President Obama meets with THEM - why we shouldn't lose our heads
From Religious Right Watch comes this news:
The Brody File has learned that conservative Evangelical groups will meet with the head of the White House Faith-Based Office on Tuesday.
Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.
Trust me when I say that I am a bit alarmed by this meeting. FRC and CWA have been at the forefront of stigmatizing the lgbt community via lies, inaccurate anecdotes, and bad studies.
Just last year, I had an interesting encounter with FRC regarding its claim of no longer using "outdated sources."
But I am hoping that my lgbt brothers and sisters will a more cautious attitude instead of going off breathing fire.
We have every right to be concerned over President Obama's people agreeing to meet with these folks but we also have to understand that it is his modus operandi. Obama has a history of trying to gain a consensus with folks who do not share his opinion on political matters.
For that, I can respect him.
The bulk of our anger and concern should not be with President Obama, but with FRC and CWA. I've already seen some webpages where the two groups are being called "anti-gay hate groups."
That's all well and good but there is a problem with simply calling these groups names. You leave an avenue open for them to show phony piety and go into their "why are we called haters when we simply want to uphold traditional values" routine again.
And yet again, they will come across looking innocent while we look like barking dogs despite the the fact that their behavior over the years gives us full reason to question their motivations.
So I say cut out the name-calling and the simplistic reasons why the FRC and CWA aren't what they say they are.
Show proof. Give examples of why these groups have nothing to do with values or morality. And trust me when I say it's out there.
Two places to start is here via Box Turtle Bulletin and here in my other blog (pan down to the timeline).
It's not enough to call them anti-gay. It's time we start proving our assertions. Let the White House know the depth of the dishonesty these groups stoop to.
You can contact the White House here.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Washington, D.C. faces problem with HIV - the truth before the lies begin
From Washington, D.C. comes a huge problem regarding HIV:
A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.
The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use.
That's the problem. The question is how long will it be before folks on the other side of America's so-called cultural war use this calamity to stigmatize gays? At least this once, I hope they think before going off half-cocked. AIDS affects everyone and we need solutions, not cynical talking points. Nor do we need to stigmatize populations affected by the disease.
Monday news briefs
The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off - would be nice if it comes out to be true. The problem is these folks are like 1980s horror movie monsters. Just when you think they are dead, there they are again.
Madaleno: Fighting for Transgender Rights Statewide - It's nice to see a state legislator fighting for all people.
From Washington, D.C. comes a huge problem regarding HIV:
A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.
The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use.
That's the problem. The question is how long will it be before folks on the other side of America's so-called cultural war use this calamity to stigmatize gays? At least this once, I hope they think before going off half-cocked. AIDS affects everyone and we need solutions, not cynical talking points. Nor do we need to stigmatize populations affected by the disease.
Monday news briefs
The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off - would be nice if it comes out to be true. The problem is these folks are like 1980s horror movie monsters. Just when you think they are dead, there they are again.
Madaleno: Fighting for Transgender Rights Statewide - It's nice to see a state legislator fighting for all people.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Peter LaBarbera's idea of an intellectual discussion
Today, I am doing a first - a repost of a blog entry from August 16th of last year. My reason for this repost stems from an item I read today via the Americans for Truth webpage. In answering a letter concerning his anti-gay stance, Peter LaBarbera said he has "intellectual conversations" with gays all of the time.
The August 16th post is one of these supposed intellectual conversations he had with me:
Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero
On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.
Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:
"The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. "
By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.
Don't be fooled.
You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.
Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am
Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.
but you miss the point, peter.
Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.
The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.
Look around you. It's crumbling now.
In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.
You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.
Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.
You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.
And the list of deceptions goes on and on.
Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.
I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.
Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?
In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am
This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?
Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.
How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.
And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.
I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.
What are you trusting in?
I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.
And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?
Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?
You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.
This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"
You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?
Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.
Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.
Just something to remember the next time LaBarbera tries to paint himself as a noble Christian warrior. I have never known a noble Christian warrior who ducks and dodges and produces talking points when confronted with his lying behavior.
Maybe LaBarbera has a different version of the Bible.
The August 16th post is one of these supposed intellectual conversations he had with me:
Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero
On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.
Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:
"The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. "
By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.
Don't be fooled.
You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.
Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am
Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.
but you miss the point, peter.
Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.
The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.
Look around you. It's crumbling now.
In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.
You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.
Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.
You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.
And the list of deceptions goes on and on.
Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.
I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.
Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?
In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am
This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?
Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?
EDITOR'S NOTE - Peter never did give me an answer to that question.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AMTo: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.
How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.
And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.
I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.
What are you trusting in?
I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.
And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?
Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?
You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.
This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"
You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?
Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.
Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.
Just something to remember the next time LaBarbera tries to paint himself as a noble Christian warrior. I have never known a noble Christian warrior who ducks and dodges and produces talking points when confronted with his lying behavior.
Maybe LaBarbera has a different version of the Bible.
Friday, March 13, 2009
West Virginia religious right group sinks low - I mean real low
I'm disappointed with the West Virginia Family Foundation.
Usually when a religious right group stands against pro-gay legislation, it has the decency to disguise its endeavors as something wholesome.
But not this group:
West Virginia Legislators have introduced multiple pro-homosexual bills to mandate West Virginians to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a "civil rights” protected class in WV Code.
SB-134 & SB-238 would grant “civil rights” status within the WV Human Rights Act, West Virginia Fair Housing Act, and West Virginia employment regulations, for bi-sexual, homosexual and gender identity (sex change) lifestyles. The House liberals have sponsored similar bills such as HB-2454, HB-2925 and HB-2954.
This legislation, if passed, would remove the rights of West Virginia employers not to hire, and West Virginia land owners not to rent to, transvestites, openly homosexual individuals, and others with a perverse sexual orientation.
So to this group, employers and land owners have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and the bill would remove that right.
We certainly wouldn't want that to happen (that was sarcasm.)
Interestingly enough, the bills have an exemption for churches and other religious organizations. In addition, they have been endorsed by Catholic and Episcopal clergy.
So how can the West Virginia Family Foundation demonstrate that these are "bad bills?"
On the top of its webpage, the group has two pictures of what it seems to think that the bills will allow - i. .e men in in drag and leather.
Only thing is that I don't think those pictures are of gays in West Virginia but of the Folsom Street Fair in California.
The fact that this group couldn't find any negatives pictures of gays in its own state is probably a good thing - which would give more creedence to the bills.
But the group's usage of California pictures in an attempt to stop pro-gay bills in West Virginia ranks right up there with using pictures of Playboy centerfolds to keep women away from military combat.
It's funny in that respect, but still dishonest.
UPDATE - One of the bills have passed through the State Senate!!
I'm disappointed with the West Virginia Family Foundation.
Usually when a religious right group stands against pro-gay legislation, it has the decency to disguise its endeavors as something wholesome.
But not this group:
West Virginia Legislators have introduced multiple pro-homosexual bills to mandate West Virginians to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a "civil rights” protected class in WV Code.
SB-134 & SB-238 would grant “civil rights” status within the WV Human Rights Act, West Virginia Fair Housing Act, and West Virginia employment regulations, for bi-sexual, homosexual and gender identity (sex change) lifestyles. The House liberals have sponsored similar bills such as HB-2454, HB-2925 and HB-2954.
This legislation, if passed, would remove the rights of West Virginia employers not to hire, and West Virginia land owners not to rent to, transvestites, openly homosexual individuals, and others with a perverse sexual orientation.
So to this group, employers and land owners have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and the bill would remove that right.
We certainly wouldn't want that to happen (that was sarcasm.)
Interestingly enough, the bills have an exemption for churches and other religious organizations. In addition, they have been endorsed by Catholic and Episcopal clergy.
So how can the West Virginia Family Foundation demonstrate that these are "bad bills?"
On the top of its webpage, the group has two pictures of what it seems to think that the bills will allow - i. .e men in in drag and leather.
Only thing is that I don't think those pictures are of gays in West Virginia but of the Folsom Street Fair in California.
The fact that this group couldn't find any negatives pictures of gays in its own state is probably a good thing - which would give more creedence to the bills.
But the group's usage of California pictures in an attempt to stop pro-gay bills in West Virginia ranks right up there with using pictures of Playboy centerfolds to keep women away from military combat.
It's funny in that respect, but still dishonest.
UPDATE - One of the bills have passed through the State Senate!!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Robert Knight pops up again
Some religious right members never seem to go away.
Fresh being let go from the Media Research Institute, former Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and frequent Paul Cameron studies user Robert Knight is now at Coral Ridge Ministries as a "senior writer."
That's the group started which once employed one of our favorite religious right spokespeople Janet (a vote for Obama is a vote against God) Porter.
Knight should feel right at home - from one asylum to another.
And he is not wasting time either as this quote from a Fox News article about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would attest to:
"The ban is in place for a reason -- open homosexuality poses many problems to good order, discipline and unit cohesion," says Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and former head of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.
"There is going to be some be some very heavy pushback from people in the military and civilians (on this) ... this is a train wreck waiting to happen."
That's quite a switch. In 2004, Knight was blaming the policy for terrorism and gay acceptance in general for Iraqi prison abuse, the beheading of prisoner Nick Berg and Muslim dislike of the U.S. in general:
“We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men ‘marrying’ men and women ‘marrying’ women is inevitable not only for America, but for the world,” wrote Knight, whose Culture & Family Institute is part of Phyllis Schafly’s Concerned Women for America.
“Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being ‘married’ play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. Businessman Nick Berg, who was beheaded by a group claiming revenge over the prison abuses, is the first victim, and we can only pray he will be the last.”
For the record, I'm glad Knight is back.
I was getting tired of lightweights like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.
Some religious right members never seem to go away.
Fresh being let go from the Media Research Institute, former Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and frequent Paul Cameron studies user Robert Knight is now at Coral Ridge Ministries as a "senior writer."
That's the group started which once employed one of our favorite religious right spokespeople Janet (a vote for Obama is a vote against God) Porter.
Knight should feel right at home - from one asylum to another.
And he is not wasting time either as this quote from a Fox News article about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would attest to:
"The ban is in place for a reason -- open homosexuality poses many problems to good order, discipline and unit cohesion," says Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and former head of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.
"There is going to be some be some very heavy pushback from people in the military and civilians (on this) ... this is a train wreck waiting to happen."
That's quite a switch. In 2004, Knight was blaming the policy for terrorism and gay acceptance in general for Iraqi prison abuse, the beheading of prisoner Nick Berg and Muslim dislike of the U.S. in general:
“We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men ‘marrying’ men and women ‘marrying’ women is inevitable not only for America, but for the world,” wrote Knight, whose Culture & Family Institute is part of Phyllis Schafly’s Concerned Women for America.
“Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being ‘married’ play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. Businessman Nick Berg, who was beheaded by a group claiming revenge over the prison abuses, is the first victim, and we can only pray he will be the last.”
For the record, I'm glad Knight is back.
I was getting tired of lightweights like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.
We win in Florida and other news briefs
Judge Gives Green Light to Florida High School Gay-Straight Alliance - One of the few places where we have been able to consistently smack down the religious right have been when lgbt students want to form clubs and support groups. Thank goodness for the Equal Access Act.
Choice quote of the week - RNC Chairman Michael Steele: " . . . you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
I wonder what Ken Hutcherson and Harry Jackson have to say about that one?
Gay Candidate Anthony Niedwiecki Elected to Oakland Park City Commission - and he is going to be Mayor in 2011! I wonder if he is dating. I always wanted to be a political husband.
Lawsuit ignores voters' verdict on parenting - A day without a bullshit article from One News Now is like a day without sunshine.
Judge Gives Green Light to Florida High School Gay-Straight Alliance - One of the few places where we have been able to consistently smack down the religious right have been when lgbt students want to form clubs and support groups. Thank goodness for the Equal Access Act.
Choice quote of the week - RNC Chairman Michael Steele: " . . . you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
I wonder what Ken Hutcherson and Harry Jackson have to say about that one?
Gay Candidate Anthony Niedwiecki Elected to Oakland Park City Commission - and he is going to be Mayor in 2011! I wonder if he is dating. I always wanted to be a political husband.
Lawsuit ignores voters' verdict on parenting - A day without a bullshit article from One News Now is like a day without sunshine.
A little comedy brought to you by World Net Daily
Ever since President Obama was elected, rightwing site World Net Daily has been working a stealth campaign of trying to undermine him.
From pushing stories about President Obama not being a United States citizen to publishing whatever other rumor comes down the pike about him, it's clear that World Net Daily doesn't exactly find President Obama to be their favorite person.
One of World Net Daily's efforts involves encouraging its readers to print the questions they would like to ask President Obama.
From the look of some of these questions, World Net Daily's readers seem to be a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal:
By what right, under what authority, do you deem yourself qualified to decide who is to live and who is to die? The pro abortion policies you are pushing and endorsing would be laughable if they weren't so horrifying. I thought the Nazis were defeated, but I guess they just morphed into the liberal leftist former Democratic party here. I hope you will stop trying to play God here, because frankly I can't think of anyone less qualified.
Mr. Obama,
For the first time in my life I can not call the person in this office by the title that has been given to you, primarily due to the fact that you have yet to satisfy the requirements of the office through the presenting of particular documents which would determine your eligibility to be in the office you currently occupy. You have made history by being the first person of your race to be elected to the office of the President of the United States, you also appear to be struggling to make additional history and taking your place among such noted figures in history as Marx and Lenin. My question for you this day is why are you so bent on turning this once republic (now democratic republic) into a communistic state? When the citizens must rely upon the state for health care, jobs, food and direction they are no longer free and the form of government is no longer a republic... this is a communistic socialist state, why do you wish to destroy freedom?
Are you deliberately trying to destroy America so you can install a Socialist Government?
Why don't you be a man and stand up for what you are? Go ahead and tell all that you are a Socialist and want to break the country down. That way everyone will be broke, homeless and hungry. Then you and your Socialist can act like your the "Godsend" and make all think your our "Buddy" (sic). Your a coward, a thief and a phony we will NEVER respect a Socialist. REAL AMERICANS want you EMPEACHED!
Do you beleive in an 'End Of Days'? Do you believe that Jesus, The Christ, will return to Earth and that God will decend upon this planet to cast his judgement? What do you believe will save you from His judgement?
I bet you admire Hitler don't you? God help us,I shudder to think what you are going to do to this country.
I can't help but notice when you are on stage addressing the masses, that you strike a pose, looking out and above at the horizon,(a favored look in a lenin-esque dictatorial kind of way). What are you looking at? Are you anticipating the arrival of the 'mother-ship'?
There are more here if you want a good laugh.
Ever since President Obama was elected, rightwing site World Net Daily has been working a stealth campaign of trying to undermine him.
From pushing stories about President Obama not being a United States citizen to publishing whatever other rumor comes down the pike about him, it's clear that World Net Daily doesn't exactly find President Obama to be their favorite person.
One of World Net Daily's efforts involves encouraging its readers to print the questions they would like to ask President Obama.
From the look of some of these questions, World Net Daily's readers seem to be a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal:
By what right, under what authority, do you deem yourself qualified to decide who is to live and who is to die? The pro abortion policies you are pushing and endorsing would be laughable if they weren't so horrifying. I thought the Nazis were defeated, but I guess they just morphed into the liberal leftist former Democratic party here. I hope you will stop trying to play God here, because frankly I can't think of anyone less qualified.
Mr. Obama,
For the first time in my life I can not call the person in this office by the title that has been given to you, primarily due to the fact that you have yet to satisfy the requirements of the office through the presenting of particular documents which would determine your eligibility to be in the office you currently occupy. You have made history by being the first person of your race to be elected to the office of the President of the United States, you also appear to be struggling to make additional history and taking your place among such noted figures in history as Marx and Lenin. My question for you this day is why are you so bent on turning this once republic (now democratic republic) into a communistic state? When the citizens must rely upon the state for health care, jobs, food and direction they are no longer free and the form of government is no longer a republic... this is a communistic socialist state, why do you wish to destroy freedom?
Are you deliberately trying to destroy America so you can install a Socialist Government?
Why don't you be a man and stand up for what you are? Go ahead and tell all that you are a Socialist and want to break the country down. That way everyone will be broke, homeless and hungry. Then you and your Socialist can act like your the "Godsend" and make all think your our "Buddy" (sic). Your a coward, a thief and a phony we will NEVER respect a Socialist. REAL AMERICANS want you EMPEACHED!
Do you beleive in an 'End Of Days'? Do you believe that Jesus, The Christ, will return to Earth and that God will decend upon this planet to cast his judgement? What do you believe will save you from His judgement?
I bet you admire Hitler don't you? God help us,I shudder to think what you are going to do to this country.
I can't help but notice when you are on stage addressing the masses, that you strike a pose, looking out and above at the horizon,(a favored look in a lenin-esque dictatorial kind of way). What are you looking at? Are you anticipating the arrival of the 'mother-ship'?
There are more here if you want a good laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)