care testimony from someone who would know---a Canadian.

But first...

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC): “There are no Americans who don’t have healthcare. Everybody in this country has access to healthcare,” she says. “We do have about 7.5 million Americans who want to purchase health insurance who can not afford it,”

More Foxx..: Some people think that the solution involves a Washington takeover of your relationship with your doctor where Washington tells you what treatment you can or cannot have. That may sound good until you get a letter from Washington informing you that you’ve been denied a procedure or medication because it’s not approved. Not approved by who? A bureaucrat, not your doctor.

Still more Foxx..: The Republican plan would "make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government."
~~~~
Oh how I long for the days of Clinton...

The following is from a thread at SoulForce called "The Big Lie About Universal Health Care."

It was started by a user named offog who is from Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. I found it quite illuminating and asked if I could post it here, and hooray, offog said yes:

offog: I was watching The Daily Show on Wednesday night, and one item stuck with me. It showed several short clips of people saying that government-run health care would mean government bureaucrats standing between you and your doctor. That was pretty much the wording each speaker used. It seems to be a big talking point these days for opponents of universal health care. One guy even added, "like they do in Canada." Whaaat? I'm a 50-year-old Canadian gal, and I've never had to deal with government interference in my health care.

I'm appealing to the folks in blogland to help spread the word that this talking point is totally BOGUS! Why do I care? It's all about my favorite motto: "What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all." The quotation is from J.S. Woodsworth, one of those EEEVIL Canadian socialists who was a Member of Parliament during the 1930s.

I'd like to give a couple of examples of how things really work with Canadian Medicare. Back in 1992, I found a lump in my breast. I went to my G.P. for an exam, and he referred me to a specialist. The specialist examined me and scheduled me for a biopsy on the spot. Within a couple of weeks, I was in the hospital for the surgery. Shortly after that, I got the result. (Fortunately, the lump was benign.) All I had to do to get this treatment was show my health card.

One winter morning a few years ago, I was walking to the office when I slipped on a patch of ice, fell backwards, and hit the back of my head really good. I didn't feel any dizziness, so I though I was okay. Then late in the evening the next day, I came down with a severe headache and nausea. I was worried about a possible concussion, so I called the Health Line. That's a 24-7 hotline staffed by nurses. I explained my situation to a nurse and asked if I should go to the Emergency Room. She said I should. Fortunately, the nearest hospital ER is just a few blocks from my home.

When I got to the ER, I went to the reception desk, showed my health card, and explained the problem. The person at the desk filled in a short form. I had to wait only about half an hour or 45 minutes for someone to see me. They scanned my head, told me I was okay, and gave me a couple of pills for the headache and nausea. By then, it was after midnight and I was a little nervous about walking alone that late. A staff member got a nice security guard to give me a ride home.

At no point in either case did anybody have to contact any government office for permission for exams, tests or treatment. No big long forms to fill out in triplicate. No endless sitting on hold on the phone, waiting for some bean-counter to get to my case. No having to worry about coverage being denied. Ya hear that? No bureaucratic interference!

Last year I watched the Michael Moore movie, Sicko. I saw all kinds of bureaucratic interference from the insurance company bureaucrats. One poor woman was denied coverage for her breast cancer treatment because the insurance company decided that she was too young to have cancer. Stuff like that happens all the time in the U.S., and Americans are supposed to believe that "government bureaucrats" are going to be so much worse?!

First, I'll take my chances any day with a government bureaucrat over a private company bureaucrat. If a government bureaucrat screws me over, I can at least complain to my Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of Parliament (MP), and they have to answer to the voters. Governments have to answer to the voters too. Secondly, with Canada's universal health care, government bureaucrats don't interfere with everyday health care decisions. The decisions are between you and your doctor, honestly!

I've heard opponents of universal health care talk about how health care decisions should be left to doctors and patients. Well, you sure don't get that with private health insurance. Insurance company employees will deny people benefits for the lamest reasons, and get bonuses for doing so.

Americans are the savviest consumers in the world. They don't tolerate shoddy products and service from retail stores, car dealers, or auto repair shops. So what are you folks doing putting up with this crummy service from the private health insurance companies? Come on, everybody; you're in the land of Ralph Nader!

Don't let people scare you with the "government bureaucrat" boogeyman. Tell your families and neighbors the truth about universal health care. Tell them that Americans deserve better than they've been getting. Spread the word on your favorite blogs. And tell your Senators and House Representatives that you won't be fooled by the misinformation campaigns.
~~~~
Aaaaaand, one for the road:

Bible Harness

2009-07-30T19:16:00.002-04:00

Where I've been lately...

2009-07-30T01:20:00.005-04:00

These are a couple of articles I wrote for Ex-Gay Watch. The Michael Brown one really sapped me. I transcribed a 40 minute episode from his radio show which entailed listening to it at least 4 times. I felt so dirty...

Building ‘London Bridges’ with Dr. Michael Brown
Posted on July 1st, 2009 by Patrick Fitzgerald

"Brown’s feigned interest in “building bridges” seems like it was designed to inspire condescension-conversations that are meant to elicit an angry response. That way they can see our supposedly explosive nature in person—confirming just how undeserved of legal protections we all are, and further fueling the victim/moral superiority meme."

Book Review: Alan Chambers ‘Leaving Homosexuality’
Posted on July 17th, 2009 by Patrick Fitzgerald

"...In the first part of that paragraph, Chambers defines homosexuality as a state of being: “to be a homosexual.” Then switches gears, defines homosexuality as a behavior, and voilà, the pro-gay movement now considers sexual behavior to be as uncontrollable as an epileptic attack."

Movie: Explicit Ills

2009-07-28T20:21:00.014-04:00

I watched this last Friday and thought it was inspiring. Not necessarily while I was watching it, but it all kind of came together at the end

It’s a movement too, called the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign (linked to below). I took the liberty of typing out the "Get Involved" portion that was on the special features, and will probably be more interesting after having seen the movie (and liked it).

There’s a good synopsis of the movie here.

The special features text is rather long, so I'm including only the first paragraph after the trailer, the rest is on my other blog and linked to below.

Then comes an interesting and relevant Rachel Maddow clip and it’s corresponding transcript on the minimum wage.

I think a lot about what can be done to combat the hell on Earth that is life for much, if not most of humanity. Shortly before watching the movie I had been thinking, despondently, about what really can be done to help save the world. The segment from the special features answered it for me---end poverty. If we could end poverty, we could have the closest thing to heaven on Earth that is possible. Not that achieving that would be easy, but it’s a very simple and easy to remember solution.

Unfortunately, about 30% of the US population are united in their unreachable brainlessness, so we have our work cut out for us. I am not hopeful, but it's movies and movements like this that at least give me something to grasp onto.

EXPLICIT ILLS
1. Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign
http://old.economichumanrights.org/index.shtml

Mission Statement - The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign is committed to unite the poor across color lines as the leadership base for a broad movement to abolish poverty. We work to accomplish this through advancing economic human rights as named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as the rights to food, housing, health, education, communication and a living wage job. Continue...

And here's Rachel Maddow on the minimum wage increase and the cost of health insurance @ the 2:16 mark (transcript here):

Transcript @ 2:16:

And finally, thanks to the Democrats‘ midterm election promise in 2006, the minimum wage in America went up today. If you make minimum wage, your annual salary just went from about $13,600 to just over $15,000. Of course, that‘s if you work eight full hours every single freaking week day of every single freaking week and you never get sick and never sleep in once and never leave early ever in the whole entire year. $15,000 grand for the year.

Are you, by any chance, supporting a family on that salary? And by any chance, does your minimum wage job not offer you health insurance? If so, here is the telling awful math about being poor in America today.

The minimum wage annual salary just went up to $15,080 a year, right?

The annual average cost of family health insurance this year is $13,150. Which means if you have a minimum wage job and you want to live the fantasy of buying health insurance for your family, on average, America expects you to live off a grand total of $1,930 for everything else you need for the year - food, shelter, everything. Oh, also, we‘re the richest country on earth.

And here's one to drive the point home for we masochistic blubberers...

Not Gay

2009-07-19T14:31:00.004-04:00

$ Loving Gays $ - Exodus style

2009-07-17T19:06:00.006-04:00

Ex-Gay Ministry Expands Reach Through Merger

During a press conference Wednesday in Wheaton, Ill., Exodus International announced a merger with Transforming Congregations, an ex-gay ministry affiliated with the United Methodist Church, and OneByOne, a similar outreach affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA).

I don't know how important this is, but I enjoyed what Randy Thomas had to say about it.

the ministry also hopes to reduce the culture-war dichotomy that casts Christians as either condemning homosexuals or uncritically embracing the gay lifestyle.

Dichotomy: contrast, opposition, irreconcilable difference, gulf, contradiction, separation, clash

It's a sad sad day when we sinners judge those Christians who make their living by conflating human sexuality with sexual perversion.
______________
BTW, "gay lifestyle" is code speak for hundreds of sexual partners.

Genocide For Jesus

Andrew Breitbart on the “threat” of unarmed liberals.

Rick Santorum: Anti-American

Keith's Special Comment: The Four Great Hypocrisies of the Debt Deal

Teens hopped up on Shamanism

Happy belated Thanksgiving

It Get's Better

Thank a Liberal

Focus on the Family: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" vote next week

Manhattan Declaration's statement on marriage.

“It’s Gay, Not SSA”

Maddow at her maddest

Father Corapi on homosexuality

Maafa 21: anti-abortion propaganda bait and switch

Focus on the Family seeks to deprive children of parents.

*God hates staying together for the kids*

Focus on the Family upset about too much respect

Exodus’ Jayson Graves keeps the focus on the anus.

An expression of what is referred to as the "Second Coming."

Let the Book Burning Begin

Gay marriage, no longer just about a P and a V.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R Kansas), ponders the criminalization of same-sex attraction.

Bishop Harry Jackson loves like a rusty gate.

Conservatives have no voice in the media.

Absence makes some hearts grow colder.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow addresses situation in Uganda, and she’s naming names.

When Goodness is a Sin

Happy Thanksgiving 2009

Sarah-pocalypse Now

Maine guidance counselor defends right to abuse GLBT students.

Just catching up on my politics...

Troglodytes disprove evolution

Lily Allen - Fuck You [ HQ live ]

Rick Scarborough on hate-crime legislation: "I’m not here to hurt anyone"

Hate houses Churches in Maine threatened by evil homosexual activists FOR NO REASON AT ALL!

Focus on the Family smarter than the AMA

Congress considers sodomizing religious freedom

Love Won Out protest in Alabama

I JUST WANNA [FUCKING] DANCE: Alison Jiear

DC councilman takes Maryland's Dr. Ruth Jacobs to task on marriage equality

Joe Lieberman Says He'll Block Reid's Health Care Bill

GLSEN’s “Ally Week” makes lobbyists of gay allies

Daily Show: October 12, 2009: CNN Leaves It There

FOTF, miniscule cost of DP benefits evil. GW's $4 trillion debt AOK.

Matthew Shepard: December 1, 1976 -- October 12, 1998

Smoking leads to looking gay

Exodus/Focus favor the bullying and harassment of gay youth

Is Being Gay a Choice

Protect Insurance Companies PSA

The Amazing Atheist OWNS The 9/12 Protesters

"it essentially makes children adults at age 12...to make their own decision"

Billionaires Take DC: The Movie

Aimee Mann: Stupid Thing

Bryan Adams: Heat of the Night

Randy Thomas: "tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions"

Patrick McAlvey, Ex-Gay Survivor

James Dobson: "I have never said anything hateful about homosexuals"

Sociopaths: The Predators Among Us.

Condescension theater, with Dr. Michael Brown

The Big Lie About Universal Health Care

Bible Harness

Where I've been lately...

Movie: Explicit Ills

Not Gay

$ Loving Gays $ - Exodus style

God hates staying together for the kids