The lie launderers---From World Net Daily
------
“Disinformation.” Just the crazy sound of the word evokes the shadowy
machinations of the KGB, of propaganda campaigns and assassinations, of
pinch-faced communist operatives rewriting history as in Orwell’s
“1984,” and all the rest of the cloak-and-dagger intrigue of the Cold War
era.
But this story is not about the past. It’s about here and now, in America,
where a never-ending stream of hardcore disinformation continues to flow,
poisoning our national dialogue, our culture and our very identity as a
country and a people.
How can this be, you ask?
Here’s how. My friend Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking
official ever to defect to the West from the Soviet bloc, defines the term
this way in his book “Disinformation” (co-authored with Professor Ronald
Rychlak, to be published in early 2013 by WND Books): “Disinformation is as
different from misinformation as night is from day. Misinformation, is an
official government tool and recognizable as such,” he says.
“Disinformation (i.e., dezinformatsiya) is a secret intelligence tool,
intended to bestow a Western, non-government cachet on government lies.”
To illustrate, he offers an example: “Let us assume that the FSB (the new
KGB) fabricated some documents supposedly proving that American military
forces were under specific orders to target Islamic houses of worship in
their bombing raids over Libya in 2011. If a report on those documents were
published in an official Russian news outlet, that would be misinformation,
and people in the West might rightly take it with a grain of salt and simply
shrug it off as routine Moscow propaganda. If, on the other hand, that same
material were made public in the Western media and attributed to some Western
organization, that would be disinformation, and the story’s credibility
would be substantially greater.”
OK, so “disinformation” is what you call it when intentional
misinformation is clandestinely conveyed to “respectable” sources –
primarily the Western press – to “launder” the misinformation and make
it “clean” for public consumption.
In fact, the concept of “laundering” (as in “money laundering”) is
such a good metaphor for understanding how disinformation works in modern
America, it’ll be helpful to quickly recall what money laundering actually
entails – basically three steps: 1) “Placement” – tainted money is
introduced into a financial institution; 2) “Layering” – the
institution performs a series of complex transactions designed to camouflage
the original source; 3) “Integration” – the formerly dirty money, now
“clean,” is free to spend.
One can readily see how this same process applies to the “laundering” of
“dirty” information: 1) misinformation is introduced to a respected
journalism organization; 2) the media organization showcases the
misinformation in a “news report,” camouflaging its original source; 3)
the public receives the laundered misinformation in the form of apparently
“clean” (credible) news, i.e., disinformation.
Read one of the most mind-boggling issues of Whistleblower ever – titled
“DISINFORMATION AGE” – produced with the help of the highest
intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai
Pacepa.
In short, every time our supposedly free and independent press broadcasts
misleading propaganda from an undisclosed source as though it were originally
researched, fair-and-balanced reporting – that’s disinformation, just as
in the days of Soviet communist treachery.
Believe it or not, what is being described here has long been, and remains to
this day, standard operating procedure with the “elite media” in America.
And it occurs in two very distinct ways.
The first way is the classic disinformation campaign, whereby major media in
the U.S. carry water for foreign dictators. One of the most infamous examples
involved the New York Times’ former Moscow bureau chief, Walter Duranty.
In the early ’30s, Stalin ordered his military to confiscate all of
Ukraine’s food and then sealed her borders to prevent any outside
sustenance from getting in, thereby intentionally starving an estimated 7
million men, women and children to death.
How did the New York Times report on this unprecedented genocidal famine? In
his stories, Duranty not only denied the Ukraine famine was induced by
communists – he denied anyone was dying of starvation at all! Idolizing
Stalin and describing him as “the world’s greatest living statesman,”
Duranty was thrilled to be granted the first American interview with this
mass-murdering psychopathic dictator.
As we’ll soon see, even today this is the way of things with the
establishment media, who will sell their souls for “access” to those at
the pinnacle of power.
For his outrageously biased reporting, Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize. Decades
later, spurred by widespread calls that the Pulitzer board revoke Duranty’s
award, even the New York Times bemoaned their reporter’s “largely
uncritical recitation of Soviet sources” and confessed that Duranty’s
articles constituted “some of the worst reporting to appear in this
newspaper.” (But his Pulitzer was never revoked.)
Another even more notorious example of the U.S. media being used in a classic
communist disinformation campaign involved press coverage of the Vietnam War.
Gen. Pacepa highlighted this issue for the current generation during the 2004
presidential contest between the incumbent commander in chief, George W.
Bush, and Sen. John Kerry, who was evoking his “heroic” Vietnam service
as a major campaign theme. Writing in National Review, Pacepa said:
On April 12, 1971, Kerry told the U.S. Congress that American soldiers
claimed to him that they had, “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped
wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on the power, cut
off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a
fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”
The exact sources of that assertion should be tracked down. … Or did
Senator Kerry merely hear allegations of that sort as hearsay bandied about
by members of antiwar groups (much of which has since been discredited)? To
me, this assertion sounds exactly like the disinformation line that the
Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era. KGB priority No. 1
at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of
its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and
“news reports” about invented American war atrocities. These tales were
purveyed in KGB-operated magazines that would then flack them to reputable
news organizations. Often enough, they would be picked up. News organizations
are notoriously sloppy about verifying their sources. All in all, it was
amazingly easy for Soviet-bloc spy organizations to fake many such reports
and spread them around the free world.
As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I
produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost
word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB
chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often
bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned
domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and
European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was,
he once told me, “our most significant success.”
Fast-forward to the modern era. And let’s set aside, for the moment, U.S.
media channeling of the hard-edged, intimidating, nuclear-tipped communist
threat of yesteryear, as illustrated in the previous two examples.
For there has long been a second front in this same war against Western
Judeo-Christian Civilization by atheistic Marxism. It’s known by various
labels, including “cultural Marxism,” “neo-Marxism” and the
“progressive agenda.”
Some trace this more evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) Marxist
agenda to the Frankfurt School, or to influential Marxist Antonio Gramsci
(who strategized a “long march through the institutions” whereby
America’s major institutions would be gradually infiltrated and subverted
by the left). Some trace it to the ’60s “cultural revolution,” when the
radical left literally spilled out onto America’s streets, while university
campuses gave rise to a host of radical new “liberation” movements –
“sexual,” “gay,” “black,” “women’s,” “animal” and
others.
But regardless of its origins, what is undeniable is the result: Today
virtually all major institutions in America – from our public school system
and universities to our news and entertainment media to our foundations and
philanthropies to our labor unions and even to many of our churches – and,
of course, to our government itself – are largely controlled by the left,
even while the American people remain overwhelmingly (at least 75 percent)
center-right in politics and Judeo-Christian in worldview.
Also undeniable is that the absurdly misnamed “mainstream media” have
been the primary “launderer” and force-multiplier of all of these
transformative leftist agendas for at least a generation.
Here is just one example – which utterly transformed America.
‘We fed lies to the public through the media’
In my book “The Marketing of Evil,” I document a classic disinformation
campaign. During the late 1960s, the pro-abortion-legalization group NARAL,
co-founded by abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, fed statistical fabrications
and other intentional lies to the news media, which in turn published and
broadcast the misinformation as though it were the result of their own
journalistic research. The ultimate result was the legalization of abortion
and – so far – over 50 million dead babies in America.
In our interview, Nathanson (who had by that time experienced a profound
change of heart and embraced a pro-life worldview) told me an extraordinary
story of how he and a handful of pro-legalization colleagues successfully
exploited a biased, lazy and corrupt American press:
“In 1968, I met Lawrence Lader. Lader had just finished a book called
‘Abortion,’ and in it had made the audacious demand that abortion should
be legalized throughout the country. I had just finished a residency in
obstetrics and gynecology and was impressed with the number of women who were
coming into our clinics, wards and hospitals suffering from illegal,
infected, botched abortions.
“Lader and I were perfect for each other. We sat down and plotted out the
organization now known as NARAL. With Betty Friedan, we set up this
organization and began working on the strategy.”
“We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a
liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one,” recalls the movement’s
co-founder. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly
defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced
to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in
favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie.
Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our
program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions
done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the
figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1 million.
“Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of
women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we
constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the
consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the
abortion law.
“Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing
abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary
method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has
increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.”
NARAL’s deceitful disinformation campaign, bolstered by fraudulent
“research,” was uncannily successful. In New York, the law outlawing
abortion had been on the books for 140 years, and yet, recalled Nathanson,
“In two years of work, we at NARAL struck that law down.”
“We lobbied the legislature, we captured the media, we spent money on
public relations. … Our first year’s budget was $7,500. Of that, $5,000
was allotted to a public relations firm to persuade the media of the
correctness of our position. That was in 1969.”
New York immediately became the abortion capital for the eastern half of the
United States.
“We were inundated with applicants for abortion,” says Nathanson. “To
that end, I set up a clinic, the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health
(C.R.A.S.H.), which operated in the east side of Manhattan. It had 10
operating rooms, 35 doctors, 85 nurses. It operated seven days a week, from 8
a.m. to midnight. We did 120 abortions every day in that clinic. At the end
of the two years that I was the director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I
myself, with my own hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised
another 10,000 that residents have done under my direction. So I have 75,000
abortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the
subject of abortion.”
Thanks to the media’s complicity, what would have been a legitimate news
story – “Pro-abortion group claims legalization will save lives” –
instead mutated, through the magic of media lie-laundering, into: “Studies
prove legalized abortion will save lives.”
Just as Marxist disinformation in the Soviet Bloc led to millions of deaths,
so has American disinformation, thanks to the complicity of the media.
What the press did to advance abortion legalization, it has likewise done
with the other parts of the left’s agenda – from moral issues like
“sexual freedom” and “gay rights” to today’s absurd legal
interpretation of “separation of church and state” and the resulting
denigration and even demonization of the Christian religion in American life.
‘Barack Obama does not approve this message’
In the former Soviet Union – a vast totalitarian state whose middle name
was “deception” – news and information put out by the government or the
Communist Party were almost always, by definition, “misinformation.”
When those same lies were disseminated through the Soviet press, the effect
on the public was much the same as if the information had come directly from
the government – because it had. The “Soviet press” was, after all,
just a sham, a propaganda ministry for the government, and everyone knew it.
Those who lived through the Cold War era remember the two primary Soviet
newspapers – Pravda (“Truth”) and Izvestia (“News”) – and the
endlessly repeated joke: “There is no truth in Pravda, and there is no news
in Izvestia.”
In the same way, today’s giant Xinhua News Agency, China’s largest media
organization with 10,000-plus employees and over 100 foreign bureaus, is
known to answer directly to the Communist Party of China. So no
clear-thinking person takes Xinhua’s “news” seriously, nor is any
“laundering” of government information taking place, because no one –
in the West, anyway – has any illusions as to what such “news
organizations” really represent.
However, the notion that America’s “mainstream press” may likewise have
devolved into little more than a propaganda ministry for the U.S. government
– similar to the sham “news media” in other parts of the world – is
deeply troubling.
Yet consider what was recently reported in – of all places – the New York
Times.
In a July 16, 2012, story headlined “Latest Word on the Trail? I Take It
Back,” Times reporter Jeremy Peters revealed the Faustian bargain most of
today’s national print journalists have quietly made with the government:
In return for access and interviews with top leaders and advisers, they have
agreed the White House can rewrite their stories before publication!
You read that right: Once news organizations submit their story drafts to
White House revisionists, writes Peters, “the quotations come back
redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything
even mildly provocative.”
“Most reporters,” he explains, “desperate to pick the brains of the
president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they
review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound
bites for review. The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides
itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does
not approve this message.”
How widespread is this practice? “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury
Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the
default position,” writes Peters. “Quote approval is standard practice
for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all mid-level
aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than
spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.)
It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
Most reporters the Times interviewed spoke only off the record. But Major
Garrett, formerly with Fox News and now a correspondent for The National
Journal, said, “It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because
there’s a part of me that says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their
terms.”
Yet, wrote Peters, “it was difficult to find a news outlet that had not
agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg,
The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all
consented to interviews under such terms.”
As a result, although the public believes it is reading what politicians have
actually said in news stories, they are not.
“Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, can be foul-mouthed,” wrote
Peters. “But readers would not know it because he deletes the curse words
before approving his quotes. Brevity is not a strong suit of David Plouffe, a
senior White House adviser. So he tightens up his sentences before giving
them the OK.”
Get the picture? You’re a reporter, you interview an administration
official, you even have the quote captured on tape, but you can’t report it
unless the White House Press Office approves the quote, edits it or gives you
a new one.
As we saw earlier with Walter Duranty, journalists are routinely tempted to
sell their souls for “access” to those at the pinnacle of power.
Ironically, one silver lining in the increasingly fraudulent and corrupt
nature of America’s elite media is that disinformation will – by
definition – almost certainly diminish. Why is that? Because disinformation
depends on the news media laundering the lies being widely respected and
believed. But the big media in today’s America are becoming barely more
respected and believable than were their Soviet counterparts a generation
ago.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
How to sell a lie and make the world believe it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Why Mitt Romney is Unlikable to the MSM?
A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being "likable" or that he doesn't "relate well" to people. Frankly, I struggle to understand why though I am not fond of his religious preferences. So after much research, I have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this "un-likability”, something should like.
Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:
1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.
2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS, no mistresses, no illegitimate children.
3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)
4. Unlike Biden, can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary.
5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School...and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.
6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter
- culture age when he went to college. He is too square for today's America?
7. Represents an America of "yesterday," where people believed in God, went to Church,
didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS, on his own!
8. Has a family of five great sons....and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn.
9. Oh yes.....he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that
teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, honest, and eschews socialism.
10. And one more point.....pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF.....as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. (He gave away his inheritance to charities.) Apparently, he doesn't understand actually working at a job and earning your own money makes you un-relatable to Americans, at least the MSM Socialist Progressive Democrats now dependent upon Government for their daily bread.
It's really a strange world, isn't it? All the above attributes are the things most of us were taught as American Values, The American Way. What happened to that, anyway.
www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 9/18/12 PL Booth
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
25 Reasons to vote against Dem Obama
1. I believe in thinking with my brain and loving with my heart … not the other way around.
2. I believe that this election is about two issues: the economy and Obama’s performance. Any other issues that are brought into the forefront are ridiculous distractions, and anyone that falls for this silly ruse is equally ridiculous.
3. I believe I see right through rhetoric.
4. I believe in expecting action from the people we elect to office.
5. I believe that “Women’s Issues” are the same issues that affect every American at any given time: the economy, jobs, education, private sector growth, taxes, health care. Assuming that all I care about are
reproductive organs is purely offensive. The women in my life are not a walking uterus, and the fact that liberals believe that this is what I should care about infuriates me.
6. In these times, I believe the role of government is to step aside and not hinder growth.
7. I believe the less hands that touch the money, the better.
8. I believe that saying that Republicans are declaring a “War on Women” is hilariously hypocritical considering that the Obama campaign has accepted $1 million from Bill Maher, one of the most misogynistic people in the public eye and a principal speaker at their convention is serial rapist, Bill Clinton…
9. I believe that standing up for any group means that you stand up for all members of that group. Declaring that you are a party “for women” and then systematically offending and dismissing stay-at-home moms as “not working women” time and time again is beyond irresponsible. So is saying you’re a party “of tolerance” and then excluding and bashing people of religions who may not squarely fit into your agenda (Catholics, Christians, Jews, I could go on and on).
10. I believe that you cannot say you’re a “friend of Israel’s” and then advocate for weakening Israel’s borders, refuse to get involved with Israel’s conflicts, deny defense aid to Israel, and promote peace with Israel’s enemies - who don’t even recognize Israel’s right to exist. Doing so makes you a hypocrite.
11. I believe that the problems in our schools are because of government, mismanagement, and unions...not because of the children or the programs. (I’ve seen this firsthand, as a veteran and public employee.)
12. I believe that it is a parent’s role to parent. Whoever in a child’s life that is given the role of “parent” should take it more seriously than any other job he or she has. It does not take a village.
13. I believe in hard work.
14. I believe in the American Dream. I believe that anyone who believes in the American Dream and perseveres to achieve it through honest means will be successfully rewarded.
15. I don’t believe in changing America; I believe in strengthening and restoring America.
16. I truly believe in equality, of race, religion, background, gender, or opinion. I don’t subscribe to an Animal Farm like belief that “some are more equal than others”, nor do I subscribe to the liberal notion that “we are open-minded…unless you disagree with us”. I listen to all sides. I like hearing new perspectives, even if they only serve to strengthen my arguments.
17. I believe that spending like there is no deficit is the most illogical, stupid, and arrogant thing any politician could do right now.
18. I believe that any President, Representative, or Senator who sat by for three and a half years and failed to produce, vote for, or advocate for a budget should’ve lost their job long, long ago. Any President who has watched the unemployment rate skyrocket to 8.3% under his watch and has failed to meet with his Jobs Council in six months plus should be ashamed of himself.
19. I believe that this nation was founded by immigrants, and that immigrants are an exceptionally important group of people that greatly enhance the economy and diversity of America. Illegal immigrants are a different story, especially considering the dire financial straits we are in and the unbelievable burden they place on taxpaying citizens- including the legal immigrants.
20. I believe that taxing the rich to pay for the poor is Anti-Colonialism socialism. It has never worked. It has only achieved soaring inflation, stagflation, and loss of jobs. It has always resulted in crippling instability and no communist nor socialist nation has ever succeeded like America.
21. I believe that everyone should pay taxes. There should be a flat tax rate, across the board. No one can argue that this isn’t fair, and no one can argue that this doesn’t work.
22. I believe that government programs and assistance are there for people who truly need and deserve them. They are not there to be abused, looted, or expanded upon to enable (or gain votes).
23. I believe that the bigger government gets, the weaker our voices become and the less freedom exists.
24. I believe that the Constitution is not a “living document” or an “artifact”. It is a legal document, the basis of all our laws, and the framework of our Union. Its importance should never be diminished.
25. I believe in a prosperous, free future for my family, for my son, daughter, and grandchildren. The thought of anything less than that terrifies me.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
A little History Lesson , mostly about the Democrat Party
------
Did You Know?
“Between speaking fees, investments and income from presidential
appointments, Frederick Douglass’ was able to mass $300,000 in savings–an
equivalence of $25 million dollars today. We shouldn’t ENVY those earning
$250,000 per year. We should EMULATE them. That’s how jobs are created.”
~ KCarl Smith, ConservativeMESSENGER
African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having been stolen
and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders journeying to
America in 1619.The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and
not the worth of any individual.In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme
Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not
persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.The
13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in
congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.Not one Democrat either in
the House or the Senate voted for the 14th amendment declaring that former
slaves were full citizens of the state in which they lived and were therefore
entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that
state.Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th
amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.In 1866
Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain
control in the elections.George Wallace was a Democrat.Bull Connor was a
Democrat.In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going
to public school.In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black
Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact
Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.Jim Crow laws, poll taxes,
grandfather clauses, Literacy tests, white only primaries, and physical
violence all came from the Democratic Party.Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743
individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans often
led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully
blocked those bills.Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. His father,
Daddy King was a Republican.Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President,
Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in
both cases – not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came
from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.In the 108th
Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed only
of Democrats).Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received
Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant,
Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Democratic President Grover
Cleveland removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President
Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.Very few today know that in 1808 Congress
abolished the slave trade. Although slavery still had not been abolished in
all the states, things definitely were moving in the right direction.By 1820,
most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson’ party (the
Democratic Party) had become the majority party in Congress.In 1789, the
Republican controlled Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited
slavery in a federal territory. In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the
Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in
almost half of the federal territories.In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed
the “Fugitive Slave Law”. That law required Northerners to return escaped
slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.Because the “Fugitive Slave
Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery, this law was
disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a consequence of the atrocious
provisions of this Democratic law, some 20,000 blacks in the North left the
United States and fled to Canada.The “Underground Railroad” reached the
height of its activity during this period, helping thousands of slaves escape
from slavery in the South all the way out of the United States and into
Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave
Law.In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law
strengthening slavery: the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Even though Democrats in
Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was
permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained
a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory. But through the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, thus
allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the new territory where it
previously had been forbidden.Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws
in Congress, in May of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in
Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political
parties, including the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a
new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black
Americans. The name of that party? They called it the Republican Party
because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first
set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery
members of Congress had perverted those original principles.One of the
founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner. In 1856, Sumner
gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate against slavery. Following that
speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came
from the House, across the Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate
where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked
him unconscious, and beat him almost to death. According to the sources of
that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and
it even amused them. What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his
vicious attack on Sumner? He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily
re-elected to Congress.In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first
Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat
James Buchanan. In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever
Party platform. It was a short document with only nine planks in the
platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold
declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the
principles of the Declaration of Independence.In 1856, the Democratic
platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned: “All
efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency
to diminish the happiness of the people”.It is worth noting that for over a
century and a half, Democrats often have taken a position that some human
life is disposable – as they did in the Dred Scott decision. In that
instance, a black individual was not a life, it was property; and an
individual could do with his property as he wished. Today, Democrats have
largely taken that same position on unborn human life – that an unborn
human is disposable property to do with as one wishes.African Americans were
the victims of this disposable property ideology a century and a half ago,
and still are today. Consider: although 12 percent of our current population
is African American, almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on
African Americans. In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African
American live births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies.
Democrats have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly
pro-life with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of
recent votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite
view, with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly
pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent unborn
human life.
http://frederickdouglassrepublican.com/d... [1]
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Subject: Forgotten (On Purpose?) Dem Rape Issues
------
Odd that all the most highly respected Dems belong to this club!!
August 24, 2012
Dems Better Put Some Ice on That 'Rape' Talk
By Jack Cashill
The other day I received an e-mail from the suddenly famous Sandra Fluke
under the simple heading "Legitimate rape." Presuming that the message was
not exactly personal, I deleted it, but I could have guessed its tone and
tenor.
Indeed, I had heard more about Rep. Todd Akin's unfortunate choice of words
on the subject of rape in the last few days than I had heard about the actual
commission of rape in the last decade, including rapes and other sexual
abuses by members of a certain political party.
Mimi Alford's recent book, Once Upon An Affair, details a few such incidents.
No one who has read the book doubts its veracity. Alford's "affair" with John
F. Kennedy began when she was a 19-year-old virgin working in the White
House. To her great surprise, Alford found herself being given a private tour
of the family quarters by a president whom she barely knew.
"He placed both hands on my shoulders and guided me towards the edge of the
bed," she writes. "I landed on my elbows, frozen between sitting up and lying
on my back. Slowly, he unbuttoned the top of my shirtdress and touched my
breasts." It goes on from there. The emotionally overwhelmed Alford did not
resist, but if this isn't rape, it is something damn close -- a flagrant
abuse of power, what the French might call droit de seigneur, the right of
the master.
To flaunt his power, Kennedy later had Alford perform oral sex on one of his
aides. "It was a pathetic, sordid scene," Alford writes. "He had emotionally
abused me and debased Dave [Powers]. For what? To watch me perform for him
and to show Dave how much he controlled us?" To her credit, Alford refused to
comply the next time the president urged her to do the same for his brother
Teddy.
Teddy, of course, had his own sordid history. In his exhaustive 1988 book,
Senatorial Privilege, Leo Damore tells what happened the night the married
Kennedy took an inebriated young aide, Mary Jo Kopechne, out for some casual
sex on a Chappaquiddick beach.
They never got there. Their car went off a bridge. Thinking career first,
Kennedy left Mary Jo alive, trapped in the car and gasping for air. He
bypassed homes near the bridge, from which he could have called the police,
and walked over a mile back to the house where he had been partying.
Once there, he sought out his lawyer friends, Joe Gargan and Paul Markham, to
help him work out his alibi. Compromised by a presumed lawyer-client
relationship, they had to wait for Kennedy to call for help. Kennedy never
did. He may have been hoping that Gargan, the family fixer, would take the
rap. Mary Jo, meanwhile, struggled to survive for perhaps an hour, even more.
Afterwards, being a Kennedy, Teddy requested and got all three networks to
give him 15 minutes of prime time for an unprecedented bit of public
dissembling. "There is no truth whatever to the widely circulated suspicions
of immoral conduct that have been leveled at my behavior and hers regarding
that evening"...and he continued lying from there. Droit de seigneur.
Although Ted was never tried for rape, his nephew, William Kennedy Smith,
was. On Good Friday 1991, Kennedy took Smith and his son Patrick out for a
long night of drinking. The young men brought two young women home with them.
Hoping perhaps for his share of the action, a drunken Ted Kennedy, nearly 60
now, wandered without any pants on into the room where everyone had gathered.
"I got totally weirded out," said one of the women. She got up and told the
others, "I'm out of here. I'm leaving." The woman left behind the woman who
would accuse Smith of rape. He would be acquitted.
Robert Kennedy behaved better. He was too busy tidying up for his older
brother. In his new, exquisitely researched book, Marilyn Monroe: The Final
Years, celebrity biographer Keith Badman tells how Robert and his pimp
brother-in-law Peter Lawford showed up at Monroe's home unannounced one
afternoon, told her to shut up about her affair with the president, ransacked
the house looking for her diary, and left her in hysterics. She died of an
overdose that night. Lawford knew that Monroe was in a bad way but failed to
check on her for fear that the attendant publicity would damage the
president.
If you asked a Democrat to name the most four most respected members of the
party over the last fifty years, he would likely name John Kennedy, Robert
Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and, yes, the unsinkable Bill Clinton. There are any
number of female Democrats, however, who would disagree, Juanita Broaddrick
among them. In the Ken Starr investigation, Broaddrick emerged as "Jane Doe
No. 5." The woman Clinton abused or assaulted had to take a number. After
years of keeping quiet, Broaddrick tearfully told her story to Lisa Myers on
NBC's Dateline in February 1999.
Broaddrick: "And he came around me and sort of put his arm over my shoulder
to point to this little building and he said he was real interested if he
became governor to restore that little building and then all of a sudden, he
turned me around and started kissing me. And that was a real shock."
Myers: "What did you do?"
Broaddrick: "I first pushed him away and just told him 'No, please don't do
that,' and I forget, it's been 21 years, Lisa, and I forget exactly what he
was saying. It seems like he was making statements that would relate to 'Did
you not know why I was coming up here?' and I told him at the time, I said,
'I'm married, and I have other things going on in my life, and this is
something that I'm not interested in.'"
Myers: "Had you, that morning, or any other time, given him any reason to
believe you might be receptive?"
Broaddrick: "No. None. None whatsoever."
Myers: "Then what happens?"
Broaddrick: "Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to
kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute ... He starts to,
um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then
he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to
get away from him and I told him 'No,' that I didn't want this to happen
(crying) but he wouldn't listen to me."
Myers: "Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?"
Broaddrick: "Yes, I told him, 'Please don't.' He was such a different person
at that moment, he was just a vicious, awful person."
Myers: "You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?"
Broaddrick: "Yeah."
Myers: "Why?"
Broaddrick: "It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the
point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to 'Please stop.' And
that's when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip."
In his book, Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story, Michael Isikoff relates
how Clinton, then Arkansas governor, had sex with former Miss America
Elizabeth Ward Gracen.
"It was rough sex," Isikoff writes, "Clinton got so carried away that he bit
her lip, Gracen later told friends. But it was consensual." Isikoff missed
the lip-biting connection. He also failed to acknowledge that at least one of
Gracen's friends, Judy Stokes, had told the Paula Jones legal team that the
sex was not consensual at all.
"Do you believe Clinton raped her?" investigator Rick Lambert asked her.
"Absolutely," Stokes replied. "He forced her to have sex. What do you call
that?"
Hillary Clinton deserves a place in the Democratic pantheon as well, if for
no other reason that saving her husband's candidacy during that memorably
dishonest 60 Minutes appearance in late January 1992.
"Bill talked to this woman every time she called, distraught, saying her life
was going to be ruined," Hillary told Steve Croft about Gennifer Flowers,
"and he'd get off the phone and tell me that she said sort of wacky things,
which we thought were attributable to the fact that she was terrified."
Although he and Hillary denied it on 60 Minutes, Clinton would later admit
the affair with Flowers under oath but lie about the details. During those
years, Hillary served as his enabler-in-chief, ready at 3 any morning to
suppress those "bimbo eruptions" -- a Clinton staffer term -- and silence,
through carrot or stick, women like Broaddrick and Gracen.
You'd think the Dems would forgive Akin his ignorance on rape. He does not
have anywhere near their hands-on experience. Bill Clinton, by contrast,
always knew what to tell a rape victim: "You better put some ice on that.”
Akin was depending upon what was once the standard school of thought
by medical professionals, 20 years ago and for the preceding 40 years,
Dr’s actually taught rape victims bodies could, to some extent, supported
by statistics that said rape victims became pregnant at significantly lower
rates, actually prevent or make more difficult, pregnancies. Akin used a
poor choice of words as rape victims do become pregnant, but as he
indicated, statistics say at a lower rate than compliant women. I don’t
know whether or not the statistics and its study was accurate or not but
it is a fact that many Democrat victims of former Presidents were ignored
by the media and Congress. Clinton WAS impeached. The senate failed
to try him as they should have because “It was all about sex.” Waqs Akin’s
remarks really all that bad? Not in comparison to the dems.
Tags: sex, sexual abuse, rape, democrats, media, dem presidents, dem precedence, democrat rapists
2012 Democratic National Convention Schedule
-- Charlotte , N.C.
4:00 PM – Opening Flag Burning Ceremony – sponsored by CNN
4:05 PM – Singing of "God Damn America " led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4:10 PM – Pledge of Allegiance to Obama
4:15 PM – Ceremonial 'I hate America' led by Michelle Obama
4:30 PM – Tips on “How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you travel the world” – Hillary Clinton
4:45 PM –Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar “How to have a successful career without having a job.”
5:00 PM – “Great Vacations I’ve Taken on the Taxpayer’s Dime Travel Log” -Michelle Obama
5:30 PM – Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite
5:45 PM – Tribute to All 57 States – Nancy Pelosi
6:00 PM – Sen. Harry Reid - 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat’s appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the country, improve employment and to boost the economy.
8:30 PM – Airing of Grievances by the Clintons
9:00 PM – “Bias in Media – How we can make it work for you” Tutorial – sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times
9:15 PM – Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO –Michael Moore
9:45 PM – Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangle
10:00 PM – Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers
,
10:30 PM – Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ , & Afghanistan
11:00 PM – Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies
11:15 PM – Free Gov. Blagovich rally
11:30 PM – Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
11:45 PM – Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish – Obama Presiding
12:00 AM – Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and Chris “He sends a thrill up my leg”Matthews
12:01 AM – Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior
12:05 AM – Celestial Choirs Sing
3:00 AM – Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Monday, July 09, 2012
Should black people tolerate this?
By: admin-of Human Events
5/23/2012 04:00 AM
Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery.
The magnitude of this tragic mayhem can be viewed in another light. According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. It’s a tragic commentary to be able to say that young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.
A much larger issue is how might we interpret the deafening silence about the day-to-day murder in black communities compared with the national uproar over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Such a response by politicians, civil rights organizations and the mainstream news media could easily be interpreted as “blacks killing other blacks is of little concern, but it’s unacceptable for a white to kill a black person.”
There are a few civil rights leaders with a different vision. When President Barack Obama commented about the Trayvon Martin case, T. Willard Fair, president of the Urban League of Greater Miami, told The Daily Caller that “the outrage should be about us killing each other, about black-on-black crime.” He asked rhetorically, “Wouldn’t you think to have 41 people shot (in Chicago) between Friday morning and Monday morning would be much more newsworthy and deserve much more outrage?” Former NAACP leader Pastor C.L. Bryant said the rallies organized by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men,” adding: “The epidemic is truly black-on-black crime. The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”
Not only is there silence about black-on-black crime; there’s silence and concealment about black racist attacks on whites — for example, the recent attacks on two Virginian-Pilot newspaper reporters set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks. The story wasn’t even covered by their own newspaper. In March, a black mob assaulted, knocked unconscious, disrobed and robbed a white tourist in downtown Baltimore. Black mobs have roamed the streets of Denver, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles and other cities, making unprovoked attacks on whites and running off with their belongings.
Racist attacks have been against not only whites but also Asians. Such attacks include the San Francisco beating death of an 83-year-old Chinese man, the pushing of a 57-year-old woman off a train platform and the knocking of a 59-year-old Chinese man to the ground, which killed him. For years, Asian school students in New York and Philadelphia have been beaten up by their black classmates and called racist epithets — for example, “Hey, Chinese!” and “Yo, dragon ball!” But that kind of bullying, unlike the bullying of homosexuals, goes unreported and unpunished.
Racial demagoguery from the president on down is not in our nation’s best interests, plus it’s dangerous. As my colleague Thomas Sowell recently put it, “if there is anything worse than a one-sided race war, it is a two-sided race war, especially when one of the races outnumbers the other several times over.”
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/05/23/should-black-people-tolerate-this/
Monday, May 21, 2012
Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response
Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response
By Mark Alexander · Friday, December 29, 2006
"Marriage is ... in its origin a contract of natural law... It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the republic." --Justice Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws)
Christians, since the dawn of Christendom, have been confronted by secular challenges to the most basic canons of our foundational guidance, those set forth in Holy Scripture. These challenges have increased exponentially in the last century, in large measure because of cultural dissolution, which is the direct result of the dissolution of traditional families -- broken marriages, leaving distraught children in their wake.
Marriage is the foundation for the family, which in turn, serves as the foundation for society. The Christian marriage paradigm is built on a foundation of five principles. First, God is the creator of the marriage relationship; second, heterosexuality is God's pattern for marriage; third, monogamy is God's design for marriage; fourth, God's plan for marriage is for physical and spiritual unity, and fifth, marriage was designed to be permanent.
Marriage, as an institution, is currently under assault from many quarters, one of the most menacing being the challenge to traditional sexual morality. It is no small irony that not only are homosexuals challenging the status of traditional marriage, but sexual immorality leading to broken marriages also fosters homosexual pathology. In an effort to provide some context for understanding homosexuality, this essay briefly addresses the origins and pathology of such deviance, the social "homosexual normalization" agenda, the conflict this agenda has created within the Christian Church, and an appropriate Christian response.
Background: Family Origins
As Christians, we are constantly tempted by sin -- particularly the sins of self-indulgence and self-aggrandizement. Consequently, perhaps the greatest affront to the Body of Christ is the most common injury to the family of man -- marital infidelity and divorce.
Separation and divorce -- which typically results in the absence of fathers from their headship role within the family -- is the single most significant common denominator among all categories of social and cultural entropy. "Maturity does not come with age, but with the accepting of responsibility for one's actions," writes Dr. Edwin Cole, the father of the Modern Men's Ministry. "The lack of effective, functioning fathers is the root cause of America's social, economic and spiritual crises."
Currently, only one in three children -- and only one in five inner-city children -- is in a home with a mother and father. Children who are raised in households without fathers are at much higher risk for psychological and emotional disorders, a plethora of behavioral disorders, chemical abuse, sexual deviance, academic failure, unwed pregnancy, abortion, criminal incarceration, poverty, self-mutilation and suicide. Adult children of divorce often harbor such deep emotional disorders that a very high percentage of their marriages also end in divorce -- propagating familial generations of misery.
"The simple truth is that fathers are irreplaceable in shaping the competence and character of their children," notes family researcher David Blankenhorn. "[The absence of fathers] from family life is surely the most socially consequential family trend of our era."
This certainly is not to say that all children in fatherless homes are destined to fail, any more than it is to say that children in homes with fathers are destined to succeed. Indeed, in many cases where fathers have abdicated their responsibility for proper love, discipline, support and protection of their children, mothers and extended family members have been able to largely assume those responsibilities. But it is to say that the odds of failure are stacked against children of divorce.
While the burden of headship falls on fathers, and their absence in the home creates great peril for children, it should be noted that the majority of divorce cases are filed by women (and the majority of those claim no harm or abuse).
Concerns about divorce and its consequential degradation of social and moral order are not new. As Founding Father John Adams wrote, "The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?"
What is new is the vast number of fatherless children in America, kids who have been largely abandoned by their biological father, and the incalculable burden that places on them, and society.
The Fractured Exemplarity: Altering Sexual Normalcy
One notable outcome associated with some broken and dysfunctional families is the absence of a healthy sexual identity in children raised in such families -- particularly their identity with their same-sex parent. Consequently, the paradigm of sexual morality has shifted -- and has become a source of much controversy in our culture and in the Christian Church. Though pre-marital and adulterous heterosexual affairs numerically constitute the most significant departure from the Biblical family model, homosexuality is the more destructive course -- and its advocacy is a vociferous insult to that family model.
Simply put, homosexuality threatens the Church and our culture because it threatens the natural order of the family. Though less than three percent of the population self-identify as homosexual ("gay" or "lesbian" in common parlance), the pernicious advancement of homosexuality is very well funded, coordinated and executed.
The University of Virginia's Bradford Wilcox notes in a recent Heritage Foundation report that those who would deconstruct the natural order of family see the Christian Church as "a key factor in stalling the gender revolution at home." For this reason, the church as an institution is high on the list of gender-revolution targets -- second only to the assault on the traditional family.
Understanding: Gender-Disorientation Pathology
In order to understand how to respond to the homosexual agenda in the Church and society, it is helpful to understand the underlying pathology.
In 1952, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official catalogue of mental disorders used by mental health professionals, listed homosexuality as a sociopath personality disturbance. In 1968, the revised DSM II reclassified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. But in the midst of the sexual revolution, homosexual protestors began picketing the APA's annual conventions, demanding that homosexuality not be identified as pathology. In 1973, under enormous pressure from homosexual activists, the APA removed homosexuality from its the DSM III edition to the dismay of about 40 percent of psychiatrists -- particularly those who specialized in treating homosexuals.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry," writes: "The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times."
But the APA is not likely to reverse their position.
The late Charles Socarides, clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, wrote, "We know that obligatory homosexuals are caught up in unconscious adaptations to early childhood abuse and neglect and that, with insight into their earliest beginnings, they can change." Socarides wrote not just as a clinician, but from personal failure -- he divorced his wife, and one of his sons was a homosexual.
Homosexuality is sometimes a promiscuous "lifestyle choice." More often, however, as understood by many medical and mental health specialists, homosexual behavior is a manifestation of gender-disorientation pathology associated with childhood or adolescent emotional dissociation, and physical trauma or abuse.
Many homosexuals report that as children, they had a dysfunctional relationship with their same-sex parent, such relationships being their primary means of gender identification and affirmation. For some children, particularly those whose parents are separated or divorced, the dissociation from their same-sex parent can cause an unconscious but directive drive for gender identification and affirmation among same-sex peers, which, after puberty, can manifest as sexual behavior. The search for closure to a dysfunctional relationship with a parent can lead to a lifetime of misery.
Some homosexuals report that they over-identified with their opposite sex parent and peers -- thus a boy becomes increasingly feminized while a girl becomes more masculine.
In both cases -- lack of identity and over identity -- there is a common denominator, which is emotional deprivation. In their formative years, all children need emotional and physical closeness with their parents -- particularly with their same sex parent, and they need to develop a healthy sense of their gender identity as masculine or feminine.
Homosexual modeling and/or predation by an authority figure -- often an influential person with access to the child through the family, church, school, neighborhood or media -- can also promote gender-disorientation pathology.
Children who are victims of homosexual predation often compensate and cover their pain by manifesting some degree of narcissism, an unmitigated expression of self-love, which is antithetical to the embodiment of the Holy Spirit and the image of God. Ironically, they compulsively indulge in aberrant sexual behavior to avoid reconciling the pain of emotional and/or physical abuse.
Some who reject the notion of homosexual pathology continue to speculate about a "gay gene," but that theory has been rejected by both the scientific community and national homosexual advocacy organizations.
The genetic link theory has its origin in 1991, with the work of UCLA researcher and homosexual activist Simon LeVay, who claimed that there were some minute physiological differences between the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men. His research was heralded by pop media outlets as proof of a genetic link to sexual orientation, but even LeVay, upon publishing his research, noted, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
Another researcher, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, believes some homosexuals may have chromosomal similarities. Like LeVay, Hamer's research was also heralded by media outlets as proof of a genetic link to sexual orientation. Like LeVay, Hamer insisted, "These genes do not cause people to become homosexuals ... the biology of personality is much more complicated than that."
It should be noted, however, that some children may be genetically predisposed to exhibit masculine or feminine characteristics associated with the opposite sex -- putting them at greater risk of being targeted by homosexual predators and more susceptible, psychologically, to homosexual modeling.
Given this insight into the pathology of gender disorientation, to abandon homosexuals in their mental illness (and sin) under the aegis of "love and compassion" is tantamount to abandoning a destitute homeless man under the justification that his condition is "righteous in God's eyes."
Indeed, there is hope for readjustment of sexual orientation, despite assertions to the contrary by homosexual advocacy groups, whose clear social and political agendas risk being undermined by such hope. Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, writes, "The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal."
"This new orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual orientation -- not only in his sexual behavior ... and to enjoy heterosexuality," notes Dr. Spitzer. "Many professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such psychotherapy. ... Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda."
Hope notwithstanding, the normalization objectives of the homosexual agenda are plain. "When homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it ... becomes the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children," warned Dr. Socarides. "In a Washington March for Gay Pride, they chanted, 'We're here. We're queer. And we're coming after your children.' What more do we need to know?"
The Agenda: Homosexual Normalization
The primary cultural agenda of the nation's largest homosexual advocacy groups is to promote it as being on par with heterosexuality. They advance this agenda through legal challenges, and two primary methods of childhood indoctrination -- education and entertainment. This aggressive confrontation with the timeless Judeo-Christian foundation for the family and society is both well-funded and well-organized.
The legal agenda
The primary legal agenda of homosexual advocacy groups is to give this behavior "civil rights" status, as in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act supported by homosexual Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and others. Necessary components of this agenda are an insistence on corporate and government benefits for homosexual "partners" and state-by-state recognition of homosexual "marriage" and adoption rights.
In 2004, the Massachusetts legislature became the first state governing body to institute legal status for same-sex marriage and bar "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation.
"As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote during Massachusetts' same-sex marriage debate, "the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."
To that end, in 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston closed its adoption services rather than be forced to place children with homosexuals, which the Catholic Church considers "gravely immoral." That prompted one advocacy group, the so-called "Human Rights Campaign" to proclaim "Boston Catholic Charities puts ugly political agenda before child welfare," which, of course, is a projection of the HRC's mission.
Consistent with Professor Glendon's warning, the Catholic Charities case is the tip of the iceberg. Once homosexuals receive national civil rights status, a position paper such as the one you are reading could be classified "hate speech" making it a "hate crime." It's author could be censured, as was the case in Canada recently when a Christian pastor spoke out against homosexuality.
Legal challenges not withstanding, there is a much more insidious effort to undermine the Judeo-Christian family model -- and it is being implemented with much greater success than legal diktats.
Entertainment as indoctrination
Every media form, particularly the "entertainment industry," now has numerous outlets, which integrate homosexual behavior into the family context as if it were as normal as any other human condition in the family. Entertainment is thus the subtlest and most effective means of ideological and cultural indoctrination. It creates a psychological opening through which cultural messages bypass the intellectual filters that arrest most input for critical analysis. Because the context for these messages is "entertainment," they get a free pass into the mind's cultural framework, where they compete, at a subconscious level, with established ethical and moral standards. Those at greatest risk for this form of indoctrination are emotive adults and all children.
Academic indoctrination
Caveat Emptor!
Parents beware that there are well-organized and well-funded "gender desensitization" programs and curriculums designed to indoctrinate children, K-12, in both private and government schools. Leading this cultural contravention is the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and other allied homosexual alliances across the nation. The syllabus is similar to that being propagated by the media -- that homosexuality is an ethical and moral lifestyle choice, and challenging the merits of that choice is tantamount to social ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.
Children, as on a normal developmental track, experience sexual curiosity, sometimes including same-sex interest, though most don't act out those interests. But Chad Thompson and Warren Throckmorton, who research homosexual trends in schools, warn that for children who do act on same-sex impulses, there is a growing network of homosexual organizations on campuses across the nation, pushing young people to self-identify as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered" as a result of nothing more than same-sex curiosity.
According to "The Battle Over Gay Teens" (Time Magazine) "In 1997 there were approximately 100 gay-straight alliances (GSAs) -- clubs for gay and gay-friendly kids -- on U.S. high school campuses. Today there are at least 3,000 GSAs -- nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one -- according to the GLSEN, which registers and advises GSAs. In the 2004-05 academic year, GSAs were established at U.S. schools at the rate of three per day." Consequently, GLSEN is setting kids up for a lifetime of perverse misery.
Author and noted commentator Camille Paglia, a self-identified lesbian, writes: "Today, when a teenager has a [same-sex] affair, all the campus social-welfare machinery pushes her [him] toward declaring herself [himself] gay and accepting and 'celebrating' it. This is a serious mistake... It is absurd to say that one, two, or more homosexual liaisons make you 'gay' -- as if lavender ink ran in your veins. Young women [men] are often attracted to each other during a transitional period when they are breaking away from their parents, expanding their world-views, and developing their personalities."
Paglia concludes, "To identify these fruitful Sapphic idylls with a permanent condition of homosexuality is madness, and the campus counselors who encourage such premature conclusions should be condemned and banished. They are preying, for their own ideological purposes, on young people at their most vulnerable."
And a footnote on academic agendas: It is no small irony that the most outspoken academic advocates for homosexual normalization at the collegiate level are often equally dogmatic about universal environmental preservation -- preservation of the natural order. Surely, even the most humanist of these academicians must acknowledge the obvious -- that homosexuality is a clear and undeniable violation of the laws of nature.
The Conflict: Scriptural Authority
Homosexuality is unanimously condemned by the foundational teachings of all world religions, and those teachings are the basis for societal norms worldwide. Thus, breaking through religious barriers is high on the homosexual normalization agenda.
The issue within the Christian Church is not one of Church unity, traditions or politics. Homosexual advocacy in the Church has become a primary catalyst for challenging Scriptural authority -- the relevance of God's word as received through Holy Scripture, the historic foundation of the Christian Church and Western society.
Homosexual advocates make the principal argument that Scripture is ambiguous about sexual immorality. However, both the Old and New Testaments are abundantly clear on their condemnation of homosexual behavior.
In every authentic translation of the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures, homosexual acts are, indeed, explicitly condemned. However, as some have dubiously suggested that our U.S. Constitution is an elastic "living document," likewise they suggest that Scripture is malleable and thus subject to the same practice of revisionist interpretation.
Homosexual advocates argue that citing Scripture's condemnation of sin is isogetical (proof-texting) rather than exegetical. However, this essay does not turn to God's word with the objective of finding verse that comports to a certain theological, social or political agenda, it returns to Scripture as the exegetical context for the Christian faith.
So convoluted has the debate become in some Western Christian denominations that a few have already approved the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Some have also come perilously close to recognizing homosexual "marriage," resulting in intra-denominational schisms.
The Context: Scripture, Tradition and Reason
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation." --C.S. Lewis*
To discuss the issue of homosexual normalization meaningfully, we must move beyond the "pro-this/anti-that" labels. We must dispel a false dichotomy, which has infiltrated our dialogue on the role of homosexuals in the Church and the role of the Church in regard to homosexuals.
Homosexual advocacy groups often rebut dissenters by claiming they are pharisaical, intolerant and judgmental -- "homophobic" in current parlance -- accusations which serve only to preclude discussing this issue consequentially. Those who apply such labels do so only as a means of arresting discourse.
Disagreement with homosexual advocates' social and legal agendas has no correlation with one's capacity to love or have compassion for others. Nor is such dissent necessarily related to judgment, which is God's alone. Rather, it is about discerning between right and wrong and obedience to objective truth, rather than conforming to a code of subjective relativism popularly justified under the contemporary aegis of "tolerance, diversity and inclusion."
It should be noted that objective truth does not constitute law without grace. In fact, law in the absence of grace is meaningless -- little more than oppression. However, grace in the absence of law is, likewise, meaningless -- little more than licentiousness. Law and grace are thus different sides of the same coin.
To discern right from wrong, Christians turn to Scripture as the first resource of our faith, and the foundation on which the tenets of reason and tradition reside.(1)
Opponents of Biblical authority must address themselves to an essential question: If Scripture is not the received Word of God, what then is our source of knowledge, of truth, as Christians? Epistemological certainty must begin and end with a reference point, an objective source, outside of the subjective self. If this presupposition regarding the nature of Scripture and the God of Scripture is denied, no common Christian foundation for truth or knowledge remains.
If the Word of God is subordinate to "situational ethics" and "cultural relativity," if one is content to "interpret" Scripture such that it comports with a post-modern social agenda rather than receive God's word as objective truth, then there is no further common ground for discussion of homosexuality (or any other issue) in the context of the Christian Church. Such subordination leads to a denial of objective truth, the advancement of subjectivist doctrines and, ultimately, the denial of any Scriptural authority.
In Luke 12, Jesus speaks about denial of objective truth: "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."
Endeavoring to divine objective truth, some Christians suggest that the Church's founding tenets of Scripture, reason and tradition, have equal standing. But there is nothing in the history of the Church to support this errant assertion. Reason and tradition rest on the foundation of Scripture, and are not to be equated with God's Word. Thus, if we are to be faithful, we turn to Scripture for Divine guidance in the Christian Church.
Some Christians correlate Scriptural truth with reason in the Scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas. God's universal plan and its inherent truths are thoroughly explicated in both the revealed and natural law, including the study of the natural order. Within that order, we are entrusted with the land and all living things, a trust frequently violated in selfishness and submission to evil. We are also entrusted with the sexual design and relationship between "male and female, man and woman." This design is as clear in nature and reason as in Scripture, and should not be violated.(2)
Some Christian traditionalists differentiate between Scriptural truths, which transcend time and culture, and teachings, which are a reflection of historic culture. In Leviticus, for example, one may conclude that the legal stipulation for unrepentant homosexuals -- death -- is associated with an ancient culture. But, to conclude that all of Leviticus or the entire Bible for that matter is relative to whatever measure we choose, defies truth. The transcendent truth in Leviticus is its condemnation of homosexual behavior as "an abomination."
Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law of the Old Testament through His atoning death on the cross -- the ultimate and final sacrifice -- instituting the new Covenant of Grace. Law and Grace are, essentially, different sides of the same coin, which is to say each is to balance, or to be understood through, the other.
That is not to say the New Testament does not clearly condemn fornication and homosexual practices. In Romans 1:24-32, the Apostle Paul says, "[T]hey exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.... Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.... Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who would practice them." In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul adds, "Do not be deceived, neither the immoral ... nor sexual perverts ... will inherit the Kingdom of God." Paul uses the Greek word "arsenokoitai" in these texts, which means "sodomites."
Some homosexual advocates argue that Jesus is "silent" on this issue in the Gospels. Of course, Jesus does not directly speak about pedophilia or bestiality either. Is He really silent, or is His affirmation of marriage between "man and woman" sufficient rebuke for the homosexual agenda in the Christian Church?
In Matthew 19, Jesus speaks to us about marriage and sexuality: "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, man and woman, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'. "(3)
Note that Jesus concludes in this passage: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
Clearly, the homosexual agenda is wholly antithetical to all of these teachings. Yet some denominations continue to raise up unrepentant homosexuals to positions of Church leadership.
Unity of the Body: Christian Fellowship
Of Church leaders and elders, Paul writes in Titus 1:7-9: "Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work ... he must hold firmly to the trustworthy Message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Holding firmly to the Message has always required much faith and courage. Paul also writes in 1 Timothy 3:2, "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." and notes, "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's Church?"
It follows, then, that the church should not give official standing to homosexuals, ostensibly as an expression of "unconditional love."
Though the legal status of "homosexual behavior" and "same-sex marriage" is being debated within the context of government legislatures and courts, the objective truth concerning such behavior was established by Scripture many centuries ago. Therefore, no institutional body of Christians should seek to normalize homosexuality or any other sexual aberration. Doing so projects the message that such aberrations are acceptable in God's eyes and consistent with His creation. This projection is not only iconoclastic but deceitful in that it suggests overt sinful behavior is to be upheld and honored.(4)
Homosexual normalization in some denominations and para-church ministries has caused such confusion that laity are left to ponder, "How do sheep find their way when the shepherd is lost?" Of course, such confusion is resolved by the simple question, "Who is your shepherd?" Jesus is not lost. But there is great peril in putting faith in men. In Matthew 7, Jesus warned: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Again Jesus warns in Matthew 24: "Watch out that no one deceives you."
If we are faithful, then we abide by Scripture and uphold its revealed transcendent Truth. In John 8, Jesus speaks to us about this truth: "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." But, if Christians refuse to discern the transcendent truth in Christ's words, what are the implications for Christendom?
On These Two Commandments: The Christian Response
So how do we respond to homosexual practitioners in the Church and society?
In Matthew 22, Jesus declares: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Indeed, we are called to love all people.
As for how to show God's love to sinners, Romans 12:21 teaches, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." We are thus commanded to reach out unconditionally in love, and seek to heal. Fortunately, because we are all sinners, the expression of unconditional love by other Christians is often the gateway to healing our own souls.
While discerning right from wrong in society, as Christians we are called to love sinners, and not predicate our love for homosexuals, in this case, on condition of their obedience to moral truth as set forth in Scripture. But "unconditional love" is not analogous with "subjective relativism," and we should not uphold sinful behavior as righteous, which is a violation of God's word and design. Failing to make this distinction constitutes grace in the absence of law, which, as noted previously, results in licentiousness.
As for unrepentant homosexuals (those who have been offered love and healing) and their standing among Christ's people, 1 Corinthians 5:11 confirms: "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral.... With such a man do not even eat." As noted, this does not mean we are not to reach out to sinners and seek to foster repentance and healing in them. But it does mean we must not raise them up in their sin and provide them good standing in our fellowship.
Unfortunately, it is much easier to uphold sin than it is to confront sin and love the sinner enough to guide him toward healing. This accounts for why most homosexuals are abandoned to their misery.
It is sometimes difficult to stand in defense of God's Word and plan for His people. Christians, however, must remain defiant in the face of errant teaching, and we must know that we have been called to do so in His name. "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers." (Psalm 1:1)
The Christian calling to defend objective truth in this matter may indeed attract much ridicule. But in the words of our Savior from Matthew 5: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."
Stand firm in the Truth and Light.
Resources
NARTH -- The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality -- Helping clients bring their desires and behaviors into harmony with their values.
Exodus International is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of "Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."
LIFE Ministries International is a Christ-centered support group ministry focused on encouraging, empowering and equipping God's people to live everyday in sexual integrity.
Courage is a national network of support for Roman Catholics who struggle with homosexuality.
PATH -- Positive Alternatives To Homosexuality -- is a non-profit coalition of organizations that help people with unwanted same-sex attractions to realize their personal goals for change.
Endnotes
(1) "If there were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God's Word; and if we be uncertain of God's Word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new Church, a new god, yea himself to be a god. If the Church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the Word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know whether he had a right faith, and whether he were in the true Church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan." -- Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury (1533)
(2) Taking even the most humanist position in complete disregard of Scripture, homosexuality is still a clear and undeniable violation of the laws of nature.
(3) In Matthew, Jesus refers back to Genesis. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27) Later in Matthew 19:10, Christ also says: "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth..." (In the Greek text, one finds the word "eunouxoi" meaning one with a congenital defect or castrated, and without the ability to consummate marriage. The reference is distinctly different from the Greek word for homosexuals or sodomites as referenced by Paul. Homosexual advocates sometimes incorrectly invoke this passage as justification.)
(4) Our great nation's first president, George Washington, a devout Anglican, advised: "The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institution may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest purposes."
*C. S. Lewis, The Poison of Subjectivism (from Christian Reflections; p. 108