Sunday, March 26, 2006


Todays lesson is on the subject of "Diversity"

First let's see what Websters has to say about the meaning of the word.

Definition: Diversity

1. Noticeable heterogeneity; "a diversity of possibilities"; "the range and variety of his work is amazing".

2. The condition or result of being variable.

Specialty Definition: Diversity


A situation that includes representation of multiple (ideally all) groups within a prescribed environment, such as a university or a workplace. This word most commonly refers to differences between cultural groups, although it is also used to describe differences within cultural groups, e.g. diversity within the Asian-American culture includes Korean Americans and Japanese Americans. An emphasis on accepting and respecting cultural differences by recognizing that no one culture is intrinsically superior to another underlies the current usage of the term.

Social Sciences:

The differences in the values, attitudes, cultural perspective, beliefs, ethnic background, sexual orientation, skills, knowledge and life experiences of each individual in any group of people.

Social context:

In a social context, the term diversity refers to the presence in one population of a wide variety of cultures, opinions, ethnic groups, et cetera.

Synonyms: Diversity:
Synonyms: diverseness (n), multifariousness (n), variety (n).

Synonyms within Context: Diversity:

Difference Noun:

difference; variance, variation, variety; diversity, dissimilarity; disagreement; disparity; (inequality); distinction, contradistinction; alteration. modification, permutation, moods and tenses.

Dissent Noun:

dissent; discordance; (disagreement); difference diversity of opinion.

Now that we got that covered. I'd like to bring to your attention the blatant hypocrisy of the homosexuality advocates.

In this article from PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays) titled School Cancels "Diversity" Day we can see that "diversity" is evidently a one way street to those that advocate homosexuality. Apparently, they decided that "Diversity" was "Too Diverse" after the Christians and ExGays demanded a voice and cancelled the whole party.

So much for "diversity". Perhaps they really meant Peversity? I guess they figured that queer indoctrination premised in propaganda is not effective when truth gets in the way!

On the same level of "Tolerance for me and not for thee" Did you see how the homosexuality advocates welcomed the evangelical Christian youth rally to San Fransisco last week?

Here's a gem of a quote from none other than Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco

"they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

Additionally, its also worth pointing out that a cross dressing transvestite/transsexual group that dresses up in costumes that mock the Catholic Church was there to show their one sided perverse brand of "tolerance and deversity" as well.

Sister Mary Timothy, of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, shouts at Christian youths holding a rally on the steps of City Hall in San Francisco. Chronicle photo by Paul Chinn

Sunday, October 23, 2005





Proposed Constitutional Amendments November 8, 2005

Prop. 2 HJR 6 Chisum - Staples

Ballot Language

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Brief Explanation
HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Fred Phelps - Sodomy Advocate.

Everyone knows the notoriously infamous Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps. Pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Or do they?

Phelps' appalling antics serve no real purpose save one, he provides homosexual advocates/activists with an alleged "Christian" spokesman (strawman) who is used to attack and villify all Christians as hate-filled bigots. If Phelps didn't exist, the homosexual lobby would have to invent him. His efforts only aid the homosexual agenda.

Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General in the era of the Clinton Administration was notorious for:

  • leading civil and criminal lawsuits against anti-abortion protesters and activists in many states when the Clinton Administration perceived them as hindering access to abortion.

  • Refusing to prosecute cases against producers of pornography

  • launching government vendetta's against radical fringe Christian groups/cults as evidenced in the Waco fiasco with the Branch Davidians.

  • Urged agressive legal action against businesses and state and local governments that engage in employment discrimination against Gay and transgender persons.

  • Took the bold step of allowing persecution based on sexual orientation stand as a reason for obtaining asylum in the U.S. Countless LGBT individuals have been able to find safety within our borders thanks to this sweeping change, despite the fact that homosexuality was still a reason for exclusion from the U.S.

  • Accepted a community service award from homosexual activist/employees of the U. S. Justice Department.

  • Used her status as a platform to promote and advocate "the urgent need" for sexual orientation based hate crime legislation.

    Yet Fred Phelps and company remain un-molested.

    If homosexuality advocates get their way w. r. t. sexual orientation based hate crimes/hate speech legislation, Phelps will be the reason that Bible will be legally declared hate literature and sound moral teachings and sermons against the sin of sodomy A.K.A homosexuality, same sex marriage, perverted marriage, et, al, will be illegal and verbotten.

    Phelps, a Democrat, endorsed Al Gore's Democratic bid for the presidency in 1988.

    And blatantly referes to President George W Bush as a "mongrel and idiot" on his God Hates Fags website.

    In that respect Phelps has more in common with radical homosexual activists than Conservative Christian fundamentalists. Think about it, you don't have to be the head cashier at wal-mart to figure out which side of the culture war Fred Phelps is on.

    To quote a fellow member of

    "Fred Phelps is to Conservative Christianity as Adolpf Hitler was to Germany".

    Nuff Said!
  • Wednesday, October 12, 2005

    Sign The Marriage Protection Amendment Petition

    The issue of same sex marriage is not simply a question of allowing those who are in love, no matter what gender they are, to be married. It is a battleground for the sanctioning of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and the extremist advocates are seeking to establish it in America against the majority who believe that marriage should not be redefined. With the goal of forcing it into our schools and onto our children they seek to establish a form of homosexual affirmative action and to force it down our throats by dint of hate crime legislation (*soon to morph into "hate speech" legislation).

    Hate crime legislation will be aimed at America's churches and ministers who preach the teaching of the Bible. The Bible will be subject to censorship because it has the potential, under hate crime legislation, to be classified as hate literature.
    The same sex marriage advocacy, who brandishes the Constitution as their point of legality, ignores the First Amendment by seeking to impose censorship on the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

    The minority will dictate to the majority what their morals are going to be and if the majority objects they can be jailed for being homophobic bigots. They can be fired from their jobs for discrimination. They can lose their parental rights because they are teaching their children "intolerance." They will be under the scrutiny of the "thought police" in their schools, churches and workplaces. Big Brother is watching.

    That is why we need an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman so that the radicals do not overthrow decency and sanity in this country. This amendment would serve to halt the left wing judges from declaring the Constitutionality of same sex marriage and to put an end to the mistranslation of the Constitution.

    The left wing supports same sex marriage because it serves to further the moral degradation of the United States leaving it ripe for anarchy. They seek to destroy all that is traditional to create confusion and alienate family values from the mainstream of America who does not view them as "progressive" but rather regressive or digressive.

    I invite mainstream America to stand up for their rights or lose them.

    Posted on 10/12/2005 By Walt. -- Help Save Marriage! Sign the Marriage Protection Amendment petition

    *comment by Harry.

    Good Post Walt! Thanks for the link.

    Fight The Good Fight!

    Monday, September 05, 2005

    In The Life

    Late sunday evening I was up late watching the news coverage of hurricane Katrina's aftermath and while surfing the channels after 12:00am, I came across the British sitcom "Keeping Up Appearances" on my local PBS station, I watched the last few minuets of the show, after the program ended I was just about to turn off the TV when actress Sharon Gless appeared on my TV screen and invited me to watch the latest edition of In the Life Titled 524,000 and Counting

    Sharon Gless--

    We are embarking on a quarter century since the first diagnosis of AIDS in America. The lives lost are now reaching over “524,000 AND COUNTING.” On this edition of In the Life, we explore just how far we have come in the war against AIDS.

    I thought to myself, Ok! This may be interesting! Let's hear how the homosexuality advocates spin this and blame society (read: homophobia and Christian fundamentalists) and the government instead of the complete lack of morality, common sense and personal responsibility on behalf of the homosexual community for the HIV/AIDS crisis in America.

    The program was Dished out in four segments-



    Despite the interviews from "medical experts" the CDC's Deputy Director and an "AIDS activist" no statistics were reported and nobody mentioned the fact that the federal government spends far more taxper dollars on HIV/AIDS research/treatment per patient than they do for Cancer, Heart disease, etc, that effect a greater number of our citizens. I will give them credit for pointing out the facts that A) despite the awareness programs and federal funding the HIV/AIDS epidemic (among homosexuals) continues unabated. and B) The development of new meds gives homosexuals a false sense of security and they continue to engage in risky BEHAVIOR with deadly consequences. Other than that the segment was laced with the usual Reagan's fault, AIDS quilt, Act Up! - Act Out!- Fight AIDS! rhetorical blame everyone else nonsense.


    Very good segment. Documents the testimony of four homosexual men that found out the hard way what happens when one combines promiscuous homosexual activity with drug abuse (Methamphetamine). I'm sorry, I find it very difficult to find any compassion for these otherwise intelligent well educated young men that end up with HIV/AIDS because they threw caution to the wind and embarked on their quest for (described in their own words) "The ultimate Pleasure Experience"


    Segment about "one million homeless teens in the United States" They claim half of which without citing any source for the statistics (no surprise there) are from the LGBT homosexual community. They claim these youngsters are victims and they cannot function "normally" in society and are "often" forced into "unprotected survival sex" (read prostitution) instead of getting their act together and working a normal job. I guess they figure a store clerk or a wal mart employee will never make enough money to keep up with the expense of trying to make a boy appear to be a girl or vice versa. Go figure. The thing that stuck out like a red flag to me was the older "AIDS activists" (homosexuals) seeking these teens out on the street with his "goodie bag" to pass condoms and flavored lubricants out, one activist said "its like handing out long as its the flavored ones they want them" The whole thing was unbelievable, nothing but chicken hawks trolling for fresh meat if you ask me.


    After the third segment my mind was numb from trying to wrap a logical thought around the absurdity of the convoluted excuses they were making for the "VULNERABLE YOUTH" and the general denial of reality with everyone involved. Little did I know what they were about to delve into next.. Get a load of this.. In Hati, They've managed to roll Homosexuality, Voodoo and Religion all into one concept! They are filming a documentary about it. Oh, and there seems to be an HIV/AIDS problem there as well. Who'd have guessed?

    Friday, September 02, 2005

    Repent America

    There's more than devastating destruction in the wake of hurricane Katrina that roared ashore on the gulf coast, the controversial comments made by some are having a negative effect and creating collateral damage as well.

    For example, in his "puff piece" (pun intended) titled “For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind” on Its Robert F. Kennedy Jr's ludicrous opinion that hurricane Katrina is a direct result of The Bush administration's and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's neglect concerning global warming. At one point Kennedy makes a reference to Pat Robertson's 1998 comment suggesting that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God.

    Now it comes to light as reported in a World Net Daily article that Michael Marcavage of Repent America Can be credited with this statement-

    "Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city,"

    ::::Shakes head in disbelief and frowns::::

    Marcavage was one of the five Philadelphia Christians arrested last year for protesting at a homosexual event. The charges eventually were tossed out.

    Now I'm not a well educated theologian, however I've read the bible and as a Christian it puzzles me no end how as Christians, (correct me if I'm wrong) these statements can be Biblically justified. And I suggest they read Genesis 9

    I think we should stick to calling sinners to repentance and leave the Wrath/punishment end of the business to the man upstairs! Otherwise, we as Christians will be seen as Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps types, and nobody (for obvious reasons) will take any of us seriously.

    Please pray for the victims of this storm.

    Thursday, August 25, 2005

    Crazy World:

    I just have to share this with you, its priceless.
    And goes to show that an ounce of common sense from common folk is worth more than a ton of "enlightenment" from the liberal intelligentsia.

    Crazy World: by Charlie Daniels

    The other day somebody told me that the organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known by the acronym P.E.T.A. was protesting an aquarium somewhere because they were going to serve sushi at some function or other. The problem was, according to the P.E.T.A. people, live fish would be watching people eat dead fish.

    Am I out of touch with everything sane and reasonable or is this not the most insane thing you’ve ever heard of?

    Millions of unborn babies being murdered every year and they’re worried about fish. They act as if fish had the intelligence to even know or care about what’s going on outside their tanks. In fact if they’d throw the sushi in the tanks the fish would probably eat it themselves.

    What a crazy world! Young women parade around the street naked to protest animal mistreatment. Do they honestly think that showing their naked bodies will have any effect on things at all? Heck no, it’s just another form of pornography. Do young men actually think about animals when they see a bare female body?

    “Johnny see that naked woman over there, don’t it just make you want to rush out and let the elephants out of the zoo?”

    Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in mistreating animals. I own quite a few of them and would never allow for their mistreatment. But animals are different, they don’t think and reason. Everything they do is instinct, a response to some basic need or a reaction to something they have learned through repetition.

    Animals don’t have souls, nor morals, neither are they monogamous, and could care less about all the trouble P.E.T.A. goes through for them. A bad dog would attack a P.E.T.A. person just as fast as they would attack a non-P.E.T.A. person, in essence biting the hand that protects it.

    God gave man domain over all the earth and there were no stipulations about eating meat, except for certain kinds.

    While I love my dogs I would never dream of having them sit down at the dinner table with the family or take one of my cows to a movie.

    And how about rats, they’re animals too. Do they deserve to be left alone, immune from the exterminator’s spray, to spread their foul diseases?

    And how about rattlesnakes? I think that under the general description of things reptiles would qualify as animals. If you have one living near your child’s play set should you go and talk to it and ask it not to bite your child? Or do you take a gun and blow its cotton pickin’ head off? I vote for the latter.

    If P.E.T.A. people get their way we’ll all be dining on tofu and celery and the animals will be grazing on our front yards, while the buzzards roost in the TV antennas and the raccoons and squirrels will frolic in the flowerbeds.

    Oh give me a home where the snail darter and spotted owl roam.

    I can’t believe I said that.

    Hey you P.E.T.A. folks, lighten up and enjoy life, go have a nice juicy T-bone and relax.

    Pray for our troops.

    What do you think?

    God Bless America

    Charlie Daniels
    August 22, 2005

    Tuesday, August 23, 2005

    Any volunteers?

    I would like to continue to grow this blog and report the truth about and blow the lid off the festering barrel of the radical homosexual agenda and other cultural cancer promoted by the Neo Nazi leftists.

    Its hard to hold a regular job + sidework and still manage to have time to write a new blog posting on a daily basis.

    Help needed in the areas of-
  • *Reporting
  • *Guest writing
  • *Research

    *Credit will be given for all contributions

    Fight the good fight!

    If you're interested email me at

    Any beligerant hostile mail will be reported as spam and deleted.
  • Thursday, August 18, 2005

    The Perverted Professor

    ***WARNING: Graphic vulgarity on behalf of "professor" Vocino***

    In a recent August 1, 2005
    in, Nathaniel Nelson, a Christian Student at University of Rhode Island Writes about his misfortunate encounter with the openly homosexual philosophy professor and homosexual activist (Check out his resume*) Michael Vocino

    Michael Vocino


    In the article Nelson reports that professor Vocino introduced himself to the class on the first day of his Political Philosophy course with the statement:

    "My Name is Michael Vocino and I Like Dick"

    Nelson also reports that he was subjected to what amounts to sexual harassment and forced to defend his faith and conservative political ideology by debating perverted professor in front of the class about homosexuality, same sex marriage and the constant use of vulgar speech of a sexual nature on behalf of the openly homosexual professor.

    Our universities have become full blown hatefests for the morally insane homosexual militancy and sexual atheists to pummel the "evil Christians" among us. Professors like Vocino are why homosexuals have no credibility when they claim there is no homosexual agenda.

    Anyone with half a brain knows that the only reason that drastic steps weren't taken to remedy this situation is because the victim in this case is a Christian! Had there been a strong racial or ethnic aspect to the harassment, the mainstream news media would run with the story like a pack of starving wolves with a deer carcass! Every talking head on the planet would be scrambling to book an interview with the "victim".

    For example lets re-write the story and replace Vocino with a professor who had a sexual preference for the females, and who opened the semester by saying --- (you get the idea)

    He'd be fired immediately, regardless of tenure.

    Monday, August 15, 2005

    Satire or camouflage?

    Whenever the topic of the "gay agenda" comes up the homosexual activists always categorically deny the existence of any such thing. Well, I have presented several such items to them in debates over time, and they all cop out to the idea that these highly detailed strategic lists are simply sarcastic, tongue in cheek satire.

    Looking at the evidence one has to wonder though, by comparing the details of these "satirical" stratagems to today's headlines, you can't help but believe you're reading the homosexual lobby's field manual.

    For example: (warning: very graphic language)
    The Gay Agenda
    Notice how they go through the trouble of posting the disingenuous disclaimer...

    "Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will be, taken out of context, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions."

    Then they go as far as to identify the opposition, and post a list of their enemies?

    This next homo-anarchist screed is dismissed as satire as well, you decide...

    Homosexual Manifesto
    Reference. This essay was printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by Michael Swift, and was reprinted in the February 15-21 1987 Congressional Record.

    Homosexual Manifesto
    by Michael Swift

    THIS ESSAY is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

    We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep.

    Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.

    All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

    All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

    If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

    We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens.

    We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

    Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

    We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

    There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you.

    We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are as invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers. The family unit spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

    All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and aesthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

    The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions.

    We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

    We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks!

    The homo-advocates/activists vehemently insist that their "plight" is as legitimate as the civil rights movement, and make the claim (dispite the fact they're allowed to vote, enroll in any school, ride the front seat of the bus, use the same restroom, etc, etc..) that their struggle is no different.

    If that's the case, then I challenge the gay rights advocates and homosexual activists to please point us in the general direction of some "tongue in cheek satire" in the form of an agenda or manifesto, written by the leadership of the civil rights movement.

    ::: ::: Crickets Chirping ::: :::

    Thursday, August 11, 2005

    Separation Of Church And State

    Myth Or Reality?

    No matter how many times the lie is repeated, it will never be true. "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, Bill Of Rights or any other official US document. However, the United States Constitution strictly FORBIDS the law (including the judicial branch) to PROHIBIT the free exersise of religion. PERIOD!

    And in the era of our founders (same as present day America), Christianity was the major Religion!

    Between the presidency of Thomas Jefferson and the 1963 Supreme Court decision in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) which was decided in conjunction with Murray v. Curlett (the infamous Madelyn Murray O'Hair case), the liberal justices that had been appointed to the Supreme Court decided to violate the common sense established in the 1892 case of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., supra.

    Mr. Justice Brewer is the one who wrote for the Court, in the 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S. case:

    "The churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.

    These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation".
    So stated the Supreme Court in 1892.

    This general mindset toward America's Christian heritage within a nation that respected the religious rights of all, Christian and non-Christian, to worship (or not worship) as they please, existed until a liberal Supreme Court, stuffed with liberal justices from the days of the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, allowed the gavel to strike the cross in 1963!

    Liberalism, Marxism, socialism, and every other "ism" that is hostile to the Christian faith has, with the support of activist liberal judges and justices, shattered the letter and spirit of the law of the land as set forth in our founding documents, and has insulted the grace of God by which this nation was established.

    If anyone still doubts that America is a Christian nation, let them review the charters of the original colonies, the charters of such states as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or New York.

    Besides, If Jefferson intended to build a wall then he breached it himself by placing Bibles (:::gasp:::) and Christian hymnals in the schools as primary textbooks among other things.

    The vast majority of Christian churches also doubled as one room school houses (K-12)for two centuries. How do you deny that fact?

    Separation of church and state is a modern invention. 1963 to be exact, up until that point the myth never exsisted.

    Fighting The Good Fight

    Sexual diversity 101 in kindergarten? Sound like a joke? Its not!

    The USSC ruling on the Lawrence Vs Texas case struck down the states anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. Long story short, the black robed liberal tyrants declared that the government doesn't have any business in peoples bedrooms.

    Well, as it turns out, despite the fact that the slippery slope argument is considered by the liberal intelligentsia to be a logical fallacy, what the sodomites do in the "privacy of their bedrooms" will have a profound impact on the education of our children.

    In the latest battle in the culture war, homosexual advocates are busy indoctrinating the children (K-5) with their idea of normalcy under the guise of diversity and tolerance. And evidently, they could care less about parental consent . Matter of fact, they have the audacity to have you arrested if you object.

    Just ask David Parker of Lexington, Mass.

    Parental Rights vs. Public Schools


    David Parker (search) of Lexington, Mass., is scheduled to go on trial on Sept. 21 for asking his son's public school to provide parental notification before discussing homosexuality with the 6-year old.
    The actual charge is criminal trespassing. But the real issue is whether parents or schools will control the teaching of values to children.

    End excerpt.

    What sticks out like a sore thumb to me, is how intolerant they are when it comes to respecting the beliefs of others, while at the same time demanding tolerance for themselves. How hypocritical.

    If tolerance for diverse families is their credo, then how about a little tolerance of Christian families?

    What ever happened to the good old ABC's And 123's?

    Let the kids get a quality EDUCATION. After they succeed, perhaps, they'll be intelligent enough to take a sociology course on behalf of their own choosing.

    Wednesday, August 10, 2005

    Not so "Gay" Same Sex Marriage!

    What's love got to do with it? In a new spin on the concept of same sex marriage, Two "not so gay" Canadian fellows announce their plans to exploit the legal situation and get hitched.


    The Ottawa citizen reported on Sunday that, while sitting in a bar last week it occurred to Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, that what with both of them being single, apparently without any serious opposite-sex marriage prospects on the line, it wouldn’t be such a bad tax-saving idea to get hitched…to each other. Thanks to the newly instated civil marriage act, extending “marriage” rights to same-sex couples, that’s not a problem. And since the new act doesn’t include any discriminatory restrictions on ‘sexual preference’ (as if that could be measured anyway) the two thoroughly straight men seem to have a clear path to the altar.

    “I think it’s a hoot,” said Bryan Pinn. And you can’t help agree that really, it is, as he says, ‘a hoot’. In fact, what’s really amazing is that in the context of new legislation it all makes a whole lot of sense, and that proves to be the funniest thing of all".

    What next? Well that could be a whole other industrial size can of legally insane, morally challenged, perverted worms. Let's speculate shall we..

    What happens if the prison population decides they want to take advavtage of and exploit their legal right to the benefits of Same Sex Marriage?

    For a bonus, throw in the concept of Polygamy/Polyandry or what ever new terminology they'll have to construe to discribe these multi-spouse marital combinations and the legal and sociological dynamics, not to mention the consequences thereof. Like polygamous "families" of promiscuous homosexual men (think San Francisco) with one kicking the bucket from HIV/AIDS as the "family" goes about recruiting his replacement. Think about it, if they time it just right they could have the funeral AND the wedding on the same day! Yep, sounds like a gay old time to me.

    And lets not forget all the different "obia" isims they'll need to label those that have an "irrational fear or hatred of" or otherwise oppose and refuse to accept these new lifestyle options.

    Got a headache yet? Where's the Tylonol?

    Tuesday, August 09, 2005

    Jesus NEVER spoke of homosexuality

    It never ceases to amaze me what the lengths or should I say the depths the homosexuals and their advocates will go to make excuses for their unwholesome lifestyle choice.

    One of their favorite straw man arguments that they utilize is the old "Jesus NEVER spoke of homosexuality" spiel. Even worse, most people, excluding those of us that have studied and know our Bibles, believe it, and subscribe to the concept that if Jesus didn't speak out against it then he must have been ok with it.

    Their ignorance really comes as no surprise to me because most folks that go along with such absurd concepts are in all probability the kind of "sheeple" that get their spiritual advice and lifestyle ideology from the religion of secular humanism/egoistic hedonism/moral relitivisim and it's clergy --

    Television talk show personalities. Popular pseudo-psychiatry gurus and pop-culture icons that exploit the misfortune and misery of society's uneducated underclass, dysfunctional families, and misguided single parent teenagers who are completely void of morality and personal responsibility.

    Well you get the picture, so let's get back to the topic. "Jesus NEVER spoke of homosexuality" and let's just see if we can get to the truth of the matter. The most popular rebuttal against the Christian Biblical argument against homosexuality is usually phrased into a bold statement and followed by a dazzling question, here's a prime example:

    [Jesus NEVER spoke of same-sex marriage as being wrong. In fact, He NEVER even spoke of homosexuality. If same-sex marriage is such a destructive force do you not think He would have warned us about it?]

    Well folks, there's an answer to that tripe you'll probably never hear on the Rikki Lake show because they'd be too busy sacrificing Christians on the altar of political correctness.

    The simple truth of the matter is, Jesus didn't have to say ONE word about homosexuality, or anything to warn us about homosexuality, at the time Jesus walked among men homosexuality was a capital crime punishable by death. Common knowledge to everyone of that era and common sense to everyone of this era that cares enough about the TRUTH to seek it honestly.
    Can you show us in the Bible where Christ was a homosexuality advocate?

    Christ said... Mark 10:6
    But from the beginning of creation he [God] made them male and female. 10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, 10:8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    That looks ironclad to me, no divorce and no homosexuality a.k.a. same sex marriage.

    While it is true Christ is not on record condemning homosexuality, Christ is also not on record condemning child molesting, bestiality, necrophilia, excessive credit card interest charges, smoking crack cocaine, injecting hard narcotics into your circulatory system or consensual cannibalism. Should all these be okay, then????

    You see. Jesus Christ is (present tense) a Jewish Rabbi, well versed in the "Torah" A.K.A. old testament law of the prophets.
    Here's what he said about the law...

    Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Can you give us one single example of same sex marriage using the bible? Didn't think you could.

    Look at the context of a bible verse in order to interpret its meaning. In Leviticus 18, homosexuality is one of three sins mentioned, each given equal precedence as sinful. In order, God condemns child sacrifice (shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire), homosexuality (shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind), and bestiality (Neither shalt thou lie with any beast).

    God then groups all three sins under the same warning: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. In other words, God said "I destroyed the other nations that used to be in this land because of these sins, and the same warning applies to you"!

    IF we are to say that homosexuality was given equal billing with child sacrifice and bestiality, and IF we are to believe that homosexuality is now acceptable to God in this current age, then we must believe that child sacrifice and bestiality are also acceptable in our current age. You cannot have it both ways: either homosexuality, bestiality, and child sacrifice are forever sinful abominable acts in God's sight, or all three are acceptable "alternative lifestyles.”

    A conservative, common sense interpretation of Leviticus 18 demands that we understand that all three acts were and are sinful in God's sight, contrary to His Will for mankind.

    Leviticus 20 is even more specific. The sins listed as forbidden are, in order, adultery (adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death), incest (man that lieth with his father's wife), non related incest (man lie with his daughter-in-law), homosexuality (man also lie with mankind), and intra-family fornication (man take a wife and her mother). All are given equal billing. All are equally evil in God's eyes. If homosexuality was only temporarily forbidden, then we can conclude that incest between parent and child is now acceptable. How foolish! None of these sins were temporarily forbidden, all were and are abominations in God's sight.

    As to the Homosexual theologian charge that the dietary laws would have to be enforced if we enforce the Levitical code against homosexuality, this is mere smoke and mirrors. First, the dietary laws are not even represented in these Bible texts.

    Second, the dietary laws were just that, dietary laws, they were not moral laws (which the above texts represent).

    God Himself rescinded the dietary laws for the sake of the Gentiles.

    The dietary laws were abolished in Peter's vision (Acts 10.14-15).
    Among other things abolished in the new testament: Circumcision, ritual washing, crop mingling, blended fabrics, animal sacrifice for the atonement of sin etc..
    God never rescinded the moral laws against the sins listed in Leviticus 18, in particular, the sin of homosexuality.

    Finally,(and this is is for you Fred Phelps) the reason that homosexuality, like adultery and incest, is no longer a sin that one must be stoned for, is the fact that we now live in the era of Grace. Christ paid the penalty for ALL sin on the Cross of Calvary, even the sin of the homosexual.

    In this era we no longer stone sinners, we preach the Gospel of Christ to them. The homosexual, like the adulterer, needs the salvation that Christ can bring. They do not need to be stoned, they need to be saved so that they can "go and sin no more.”

    Saturday, August 06, 2005

    Sticks And Stones

    Trying to have a rational debate on the subject of same sex marriage (AKA Homosexuality) these days is virtually impossible on Internet discussion forums, stating your views and believes in opposition will get you labeled with all sorts of *titles. Some are blatantly disrespectful and vulgar and result in a flame war instead of a debate.

    * For example: "Right wing nut job", "Fundamentalist ignorant closed minded redneck" "Religious Nazi" just to name a few, add vulgarity for emphasis and you get the idea.

    The reason for most of the name calling, flaming, and disrespect stems from the anonymous identity of the participants. In other words, I seriously doubt that most people (save a few) would conduct themselves in such a manner in a live face to face debate.

    That said, the truth of the matter is when the name & flame tactics emerge it represents the true colors of the pro homosexual marriage advocates that haunt most Internet discussion forums.

    On the other hand, when they're not using profanity and insulting intolerant labels to flame and bait as they attempt to promote tolerance for themselves, they insist on other bogus labels/terminology attempting to stigmatize opponents and shame them into silence.

    Lets review the terms: Homophobia:

    This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" homosexual sophists. the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.

    Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. "Gay" homosexual activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."

    As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the *killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.

    * Matthew Shepard's murderers turned out not to be "hateful homophobes" as was reported primarily, they were homosexual acquaintances that admitted they robbed and beat him and left him hanging on a fence post to die over drug money. Don't take my word for it look it up and see for yourself.

    Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. "Gay" homosexual activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association without a shred of scientific evidence or proof that homosexuality is a normal immutable human quality).

    Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" homosexual movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.

    The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.


    is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

    Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" homosexual movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

    Moral discrimination is "rational" discrimination.

    Folks, this issue isn't about "Consenting adults" or "bedroom privacy" or "individual or civil rights" like the advocates of homosexual marriage dishonestly and vehemently insist.

    "Same sex Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize homosexual behavior in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school aged children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance, kowtow or else.

    Who's Bashing Whom?

    French priest hurt after mock same-sex marriage in Paris cathedral

    Catholic News Agency


    Paris, Jun. 07, 2005

    French gay-rights activists took their legal battle for same-sex marriage into a Catholic church this week.

    About 20 members of the group Act Up entered Paris’ historic Notre-Dame Cathedral and proceeded to perform a mock marriage of two lesbians in front of baffled tourists and worshippers

    One activist dressed as a priest and pronounced the two women married. Others chanted: "Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice."

    Security officials chased them out of the cathedral, where clashes broke out. Msgr. Patrick Jacquin, who ran outside as well, was pulled into the clash and suffered a neck injury. He was treated at the scene.

    "They are savages. I was pushed to the ground and trampled, kicked in the neck,” Msgr. Jacquin said. "It's a scandal for these people to lash out at me and the Pope."

    End excerpt.

    Ever notice when the subject of HIV/AIDS emerges, the homosexual advocates insist theres no AIDS connection to homosexuality?

    Then why do they blame Christians (read homophobes) for the homosexual AIDS problem?

    Like same sex marriage is the "magic bullet" that will stop the homosexual HIV/AIDS problem..

    Homosexual pederasts masquerading as "priests" have sucsessfully invaded the catholic church and brought the rape of young boys into the pew.

    This is an attempt to destroy the main source of rebuke to their sick life style..They're blatant in many protestant Churches as well.

    "Bible Bashing For Dummies"

    Recently, in a heated debate about an article on Howard Dean's comments: "Bible says nothing about gay marriage" (don't miss it, very good read!) I ran into a fearless Christophobe and homosexuality advocate who evidently thought (he/she?) had the ultimate weapon to use on us "Bible thumping homophobic bigots"

    So (he/she?) referred to the homosexual activists field manual, turned to the "Bible Bashing For Dummies" section and posted a series of rhetorical straw man arguments masquerading as questions on the discussion forum.

    These "questions" were originally contrived and designed to embarrass and silence Dr Laura Schlessinger who is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. A few years back, she said, rightly, that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances.

    An open letter to Dr. Laura was penned in 2000, and posted on the Internet. It has since made the the rounds, and is now used to embarrass and silence those [Bible Thumper homophobic bigots] that uses a Biblical reference as proof that Christians shouldn't tolerate or accept homosexuality AKA "Gay Marriage" Here's the response.... (I've taken the liberty to post the "questions" in their favorite font color PINK.

    1. When I burn a bull on the alter as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors: they claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    If they don't like a good Bar- B-Que smote away! **Joke**

    No. You need a Israelite priest to offer the sacrifice for you in the Temple in Jerusalem; you can't just do it yourself in your own back yard. Even then you'll have a problem!

    The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But stop believing in the pleasing odor of animal sacrifices anyway, for it is written that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin (Heb 10:4). You need to believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross takes away all your sin, now and forever. As to violence against your neighbours, that will have you hauled up in front of the judge for a breach of the peace and assault charges at a minimum under any system of law, ancient or modern.

    In this era there is no longer a need for animal sacrifice for the atonement of sin : John 1:26-29 John the Baptist:
    1:26 John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, 1:27 who is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal!” 1:28 These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing.

    1:29 On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 2:17. In this day and age, what do you think a fair price for her would be?

    It actually says 'maidservant' not slave. You'd have to be in pretty dire straights 3,000 years ago to sell your children as servants, but I guess they would at least get fed and housed then. Anyway, back to your daughter. I think you would do better to send her to college and then see if she can't get a job. Mind you, most jobs today are just wage-slavery, aren't they? We spend 45% of our time working for the tax-man. Who can be totally free? Only those who trust in Jesus and know the truth will be free, as it is written,'The truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)

    In your case I have to point out the fact that Slavery (in the context you used) is illegal and obedience to the laws of your State/ Country would be advisable Legally and Biblically...

    Romans 13

    Submission to Civil Government

    13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness. (Lev. 15:19-24) The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    This has to do with purity of worship in the Temple Not just sexual intercourse (we would all be agreed on that) but even touching a menstruating woman made the one who touched her unclean. It has passed. When theTemple in Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD, as Jesus prophesied, it was already 40 years past its use-by date. The sacrifice of Jesus in AD 30 (+/- a year or two) had rendered the doings of theTemple obsolete. Even the veil of the Temple (which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of Temple was torn in two (Matt 27:51) at His death.

    Believe in His death and you will be forgiven. Believe in His resurrection and you will live. If the matter you raise still troubles you, then should avoid all contactwith women other than your own wife. And if you don't know when she is in what you describe as her period of uncleanliness, then heaven help you.

    4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    It doesn't actually say slaves, it says 'bondmen and bondmaids'. People who were poor bonded themselves or their children to someone wealthy. It was a form of social security. The concept of slavery as known in modern terms was referred to by Moses as "bondage". It is also written (Exod 21:16) that anyone who steals a man to sell him shall be put to death.

    Refer to Romans 13 again: Slavery was abolished in the U S after civil war 1862-1865

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    John 5:16-21
    5:16 Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began persecuting him. 5:17 So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” 5:18 For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.

    5:19 So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. 5:20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does,and will show him greater deeds than these, so that you will be amazed. 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.

    Just remember the Sabbath and keep it holy like the commandment says, and keep in mind that in this era of Grace we no longer stone sinners.

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    Mark 7:18-23
    7:18 He [Jesus] said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don't you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? 7:19 For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.) 7:20 He said, “What comes out of a person defiles him. 7:21 For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, 7:22 adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly. 7:23 All these evils come from within and defile a person.”

    But in any case, the clean and unclean animals distinction has gone with Peter's vision in the book of Acts 10.14-15. So the New Testament abolishes the Old Testament food laws. However, the New Testament confirms that homosexual activity is an abomination.

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the alter of the Lord if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there some wiggle room here?

    This applies to the High Priest of ancient Israel, who entered into the Holy of holies once a year on the Day of Atonement. I suppose God has a right to say who was going to approach Him in the Holy of holies. But even if you are a cohen, (A) you won't find theTemple still standing today and(B) all that Temple ritual is past. Jesus has been and has offered Himself for the sins of all who will believe in Him.

    Job done. Finished.

    The Gospel of St. John
    9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that those who do not see may gain their sight, and the ones who see may become blind.”
    9:Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and asked him, “We are not blind too, are we?” 9:41 Jesus replied, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now because you claim that you can see, your guilt remains.”

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.

    God Himself rescinded the dietary laws for the sake of the Gentiles in Peters vision(Acts 10.14-15). Among other things likethe ritualistic laws mentioned above, crop mingling, blended fabrics, even Circumcision!

    There no longer remains any sin that anyone must be stoned for. We now live in the era of Grace. Christ paid the penalty for all sin on the Cross of Calvary, even the sin of the homosexual.

    In this era we do not stone sinners, we preach the Gospel of Christ to them. The homosexual, like the adulterer, needs the salvation that Christ can bring. They do not need to be stoned, they need to be saved so that they can "go and sin no more".