Religious right member wants to give children false information on gay community

Linda Harvey

Linda Harvey, the former ad executive who supposedly "found Jesus," the woman who believes that gays don't exist but nonetheless has warned against taking children to gay physicians, has created an easy Q and A guide designed to traumatize . . . I mean "educate" children about the gay community:

Have you wished you could find a simple flyer for your older grade school or middle school children about homosexuality?

Well, Mission America has developed one.It's clear, concise and provides a beginning basis for a more in-depth study later on.

You can read and download it below. Feel free to print this as needed and give to your children, grandchildren, or your church group.

Questions and Answers for Kids about Homosexuality

If you wish, click on the above link to read it. However to say yourself some retching, I will highlight the more interesting parts. Harvey's Q and A makes the following statements:

So… does that mean that being “gay” is right?

Well, the simple answer is, no.

Long ago, people all over the world saw that when grown-ups love each other, it’s almost always a man and a woman. And that’s how children are born, through a mom and a dad loving each other. They hold hands, kiss and all that.

But once in a while, a man wants to date and love another man, or a woman wants to date and love a woman.

Most cultures long ago decided this was very wrong. And they made rules against it, for a lot of good reasons (more grown-up stuff). First of all, two men can never create their own child. Neither can two women. And two men kissing-- well, it just doesn’t seem right. That’s because it isn’t!

When God made the world, in the beginning, He created just two types of humans: a man and a woman. He told them to join together and become husband and wife (Genesis 2:18-25).

After some time passed, sin came into the world, and people started doing things they shouldn’t. Some of those things involved having homosexual feelings.

. . . When Jesus came, He repeated what God said about marriage –that it should only be one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). And we should not forget that Jesus was really God on earth, so He should know!

So would God be in favor of two men getting married, or two women? Absolutely not!

Some people claim they were “born” homosexual. But there is no well-accepted science that backs up that idea. Strong feelings are not proof of anything.

And, a lot of people who don’t even believe in God agree. From Asia to India to Africa to Latin America, most people now and throughout history agree that being homosexual or “gay” is wrong.

So if you hear that everyone thinks being “gay” is okay, don’t believe it—even if that person is a grown-up, or even if he leads a church. There are many, many people who still follow God’s teachings, still believe their common sense, and believe that romance, dating and marriage are for a boy and girl, a man and woman.

And then comes my favorite part - bullying:

But what about bullying? When one kid picks on another, that’s always wrong.

If the bully uses bad words or makes up false stories that someone is “gay,” or calls a boy names like “sissy,” or worse, that’s horrible!

Always speak up and help someone who is being bullied.

BUT… it’s not right to tell someone that being homosexual is okay. The person may be feeling sad because of being bullied, but never try to make him or feel better by saying “gay” is okay.

Who needs science when you have Linda Harvey? Harvey is obviously seriously clueless when it comes to middle school children. And I am betting that the majority of them would laugh themselves silly after reading her tripe.

'Religious right eating crow over DADT repeal' and other Monday midday news briefs

Editor's note - I apologize for the cheap plug, but if you haven't read this morning's post, Paul Ryan, other Republicans need to come clean about night of Obama's inauguration, then please do and then send it to your friends via Facebook, Twitter, or any other services. It is highly important that this story gets out. 

 Don't Ask Don't Tell Study Shows No Negative Effects On Military One Year After Repeal- Excellent story but the caveat tells the difference between us and the religious right. If there had been a negative effect, we would be hearing about it from them until literally the cows come home. How many of us are willing to drill this positive news into the heads of the public until they can recite it by heart. Or will be we distracted by a new controversy involving Perez Hilton or Madonna?  

Kirk Cameron Blames Anti-Gay Controversy On Liberal Press - Oldest whine in the book. Apparently its the "media's fault" that Cameron verbally attacked the gay community. 

 Harry Jackson at FRC summit: God will fix the economy if we sufficiently shun gays - I feel confident in saying that it doesn't work like that.  

First Fact Check: Washington Bishops Statement on R-74 - Fact checking lies about marriage equality never hurts.

Paul Ryan, other Republicans need to come clean about night of Obama's inauguration

Draper's book includes startling revelations

In April, a book Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives by Robert Draper was published. The book detailed the shenanigans of the House of Representatives after the 2010 election in which the Republican Party, with the help of the Tea Party Movement, retook the House of Representatives.

However, an eyebrow-raising portion of this book came at the prologue where Draper detailed that several top Republican lawmakers, on the night of President Obama's inauguration in 2009, planned ways to undermine his agenda. According to Sam Stein of The Huffington Post:

According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."

The revelation that some Republicans were planning to undermine President Obama's agenda on the night of his inauguration did play in various outlets. For the most part, conservatives and Republicans ignored it while Democrats registered shock at something they probably already suspected.

Paul Ryan

Many of the players involved in the 2009 meeting played prominent roles when it came to undermining Obama:

Gingrich was once an aspiring presidential candidate where during a debate earlier this year, he infamously called Obama the "Food Stamp President"

Sen. DeMint was heard bragging in 2009 that if Republicans stopped the passage of Obamacare (which they didn’t), it would mark Obama’s “Waterloo.”

During the debt ceiling debacle spurred by Republican stridency in 2011, Rep. Cantor undermined any dealings that  Boehner and President Obama could have had to end the crisis.

And even though they were absent from the meeting, both McConnell and Boehner have publicly undermined President Obama.

McConnell actually bragged in 2010 that the number one goal of Republicans was to hold President Obama to one term.

According to Time Magazine, in 2009, Boehner reportedly instructed House Republicans to publicly trash the just released $815 million stimulus bill on cable, on YouTube, on the House floor.

And collectively, Republicans have held up Obama's American Jobs Act for over a year. According to Think Progress, the American Job Act has been praised by several economists:

Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.

The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.\

Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.

Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.

Even more problematic than this is the seemingly cynical ho-hum attitude of the Beltway media and punditry about these revelations. Their jaded "big deal, it's Washington" and "we've seen it all before" attitude is a huge part of the problem.

Its their schizophrenic mindset which leads them to pound us relentless about the sad state of the economy and the gridlock in Washington, while remaining clueless on how to put two and two together. Or in layman's terms, when you have government officials and their allies pretending to be J.R. Ewing on Dallas or Alexis Colby on Dynasty, the needs of the people they have sworn to serve are bound to suffer.

A case can be made that Republicans' preoccupation with damaging Obama over the needs of their constituents has played a part in the slowness of the country's economic recovery.

And five months later after these revelations have become known, the 2009 plot should take on a new poignancy because some of the players of this game are taking huge roles in the 2012 election.

For example, Frank Luntz has been recently hired by CBS to be an "analyst" for the upcoming election.

But most importantly, Paul Ryan is now Mitt Romney's running mate for the White House. This allows him to go from state to state and speak on the stump as to how Obama's legislative agenda has supposedly failed.

Of course, judging from his acceptance speech at the recent Republican Convention, Ryan omits his role in making sure Obama's agenda had troubles. Remember, he claimed that Obama ignored for the findings of Bowles-Simpson debt commission when in fact he himself derailed the commission by leading a bloc of Republicans to vote against its findings.

Bottom line - questions need to be asked to all of those who took part in that 2009 meeting, particularly Paul Ryan. Before he lambasts Obama's alleged failed legislative agenda, we need to know how much did he contribute to this supposed failure and was it deliberate?

Ryan and Mitt Romney claim to be America's comeback team, but that claim is extremely specious if Ryan helped to orchestrate something which put America in a position to need a comeback in the first place.