Silencing Christians—Documenting the Gay Agenda Via “After the Ball”

more about “Heritage New Media Partners, Inc. – N…“, posted with vodpod
This one hour documentary was excellent.  It delves into the gay agenda, and it’s effects on society in the United States and elsewhere.  It’s eye opening.  I highly recommend it.  It goes into depth about the book:

“After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90′s”

by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen

if this version doesn’t work try this one from youtube:

WhiteHouse.gov Bleeding With “Change”

Painting the Roses Red

Obama’s Change Begins by Force–

Painting the Roses Red

Updated just minutes after the inauguration, the new Obama White House website declares “We need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), instantly jeopardizing the marriage laws of 45 states, including constitutional amendments in 30 states where voters have recently acted to give marriage the greatest protection possible at the state level. Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama’s policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

Obama’s support of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), threatens to nullify every state protection and limitation on abortion, because he personally believes there should be no limitations, not for underage girls, not even for late term pregnancies.  “Freedom of choice” is above all, as long as it’s a choice Obama believes in.  All other choices must be painted over to match his like the dripping red roses of the Queen of Hearts’ garden.

There are divisions on issues in this country for a reason.  We are not all of one mind on these hotbed issues. We all have separate voices that ought to be heard.   What leader of the people fights to overturn their votes, their laws, their state’s rights?  Why must all our differences be painted over in the same shade of federal red?

The way to unity is not by brute force.

The cry from the grass roots is all that stands in the way of Obama’s radical change unveiled, so cry!  Make your voice heard!  This brand of “change” is a moral bloodletting that our country cannot stand.

—Beetle Blogger

Obama Reveals the ‘Change’ He Will Bring

by Jennifer Mesko, editor CitizenLink

‘ This is the most bold and comprehensive pro-homosexual, abortion-friendly administration agenda we’ve ever seen.’

obama

“President Obama is no friend of family values, and that is made perfectly clear on the White House Web site,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action. “This is the most bold and comprehensive pro-homosexual, abortion-friendly administration agenda we’ve ever seen.  And this is no time for Christians to remain silent.”

On marriage

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.” (The Defense of Marriage Act is the federal government’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.)

Focus on the Family: Four key points.

On abortion

WhiteHouse.gov: “He has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”

Focus on the Family: Every human life has inherent value and should be protected, from fertilization to natural death.

On destructive embryonic stem-cell research

WhiteHouse.gov: “Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos.”

Focus on the Family: Supports and encourages stem-cell research using non-embryonic sources of stem cells, including umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow and various adult tissues. No human lives are destroyed in harvesting stem cells from these sources. Tax dollars should not be used to encourage the destruction of living human embryos for research .

On special rights for homosexual employees

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Focus on the Family: The government should not tell employers whom they can hire based on a category of protection that is not based on an immutable characteristic, but on a changeable sexual attraction, behavior or identity. The goal of laws like this is to silence religious free speech.

On a new class of crimes based on the victim’s sexual orientation

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation (and) expand hate crimes protection.”

Focus on the Family: Everyone should receive equal protection under the law.   Hate-crime laws threaten the free-speech rights of people of faith who speak out on the issue of homosexuality. These laws also make it possible that pastors could be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality, as they have been in other countries.

On same-sex adoption

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Focus on the Family: Children deserve the best chance to have both a mother and a father. Same-sex adoption increases the likelihood that a child will be denied a mom or a dad.

On homosexuals in the military

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama agrees we need to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”

Focus on the Family: Federal law states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Meanwhile, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a practice put in place during the Clinton administration prohibiting the military from asking about sexual orientation. The Department of Defense must be allowed to set its own requirements for military service.

Cry Against the Change!  Start With the Save DOMA Petition

Sign Here

British Intolerance

fired

Another Instance of Intolerance Across the Pond

One set of ideas is ok to express, but the other is anathema.  Welcome to the era of International New McCarthyism. –Beetle Blogger

Officer Fired for Expressing Christian Views on Homosexuality Says Dismissal is “Destroying” Him and His Family

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

NORFOLK, BRITAIN, December 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Norfolk County police officer who was fired for quoting the Bible regarding the immorality of homosexual sexual relations says that he is “totally devastated” by what has happened to him.

“It was a job I loved. This is destroying me and my family,” Officer Graham Cogman told the Daily Mail last week.

Cogman was reportedly dismissed from his position in late November after he sent an email quoting Biblical passages denouncing homosexual behavior, and another e-mail linking to a ministry in the USA that seeks to cure homosexuals of their condition.

Cogman says he sent the emails after being “bombarded” with emails sent by police department employees promoting the “gay” agenda, including messages urging him to wear a pink ribbon in honor of “gay history month.”  He reportedly responded to one email from a homosexual liaison officer with the Christian saying, “Love the sinner, hate the deed.”

There are no reports of firings or discipline against the employees of the police department who promote homosexual behavior.

Police officials claim that Cogman violated department regulations regarding computer use, as well as regulations requiring “politeness and tolerance,” according to one media report.  “This officer’s behavior fell well below what we expect of our people,” said department spokesman Ian Learmoth.

“In the service in general there is a feeling of fear,” Cogman told the Daily Mail. “There is a definite bias against faith – any faith – if it takes a critical view of homosexual sex.”

“The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me,” he added.

see the article in entirety here.

Twisted Scripture–Newsweek Preaches to Christians

peace

Newsweek Sermon of the Week

In a “if you can’t beat’m join’m” approach, the would-be preachers over at Newsweek have taken the Sunday Sermon to the people in their new issue.

In a thinly veiled propaganda piece, Newsweek, the latest in a long line of same sex allies in the old media, tries to score points against marriage advocates by advocating the Bible…. sort of.   Ignoring mountains of facts decrying the myth of healthy gay marriage, they attempt to reinforce the idea that the only thing standing in the way of true love and equality is religion.

This new attack on religious Christians is a cheap appeal to the sense of goodness and fairness that Christians have for the world, and especially for those who hold different views.  Newsweek, take note:  the bible teaches tolerance, not acceptance.

Imagine the outrage if the media were to start parsing the Torah or Koran to change votes!  No, it would never happen, that’s acceptable diversity.  It’s only politically acceptable to rage from the bully pulpit at those hateful, bigoted, lousy Christians right?

Twisting scripture to fit a political agenda is nothing new, but I have to say, this is a new low for Newsweek and the mainstream media.

—Beetle Blogger

Our Mutual Joy

Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches rainbow_bibleabout love argues for the other side.”
NEWSWEEK
December 15, 2008
by Lisa Miller

“….In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call “the traditional family” are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews’ precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between “one man and as many women as he could pay for.” Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument-in particular, this verse from Genesis: “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn’t God say, “Be fruitful and multiply”? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology-and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was-in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise-emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord’s lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband.” It probably goes without saying that the phrase “gay marriage” does not appear in the Bible at all.

If the bible doesn’t give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course-specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on “Homosexual Practices,” the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, “possibly because it did not result in true physical ‘union’ (by male entry).” The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as “an abomination” (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat-or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?”

….aaand that’s about all I can take of that.  Ozzie and Harriet??  Please tell me how this tedious stretch of a lecture could have made it to the front pages of Newsweek…..I can’t bear to post the whole tome here, so if you need some more speechifying…have at it!

Newsweek’s pseudo-biblical tedium drones on unaltered here:  http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

Elderly Christian Woman Attacked

Gays Bash Elderly Christian Woman In Hate Crime Attack

A Palm Springs, California protest against the passing of Proposition 8 got heated Tuesday after homosexual activists attacked Phyllis Burgess, a 75-year old Christian woman carrying a cross. Local news KPSP CBS 2 caught the whole thing on tape.

Despite the fact that the elderly lady did not shout or intimidate the homosexuals and was clearly the victim of their anti-Christian hatred, the news anchor had the nerve to say “there was a lot of hate was on both sides”.

The Activist’s Agenda

policecar_jumped

The Homosexual Agenda

Author: Alan Sears, Craig Osten

Q. Craig, with the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and an expected decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that could create gay “marriage” on American shores, the whole idea of same-sex marriage has come front-and-center in American life. But isn’t same-sex “marriage” just one part of the homosexual agenda?

A. Yes it is. The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called “After the Ball,” where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.

Q. Now, wait a minute. We hear all the time from gay activists that “there is no such thing” as a gay agenda. They snicker at the very idea.

A. But there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.” That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.

2. “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” That’s why they exploited things like the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard. It was a tragic murder, yet they have used that and spun that to demonize people like Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.

3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.” That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.

4. “Make gays look good.” That’s what they’ve done through media campaigns, through television programs, like “Will and Grace” and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.

5. “Make the victimizers look bad.” They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to “muddy the moral waters” by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.

6. “Get funds from corporate America.” In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how they have done that. It’s based on fudging the truth — and outright lies.

By the way, the authors of “After the Ball” admit that the use of lies is perfectly fine in their struggle. Their main thing is to get people to believe them. That is all that is important.

What’s interesting is that gay activists go to corporations and say, “We are an aggrieved class; we are discriminated against.” Then, on the other hand, they go to corporate America and say, “Look how much money we have. We make double what a traditional family makes. We are a market that you want to advertise to and cater to.”

Corporate America signs on — whether for domestic partner benefits, or whatever — because they don’t want to alienate that market.

Q. You mentioned lies. Isn’t one of the lies that homosexuals really want marriage?

A. That’s one of the biggest lies. Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don’t want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage. Basically, once they get marriage, they want to redefine it — they call the concept “monogamy without fidelity.” In other words, marriage would mean that you could be with a person but say, “I can go ahead and have sex with anybody else I want, but my spouse and I live together.”

One homosexual activist said, “We can now dethrone the (traditional) family based on blood relationships, in favor of the families that we choose.”

This article can be found in entirety here.

Proposition 8: Who’s Really Lying?

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct 16, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Public Records Show Proposition 8 Opponents Want Gay Marriage To Be Taught In Public Schools – ‘The earlier the better.’

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.

“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”

Lying… who’s really lying?

The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.” This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at http://www.noonprop8.com)

In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 “Lies” television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.”

It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Newsom called the (Yes on 8) ad ‘classic distraction’ and misleading.” Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.

“Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of ‘diversity,’ taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age,” Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its “diversity education” to five year old children in kindergarten.

According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.

The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:

“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3] (Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:

“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]  “In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]

“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13](Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:

“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…’King and King’.” [p 9]

“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]

“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]

(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – ‘whether you like it or not.’

This article is hot off the press from the Wall Street Journal.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.