Back to Basics

The New York Times, a paper supposedly devoted to freedom of speech, is giving sympathetic coverage to a frivolous lawsuit designed to silence an American Christian minister. Scott Lively is being sued by the George Soros-funded Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) for “crimes against humanity” for criticizing homosexuality during a trip to Uganda.

The suit represents the most extreme development yet in a Soros-funded campaign to expand rights for homosexuals and legalize prostitution in the East African country and destroy its emerging Christian culture.

Lively, who has spoken of the “The Global Threat of Homosexuality” and the “Lavender Marxists” targeting Uganda, was himself the target of protests from an ACORN-like group, Arise for Social Justice, as the suit was being filed and reported on by the Times. Lively is currently based in Massachusetts, where he runs Abiding Truth Ministries and Holy Grounds Coffee Shop, an inner-city Christian ministry which offers assistance to the poor, the homeless and the destitute.

The latter has been the subject of protests in the past from the Occupy movement.

“The lawsuit maintains that beginning in 2002, Mr. Lively conspired with religious and political leaders in Uganda to whip up anti-gay hysteria with warnings that gay people would sodomize African children and corrupt their culture,” Times “journalist” Laurie Goodstein reports.

There is nothing in the 47-page suit that provides any such evidence of a conspiracy. Instead, the suit attempts to demonize Christians in Uganda, also named in the suit, who with the help of Americans such as Lively are trying to protect their culture from foreign interests.

A major supporter of the gay rights movement, Soros and his Open Society Institute sponsored a four-day workshop in 2009 on legal strategies “to promote lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in Africa,” including Uganda. The Open Society Institute acknowledged that its “Initiative for Eastern Africa” had drawn “scrutiny from conservative leaders” in Uganda “for supporting sexual minority groups.”

Contrary to what the Times reports, the real “conspiracy,” which is open for all to see, is now coming from the CCR, Arise for Social Justice, and the Times itself. They have launched an obviously coordinated attack on Lively, in an attempt to discredit and silence him. But another result could very well be more violent threats on Lively personally. Last October Lively spoke at a conference sponsored by Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) when Marxist protesters threw a couple of bricks through the glass doors of the church where he was appearing.

“This is just a sample of what we will do if you don’t shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH … [F**k] Scott Lively. Quit the homophobic [sh*t]!” Read the note that accompanied one of the bricks.

In the court case, filed in Massachusetts, they are using a small gay rights group in Uganda, known as SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda) as their plaintiff. But make no mistake—Soros money and muscle are behind it.

The Times cites claims that the suit targets Lively’s “actions,” not his speech, when in fact the legal document is full of alleged statements by Lively that are said to be “in violation of international law.” As such, the suit is a blatant attack on freedom of speech.

So much for Obama’s 2008 campaign promise. From Politico:

The Obama Administration said Friday it is declining to defend the government in yet another lawsuit challenging federal laws limiting recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder sent Congressional leaders a letter formally notifying them that the Justice Department will not defend a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law preventing same-sex spouses of military personnel from receiving veterans’ benefits. . . . .

Obama has fulfilled his promise (proclamation) to change America as the photo attests. This is an example of “San Francisco Values” that Democrat Nancy Pelosi is determined to see all of America embrace—UNDER THE FORCE OF LAW! (PHOTO COMING)

Indeed that very creature in the photo might be going to lunch somewhere in the city (which is perfectly legal in San Francisco), and plop his naked fecus filled butt in a chair that an unsuspecting patron may sit in later. Gross!

What is worse, if you are in that restaurant and your face expresses disgust or disapproval, the confused man can have YOU arrested for a hate crime. I kid you not. That is what Obama’s change in America has wrought. It is to be noted that the hate crime law was founded and pushed by the Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League). The Jews have actually sabotaged their own religion and culture.Why?

It is confused individuals like the one above, with the gender identification disorder, that is favored in the abominable new law, California SB 48, which MANDATES that our children in the public schools be taught to see these people as role models, to admire homosexuals, transgenders, cross-dressers, to emulate them, praise them, and help recruit others into those lifestyles.

This ushers in a new perverse freedom where anyone can use any bathroom, dressing room or shower they desire in the schools and can work openly in the school cafeteria and as teachers dressed or undressed as above. Macy’s created a furor recently when they fired a clerk who told a man he could not be in the women’s dressing rooms. Has the world gone nuts?

Wedding certificates no longer list “Bride” and “Groom.” They are now listed as Party 1 and Party 2. This is insane!  Again, Obama promised that he would change America. And he has!  He recently sent a Congratulations card to a ‘gay’ couple who went though a ‘marriage’ ceremony.

Apart from Obama’s attack on morals and family values, which is the very foundation for a successful country, the following stats were provided by Helen Trautman, CEO of Results Unlimited in Pittsburgh, who also furnished the photo:

This puts Obama’s economy measures into a much better perspective.

Lesson # 1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000mc
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts: $385

Got It ?????
OK now Lesson # 2:

Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let’s say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do?  Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap?
Your choice is coming Nov. 2012

For generations of Americans, the most famous kiss between a Navy sailor and a nurse occurred during the celebration of V-J Day in New York’s Times Square on August 14, 1945.

The photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt was published in Life magazine a week later. It said everything you needed to know about the joy with which the nation responded to the end of World War Two and everything about the shared values of the nation.

So, when a photo of a homecoming kiss between Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta kissing her “partner”, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell went public on December 22, it set gay and lesbian hearts atwitter. What the predominantly heterosexual population thought of it was unreported.

According to news reports, “Navy officials said it was the first time a same-sex couple was chosen to have the first kiss. The first-kiss is a Navy tradition for ships returning to port. David Bauer, the commanding officer of the Oak Hill, said the crew’s reaction was positive” and he informed the Associated Press “It’s going to happen and the crew’s going to enjoy it.”

Different times, different values. Perhaps.

But why? The answer is the way the U.S. military has been used by gay and lesbian advocacy groups as a petri dish to force social change. The other location for influencing such change is in our nation’s schools and manifests itself in charges of massive bullying and questionable sex education curriculums, many of which evoke outrage among today’s parents.

When then-candidate Barack Obama promised transformational change in America, it is doubtful that those who voted for him realized that part of that change was his advocacy of gay rights. In June, at a fund-raiser in New York composed of gay, lesbian, and transsexual supporters, Obama touted his efforts to advance gay rights and promised further progress. He stopped short of declaring support for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Earlier, however, in February the Obama administration said it would no longer oppose legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), just two months after Congress and the President agreed to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the military’s ban on openly gay service members. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Congress saying that DOMA, passed in 1996, “discriminated” against gays.

Let that sink in. The Obama administration thinks that the defense of traditional marriage between a man and a woman is “discrimination.” Since the dawn of civilization, the union between a man and a woman has been the keystone of societies everywhere. Even the extension of “civil unions” with expanded rights for gay couples has not been enough for advocates of homosexuality.

Those with short memories may not recall that it was another Democrat President, Bill Clinton, who created an uproar within days of taking office when he let it be known in 1993 that he intended to repeal the ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. military. At the time, a Pentagon study concluded that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” The study, however, also proposed a policy that came to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” preventing recruiters from screening or discouraging homosexuals from joining.

There were and are still good reasons for the military’s opposition to homosexuals serving.

Homosexual Army soldier Bradley Manning’s bizarre behavior, which included calling himself “Breanna” and dressing in women’s clothes, might be expected to lead some in the media to question whether Congress should have repealed the policy banning open homosexuality in the military. Instead, however, many stories about Manning’s preliminary hearing are focusing on charges from his attorneys that his confusion about his own “gender identity” means that he is somehow the victim.

“Soldier’s gender identity issues are raised in WikiLeaks case” was the headline over a Washington Post article.

But one homosexual website is worried about these stories and headlines. “This could play out very poorly in the court of public opinion: Just as we’ve closed the door on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and are getting Americans to see gays and lesbians can serve proudly in the Armed Forces, we have someone at the center of the biggest security leak in U.S. history claiming his gender confusion and sexuality factored into his rationale for putting national interests at risk,” it said.

President Obama had promised during the 2008 campaign to repeal the anti-homosexual policy and in office has championed the appointments of homosexual and “transgendered” people to high-level federal positions. Obama’s proposed repeal was vigorously supported by media personalities such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, a lesbian activist.

In another major embarrassment to the homosexual cause, homosexual activist Dan Choi, who has also appeared on the Rachel Maddow show, is actively supporting Manning. Discharged from the Army for publicly announcing his own homosexuality, Choi calls Manning “an excellent solider” and said at a demonstration in support of him that “We see the situation where our comrade is in shackles and chains, he is on trial. But I remind all of us gathered here today because Bradley Manning stood up for the truth, he is the most free among all of us. He is not the one on trial, the United States of America is on trial today. Our reputation, and what our country stands for.”

Choi, treated as a hero by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, had given Reid his West Point graduation ring in July of 2000 at a meeting of liberal activists and asked the senator to keep it until the military’s homosexual exclusion policy was repealed. Reid then gave the ring back in celebration of the repeal. “Choi joined Reid on stage and gave the majority leader a hug,” one report said. “The next time I get a ring from a man,” Choi tweeted later, “I expect it to be for full, equal, American marriage.”

Reid himself posted the photo of him giving Choi his ring back.

But when it appeared that Reid wouldn’t be able to pass a repeal of the homosexual exclusion policy, Choi had ripped Reid, saying, “Harry Reid is a pussy and he’ll be bleeding once a month.” He later apologized for the comments.

Asked why the major gay rights groups are not supporting Manning, Choi told Accuracy in Media that “their strategy focuses on getting politicians to like us, and re-elect those politicians who pretend to like us every election cycle. National lobby groups do not want to upset President Obama, who has already pronounced the soldier’s guilt without trial. This hero, PFC Manning, told the truth despite the consequences, and valued integrity over rank.

Heterosexuals are always being accused by homosexuals of being narrow-minded and intolerant, but have any of them ever said they understood why straights might regard sodomy as disgusting behavior?

Have they ever said that although we all grasp the fact that not all homosexuals are pedophiles, it still behooves them to speak out against adults having gay sex with “consenting” teenagers and, furthermore, why it would be inappropriate and criminally irresponsible for the Boy Scouts to allow homosexuals to be Scout Masters and to oversee camping trips? Just as an aside, I can’t help reflecting on the fact that “camping” is a word long used to describe gays acting out in the most outrageous fashion.

Also, when they defend their life style because they were “born that way,” are they blind to the fact that pederasts and rapists and, I dare say, serial killers, could, in their own defense, make the identical claim?

I happen to know a great many conservatives, and I don’t know a single one who believes that gays should be bullied, beaten, persecuted or ostracized by their families. That’s not to say there aren’t any, but I’m happy to report that I haven’t run into them. At the same time, I don’t know why a crime committed against a homosexual should be deemed a “hate crime” and carry a heavier penalty in a court of law than the very same offense when the victim happens to be a heterosexual.

For that matter, I have no idea why after thousands of years of Judeo-Christian civilization, the concept of marriage should be turned on its head simply to accommodate same-sex couples because they insist they love each other. People love all sorts of things, ranging from their dogs, horses and cats to their cars, their hobbies and their hometown football teams. All of that is simply a matter of personal preference. It’s only when gay activists make demands that Love is assumed to trump tradition, the law and common sense.

I don’t hate gays. Having worked for decades in Hollywood, I have known a great many of them. How could I not? As in any group, some are decent and some aren’t. Some are excellent co-workers, others are just silly and annoying. Some are extremely talented, while others just think they are because they happen to be gay.

But one thing I have noticed is that I never hear any of them campaigning for the same privilege they demand for themselves being extended to others, such as incestuous couples or would-be polygamists. After all, if love between consenting adults is all it takes to radically transform the concept of marriage from being a sacred relationship between one man and one woman, why shouldn’t the same rights be extended to those other eccentrics?

What gives a man proclaiming his undying love of another man greater moral authority than a back-sliding Mormon who insists that he loves and wishes to marry a dozen consenting waitresses he met at his local Hooter’s?

©2011 Burt Prelutsky.

There was a time when civil rights were understood to mean those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Now, at least in the State of Massachusetts, they mean the right of homosexuals and transgender people to flaunt their lifestyle anywhere, any time. If you don’t like it and say so, the police can arrest you.

I have always been a live-and-let-live kind of person. I consider a person’s sexual preferences to be their own business. No longer. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender crowd is determined to impose their sexual “orientations” on everyone, starting in, but not limited to schools.

On November 16, the Massachusetts legislature pushed through a controversial “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill. The whole process was so unethical as to be breathtaking. In two hours, the bill went from committee release to re-write, to a late-night House vote and early-morning Senate final passage. The Senate, unlike the House, passed it by voice vote to avoid a roll call to identify who supported it.

Wham, bam, thank you Maam.

Apparently, in Massachusetts the proper review, discussion, and passage of legislation only applies to those laws not favored by its homosexual lobby.

As MassResistance, a pro-family group, noted, “Its passage appears to be timed to coincide with ‘Transgender Awareness Week’ in Massachusetts.” Since when did that State or any other get to the point of having such absurd events? Since when have we reached a point where any spoken objection to Gay Pride parades or similar events can be deemed a crime? It’s not a crime. It’s free speech.

MassResistance noted that Governor Deval Patrick “a strong supporter of homosexual and transgender movements will sign the bill within days. The only Republican in the state legislature to vote for the bill was Rep. Dan Winslow who just happens to have been former Gov. Romney’s chief legal counsel and is credited with facilitating gay marriages in Massachusetts.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man with a woman. To redefine this institution, central to all societies, is to shred the bonds and standards on which society is based. What we have learned, however, is that homosexuals are not content with being granted civil unions with rights comparable to marriage.

The arrogance this represents is appalling, but the implications of the homosexual and transgender lobby’s efforts have far greater implications for everyone, but especially for families who do not want their children exposed to “choices” they are too young to understand and which their parent’s faith or beliefs disapprove. These matters do not belong in a school curriculum.

Making homosexuality “mainstream” and doing so by force of law runs counter to common community values that Americans have held since the nation’s founding. Exercising tolerance is one thing, but facing jail for any act of disapproval is quite another.

Who defines a “hate crime” and when did America begin to criminalize thought, as opposed to action? The answer is that hate crime legislation is the invention of the gay lobby.

Please, please, please understand, as we said in the 60s, “where I’m coming from.” This article is NOT about bashing homosexuals. I have homosexual family and friends whom I love very much.

However, I found David Gregory’s attack on Michele Bachmann for comments she made regarding homosexuality to be extremely disturbing and offensive. Bachmann is a Christian and simply compassionately espoused the biblical point of view.

Just as Muslims live by the Quran, Christians strive to live by the Bible. Here are a few Bible quotes about homosexuality.

Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…”

Rom. 1:26-27, “…for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…”

Whether you agree with the Bible or not is irrelevant. My point is Bachmann did not “make up” her take on homosexuality. It came from a holy book considered sacred by mega millions worldwide.

So, when Gregory beat up on Bachmann, he was really attacking Christians and the Bible. But, most disturbing was Gregory’s arrogant bullying and implicit threat to all who disagree.

In effect, he announced: We, the media, have declared homosexuality normal; period, end of subject. Anyone of you Neanderthals daring to suggest otherwise will suffer the consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epEzeAZV6Rk

Would Gregory have been so aggressive interviewing a Muslim presidential candidate about their beliefs? I suspect not.

Most Americans accept homosexuals and are repulsed by anyone abusing them. However, America’s acceptance of homosexuals is not good enough for the left. The left wish to bend our arms behind our backs until we cry “uncle,” proclaiming homosexuality to be normal.

Even home improvement and cooking TV programs feature a high number of homosexual couples disproportionate to the population. Clearly, many TV producers have an agenda to normalize the homosexual lifestyle.

My dad has been in Christian ministry as a pastor for 50 years. Dad said he is being pressured to embrace the Gospel of Homosexuality. He added, “Those of us who disagree are being pushed into the closet.”

Has the left won? Are we afraid to quote the Bible’s rebuke of homosexuality?

Think about this folks. According to the left, if you disapprove of men sodomizing each other and women performing cunnilingus on each other, not only are you a “hater,” you are deemed mentally ill; diagnosed as homophobic and in need of treatment.

During his Bachmann interview, Gregory kept referring to homosexuals as “Gay Americans” in an attempt to make disapproval of a “sexual behavior” the same as discriminating against an ethnic group; African, Hispanic and other Americans. The left reinforces the theme, calling opposition to the homosexual agenda “bigotry.”

Black Civil Rights groups are offended by the left comparing their struggle to that of homosexuals.

I state again, “I have homosexual family and friends whom I love very much.” However, loving them does not mean I must submit to dictatorial pressure from the media to embrace the homosexual lifestyle as being normal.

Low-brow activity, dirty deeds done by daylight, these can only be the beginnings of the words needed to describe the strong-arm tactics of homosexual activists here in the state of Kansas. The gay advocacy group Flint Hills Human Rights Project, which has been on the losing end of a push to gay-ify the heartland, has decided to protest Christianity in a very direct fashion. As reported by Brad Dornes in the Manhattan Mercury, members of the organization recently staged a protest at the Manhattan Christian College on enrollment day. Students attempting to enroll in classes at the Christian college had to wade through gay activists carrying homosexual advocacy signs and others from the organization offering students informational paraphernalia on the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender lifestyles.

Ted Morgan, the co-chair for the Flint Hills Human Rights Project, said that the protest was simply to “raise awareness” for the LGBT community. This kind of hypocrisy is troublesome and depicts the true nature of the homosexual push here in Kansas and across the nation. If we wish to bring some honesty to the discussion, the entire city of Manhattan as well as the state of Kansas are well aware of the homosexual agenda, as the recent city election of conservative Tea Party candidates brought about the repeal of an anti-discrimination ordinance alteration that created one of the most liberal ordinances in the country. The ordinance alteration, with its arbitrary and capricious impact on traditional Kansans, was a product of the strong-arm tactics of homosexual advocacy groups here in the state. The gay community worked diligently to bypass citizens of Manhattan, Kansas, from having a voice in an ordinance alteration that would have an economic, social and cultural impact on the entire state.

In my interview on March 8, 2011, on the Conscience of Kansas radio program with Flint Hills Human Rights Project media representative Josh McGinn, I voiced my concern at his determination that Kansans outside the gay community should be left out of the decision-making process on how people should live in their own state. I made a prediction in that interview, which was proven true, that the bill alteration would be revoked. The basis for that prediction was based on my belief in two factors that encompass the overwhelming majority of the people of Kansas. First is that many of the people of the state, while very diverse, share a common belief in Judeo-Christian values. The anti-discrimination bill alteration was a personal affront to these values. Second is the simple fact that Kansans don’t like to be strong-armed, knocked about or pushed around. This is what the gay community was doing then and as recent facts show, this is what they are doing now.

Despite the “light and cheerful” spin given by organizational leaders, the protest at Manhattan Christian College was meant first and foremost as a strong-arm tactic against President Kevin Ingram and others within the college’s administration who stood with the majority of the community in championing Christian values on this issue.