You’re not in Kansas anymore…




Solar Tornado Five Times Wider Than Earth Dazzles Space Weather

Experts (VIDEO)


By: Staff Published: 03/29/2012 09:58 AM EDT on

A NASA spacecraft has captured video of a massive solar “tornado” five times wider than the Earth twisting its way across the surface of the sun.

NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) looked on as the huge, swirling storm raged on Sept. 25, 2011, spinning solar gas at speeds up to 186,000 mph (300,000 kph), researchers said. Here on Earth, tornado wind speeds top out at around 300 mph (483 kph).

“This is perhaps the first time that such a huge solar tornado is filmed by an imager,” Xing Li of Aberystwyth University in Wales, who analyzed the SDO footage, said in a statement. “Previously, much smaller solar tornadoes were found by the [NASA/European Space Agency] SOHO satellite. But they were not filmed.”

Li and other researchers will present a movie of the tornado Thursday (March 29) at the 2012 National Astronomy Meeting in Manchester, the United Kingdom.


SDO’s instruments saw gases as hot as 3.6 million degrees Fahrenheit (2 million degrees Celsius) rise from a dense solar structure called a prominence, then travel about 124,000 miles (200,000 kilometers) along a spiral path into the upper solar atmosphere, researchers said.


Unlike Earth’s tornados, which are driven by wind, solar twisters are shaped by our star’s powerful magnetic field. They often occur in concert with violent explosions of solar plasma known as coronal mass ejections, or CMEs. Some researchers think the tornados may help trigger CMEs, which can streak through space at several million miles per hour.

CMEs that hit Earth can wreak havoc on our planet, causing temporary disruptions in GPS signals, radio communications and power grids. They also typically supercharge the dazzling light shows near Earth’s poles known as the northern and southern lights.

The $850 million SDO spacecraft, which launched in February 2010, is the first in a fleet of NASA efforts to study our sun. The probe’s five-year mission is the cornerstone of a NASA science program called Living with a Star, which aims to help researchers better understand aspects of the sun-Earth system that affect our lives and society.

The sun is currently in an active period of its 11-year weather cycle. The current cycle is known as Solar Cycle 24 and will peak in 2013.

Follow for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.








Chinese Police Raid Underground Christian Newspapers In Latest ‘House

Church’ Crackdown

Chinese police raided the offices of two underground Christian newspapers on Monday and seized four prominent staff members who are still missing, the Texas-based Christian rights group ChinaAid reports.

“Four of the magazines’ most important personnel were taken into police custody,” ChinaAid said of the raids in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province. “There has been no further word about them.”

The publications, A Kernel of Wheat and A Foreign Land, were started by members of China’s 40-million strong “house church” movement, an underground network of Christians who meet in private homes because the government disallows them from registering larger spaces to worship and repeatedly cracks down on open-air gatherings, according to Radio Free Asia.

Pastor Zhang Mingxuan, head of the Beijing-based Chinese House Church Alliance, told reporters that he heard about the detainments but had had no clue as to which house churches the detainees belonged, because there are a great number of them in the area.

“The political atmosphere is very tense right now and the house churches are feeling the pressure, too,” Mingxuan said.

Persecution of house churches by Chinese authorities was so widespread in 2011 that ChinaAid called it “the year of political and religious persecution,” according to The Christian Post.

But activists are predicting that 2012 will be even tougher for house churches.

“Given leadership transition in fall of 2012 we do expect a much harsher year, even more so than 2011, although 2011 already marked the worst in terms of religious freedom, human rights, and rule of law in two decades,” Bob Fu, founder of ChinaAid, told The Christian Post in a separate article.

Read the articles from Radio Free China and The Christian Post for more on China’s house church movement









The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008.

It doesn’t take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe – and possibly to the rest of the world.
Date: Tue. 15 January 200814:30
I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth – Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION
or 20% of the world’s population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
1988 – Najib Mahfooz
1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 – Elias James Corey
1994 – Yaser Arafat:
1999 – Ahmed Zewai
1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
1998 – Ferid Mourad
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
1910 – Paul Heyse
1927 – Henri Bergson
1958 – Boris Pasternak
1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 – Nelly Sachs
1976 – Saul Bellow
1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 – Elias Canetti
1987 – Joseph Brodsky
1991 – Nadine Gordimer World
1911 – Alfred Fried
1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 – Rene Cassin
1973 – Henry Kissinger
1978 – Menachem Begin
1986 – Elie Wiesel
1994 – Shimon Peres
1994 – Yitzhak Rabin
1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 – Henri Moissan
1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
1910 – Otto Wallach
1915 – Richard Willstaetter
1918 – Fritz Haber
1921 – Albert Einstein
1922 – Niels Bohr
1925 – James Franck
1925 – Gustav Hertz
1943 – Gustav Stern
1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 – Felix Bloch
1954 – Max Born
1958 – Igor Tamm
1959 – Emilio Segre
1960 – Donald A. Glaser
1961 – Robert Hofstadter
1961 – Melvin Calvin
1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 – Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 – Julian Schwinger
1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
1971 – Dennis Gabor
1972 – William Howard Stein
1973 – Brian David Josephson
1975 – Benjamin Mottleson
1976 – Burton Richter
1977 – Ilya Prigogine
1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
1978 – Peter L Kapitza
1979 – Stephen Weinberg
1979 – Sheldon Glashow
1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
1980 – Paul Berg
1980 – Walter Gilbert
1981 – Roald Hoffmann
1982 – Aaron Klug
1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
1985 – Jerome Karle
1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 – Robert Huber
1988 – Leon Lederman
1988 – Melvin Schwartz
1988 – Jack Steinberger
1989 – Sidney Altman
1990 – Jerome Friedman
1992 – Rudolph Marcus
1995 – Martin Perl
2000 – Alan J. Heeger
1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 – Simon Kuznets
1972 – Ken neth Joseph Arrow
1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
1976 – Milton Friedman
1978 – Herbert A. Simon
1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 – Franco Modigliani
1987 – Robert M.. Solow
1990 – Harry Markowitz
1990 – Merton Miller
1992 – Gary Becker
1993 – Robert Fogel
1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
1908 – Paul Erlich
1914 – Robert Barany
1922 – Otto Meyerhof
1930 – Karl Landsteiner
1931 – Otto Warburg
1936 – Otto Loewi
1944 – Joseph Erlanger
1944 – Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
1952 – Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 – Hans Krebs
1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 – Joshua Lederberg
1959 – Arthur Kornberg
1964 – Konrad Bloch
1965 – Francois Jacob
1965 – Andre Lwoff
1967 – George Wald
1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 – Salvador Luria
1970 – Julius Axelrod
1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
1972 – Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 – Howard Martin Temin
1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 – Daniel Nathans
1980 – Baruj Benacerraf
1984 – Cesar Milstein
1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 – Stan ley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 – Gertrude Elion
1989 – Harold Varmus
1991 – Erwin Neher
1991 – Bert Sakmann
1993 – Richard J. Roberts
1993 – Phillip Sharp
1994 – Alfred Gilman
1995 – Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brain-washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause the maximum number of deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims. The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.
There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church.
There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.
The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbours, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel ‘s part, the following two sentences really say it all:
‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ..”
Benjamin Netanyahu
When the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.
He did this because he said in words to this effect:
‘Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses – because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.’
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it ‘offends’ the Muslim population, which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving in to it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.
This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were ‘murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated’ while the German people looked the other way.
Now more than ever, with Iran among others, claiming the Holocaust is ‘a myth,’ it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the WorldTradeCenter ‘NEVER HAPPENED’ because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?










Hating Israel


March 26th, 2012


Before he was killed by French police, the jihadist murderer of three French-Algerian soldiers and four Jews, including three children, said that he was driven to killing by the “murder” of Palestinian children by Israelis. Of course, when all else fails blame the Jews. But this excuse is a mere pretext, a propaganda tactic for finding Western moral support by exploiting the unsavory anti-Jewish prejudices still lurking in too many Westerners.

The narrative that the Israeli “brutal occupation”  of the “Palestinian homeland” is the cause of jihadist violence is a hoary cliché, a jihadist pretext for terror enabled by Western anti-Semitism and pop psychology. Examples of this received wisdom are easy to collect. French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in 2002 explained increasing anti-Semitic attacks and car-burnings in France by saying, “One shouldn’t necessarily be surprised that young French people from immigrant families feel compassion for the Palestinians and get agitated when they see what is happening. The historian Tony Judt in his history of post-war Europe concurred, agreeing that the attacks were “a direct outcome of the festering crisis in the Middle East.” Repeating this received wisdom, General David Petraeus, in his 2010 Congressional testimony, said that the Arab-Israeli “conflict foments anti-Americanism sentiment, due to a perception of U.S favoritism for Israel. Anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples” in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.” No doubt cognizant of the Western penchant for blaming Jews, Osama bin-Laden added Palestine to his ever-growing list of pretexts for attacking America: “The creation and continuation of Israel,” he lectured us in 2002, “is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals.”

Of course, bin Laden was never short of pretexts for rationalizing murder. First it was the American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Then in 2004, he said American involvement in Lebanon in 1983 made him hate America. Elsewhere, he claimed that the U.S. had waged “a war against Muslims” since 1945. Yet in his statements after 9/11, bin Laden mentioned the real reason: the “humiliation and disgrace” inflicted on Muslims by the dissolution of the caliphate in 1924. That, not the creation of Israel, is the real “catastrophe” for Islamists, the culmination of three centuries of Western encroachment into the House of Islam. For theorists of jihad like Muslim Brothers Hassan al Banna and Sayyid Qutb, the existence of Israel was merely a symptom of a larger corruption of Islam by Western ideas that opened the door to the Western dominance that made Israel possible in the first place.

Moreover, it is hard to credit Arab or Muslim concern for Palestinian suffering, given the contempt most Arabs have shown for the people who ran away in 1948 rather than fight, or the way Arab countries herded Palestinian refugees into squalid camps existing on international welfare, or the body-count of Palestinians killed by their fellow Arabs, a number that dwarfs those killed by Israel while defending herself from terrorist attacks. Just the toll of Palestinians killed in the 1970 Black September massacre in Jordan, for example, around 5000, is over half the 8000 killed by Israel during the whole six-decade conflict. Clearly, the issue isn’t the number of dead, tortured, imprisoned or oppressed, but rather the identity of the enemy––infidels whose fate is to be subjected to Muslims, whom Allah called the “best of nations” destined to dominate the world.

The jihadist pretext of angry compassion for their oppressed Palestinian brothers, then, is a function of propaganda, a way to exploit the latent anti-Semitism still lurking in the Western soul in order to find support for the jihadist cause. No other explanation for hatred of Israel can account for the obsession with that country on the part of many Europeans, the irrational hatred that accompanies the ritualistic mantras of “never again” even as European countries pursue anti-Israel policies that aids those who in fact passionately want another genocide. Remember when France’s ambassador to England called Israel “that shitty little country” even as Palestinian terrorists were slaughtering Israeli women and children during the Intifada? That insult was just a new version of the old anti-Semitic tropes redolent of Der Sturmer that can be found everywhere in Europe. During the debate over the Iraq war, a British Labour M.P. said Tony Blair was “unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisors.” A German former defense minister said President Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein because of “a powerful––perhaps overly powerful––Jewish lobby.” A member of the European Parliament claimed that in the U.S. Defense Department “key positions are held by Jews; the Pentagon is today a Jewish institution.” And according to a recent Anti-Defamation League survey, such anti-Semitic attitudes are on the rise across Europe. Given these prejudices, blaming Israel as the global arch-villain comes easy to many Europeans, and puts in the hands of jihadists a powerful tool for rationalizing their terrorism and making it easier for Europeans to marginalize Israel.

Beyond European anti-Semitism, though, the “Israel made them do it” excuse bespeaks a remarkable arrogance on the part of Westerners, who can explain jihadist behavior only by the materialist and psychological categories with which Westerners are comfortable. Thus the jihadists have no motives of their own derived from their faith, but are merely reacting to Western sins like colonialism and imperialism, or to a lack of material prosperity and political freedom. No matter how often the jihadists quote chapter and verse of the Koran, hadiths, and Muslim theologians and jurisprudents, smug Westerners dismiss it all as the “distortions” of a fanatic fringe, and brand as “Islamophobes” those who call attention to these facts.  When such rationalizations are impossible, then our pundits and academics simply ignore this ever-increasing evidence of mainstream Islamic intolerance. Thus we heard nothing in the mainstream press when Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Al al-Sheikh, the grand mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, recently said it is “necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula,” as the Freedom Center’s Shillman Fellow Raymond Ibrahim reported. Rather than take religion seriously and acknowledge the intolerant and violent theology of Islam that drives the jihad, Western intellectuals find it easier to blame Israel, which also allows them to indulge their irrational dislike of “Zionism,” the new face of the old anti-Semitism.

Western demonization and scapegoating of Israel have warped our foreign policy and our tactics for confronting jihadist terror and its state sponsors like Iran and Syria. We forget that Israel has been on the front-line of this war long before 9/11, and is our most important ally in this struggle. The more we compromise Israel’s security, the more we hearten our enemies and make them believe they can win.








Public Schools Manipulate Beliefs

Friday, 23 Mar 2012 07:11 PM

By Dr. Laura



This morning I came across two stories which seemingly have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. However, I see the link as clear as day and as scary as zombie movies.
The first story’s headline: “Pa. Bishop Does Not Recant Saying that Hitler and Mussolini ‘Would Love Our Public School System.'”

Bishop Joseph P. McFadden
(Catholic Diocese of Harisburg)












According to CNS News, Bishop Joseph McFadden made a comparison between the interests of the public school system and totalitarianism, while discussing what he saw as a lack of school choice in Pennsylvania.
“The reference to dictators and totalitarian governments of the 20th century which I made in an interview on the topic of school choice (aka “vouchers”) was to make a dramatic illustration of how these unchecked monolithic governments of the past used schools to curtail the primary responsibility of the parent in the education of their children,” he said.
Instead of dealing with the urgency of quality education and school vouchers, the ACLU and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League sent out stern admonishments attacking Bishop McFadden’s mention of dictators and totalitarian governments: “. . . he should not be making his point at the expense of the memory of six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust.”
The bishop never mentioned the Holocaust. While expressing concern for anyone “offended” he did not retract his statements.
Good for him.
The second story, from The Telegraph in Great Britain: “Girls, 13, given contraceptive implants at school. Girls as young as 13 have been fitted with contraceptive implants at school without their parents knowing.” This was part of a government — GOVERNMENT — initiative to drive down teenage pregnancies.
As many as nine secondary schools in the city of Southampton are thought to be involved. The health chiefs have defended this saying teenage pregnancies had dropped by 22 percent.
They don’t, however, tell us how much promiscuity and STDs have risen as boys tell girls to get the implant so they can have sex without mum and dad being the wiser. And they don’t tell us how much these youngsters will be emotionally and psychologically damaged by reckless so-called “safe” sex behaviors.
As one parent said, “Parents send their children to school to receive a good education, not to be undermined by health workers who give their children contraceptives behind their backs.”
Now . . . the ADL and the ACLU don’t see the reason Bishop McFadden made reference to totalitarian governments? Are the ADL and ACLU skirting the real issue by being “offended” that there is a connection between totalitarian governments and mass murder: Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Soviet Union, Northern Korea, Cambodia, etc. . . . shall I go on and on and on?
In America, Planned Parenthood will give abortions to minor girls, without parental knowledge or permission, and not report to the authorities that the male involved is an adult.
Many, many, many schools across the country invite Planned Parenthood representatives to their schools to give “information” on “family planning.” (I call it recruitment of future abortions).
In America, our public schools will teach about every sexual combination and orientation of existing sexual experience as morally equal and acceptable, disallowing discussion, much less disagreement.
This is pretty standard for public schools and is why I always recommend children be taken out of public schools and put in conservative religious schools or home schooled.
Our public schools have become politically correct sites of manipulation of thought and beliefs.
The bishop was right.
Read more on Public Schools Manipulate Beliefs











The best of Fred Hutchison

The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda

March 22, 2012 Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst
Originally published April 28, 2004



Over twenty years ago, I had an intermittent conversation about homosexuality with a gay man at work. Although he persistently brought up the subject, he would periodically fly into a rage and call me a bigot when I disagreed with him. That man went on to become a key homosexual organizer in my city.
Five years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my newspaper concerning how the paper was becoming an organ of gay advocacy. I forwarded the letter to a group who received regular mailings from me. One man responded and disclosed himself as a gay. He accused me of wanting to submit gays to the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. He used several abusive terms which reminded me of other encounters I have had with gays, including the individual mentioned in the first paragraph. I replied that I refused to be bullied and intimidated into silence.
Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called “jamming,” which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.
Propaganda and thought control


I learned about jamming by reading the articles How America Went Gay, and Thought Reform and the Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is the author of the book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (1995). Socarides drew a lot of his information about the program that involves “jamming” from the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s (1990) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This book is a blueprint for gay activists for applying brainwashing techniques developed by the totalitarian regime of Communist China. These techniques were catalogued in Robert Jay Lifton’s seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (1989).
The program borrowed from the Chinese and put forward for gay activism by Kirk and Madsen involves three steps: 1) desensitization, 2) jamming, and 3) conversion.



1) Desensitization — Through constant exposure to homosexuals on television, in the movies, on radio, and in the newspapers, the public would become accustomed to gays being a normal part of their life. The image conveyed would be that gays are ordinary people like everyone else. As the gays came out of the closet to show a public face, the startling aspects of gay perversion and pathology would be left in the closet — concealed from the public eye. The goal of desensitization is public indifference.
2) Jamming — The object of jamming is to shame gay opponents into silence. The shame comes from the accusation of bigotry and from social stigmatization.
“All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack…The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicted twinge of shame….when his homohatred surfaces.



“Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths…. It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause.”
Notice the two elements — the shaming of the alleged “bigot” by making him feel like a social pariah and the depiction of the suffering gay to win sympathy. In my personal experience, I have met with two versions of the shaming tactics from gays. The first is the personal attack (ad hominem, meaning “against the man”). The ad hominem attack ignores the logic and facts put forward by the opponent and accuses him of being a bigot — i.e., a shameful being. The insult is pure assertion and unsupported by facts. It is essentially a threat to socially stigmatize the person if he does not desist from his opposition to the gay agenda.
This tactic is very effective in a politically correct group-think environment — such as college campuses and newsrooms. Politicians as a class are extremely sensitive to the threat of being publicly stigmatized. Remember Kirk and Marsden’s idea that “people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack.” These may be primitive wolf-pack group-think tactics, but they are powerful nonetheless.
Almost all of us have been through this kind of thing. A perfect example is the high school clique. Retribution for violating the code of the clique involves public shaming and demonization. One becomes an “untouchable” — a pariah to every clique and caste in the school.
A study of the life cycle of a business found that the terminal stage of decline was when group-think prevailed. At this point, the in-group became an end in itself and the customer became an inconvenient nuisance. James F. Welles, Ph.D., wrote The Story of Stupidity, which examined historical eras in which many people were seized by a self-destructive collective stupidity. In each case, group-think prevailed, and rationality and independent thought were driven out. “Political correctness” is a form of contemporary group-think that drives out common sense. This poisoned environment has created the opportunity for the abusive nonsense of gay “jamming” to flourish. However toxic and destructive wolf-pack group-think is, it is a powerful temptation that man, a social animal, is prone to, and which dictators make use of.
When I testified before the Ohio Senate Committee on the Defense of Marriage (DOM) Act, the Republican committee chairman, who favors the act, allowed those against DOM to repeatedly make charges of bigotry and hatred against those who favored DOM. He allowed them to run on with no time limit as they painted the gay lifestyle in glowing terms and wallowed in their personal pain from bigotry. Unfortunately, he did not allow those in favor of DOM to answer the charges of bigotry or refute any of the assertions the anti-DOM folks made. He refused to allow experts to speak about the tragic realities of the homosexual lifestyle. Why? He probably did not want to be called a “bigot” in front of the TV cameras. He was scared to death of public jamming and shaming. Even though he voted for DOMA, he was terrified at being publicly branded as not being “one of the pack.” This accords perfectly with Chinese brainwashing techniques. Consider Kirk and Marsden again:
“…our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self-righteous pleasure. This approach can be quite useful and effective — if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.”




The gays have indeed been given massive public exposure by liberals on TV, in the movies, and within the print media. This aggressive use of the media has been a priority of the agenda of gay leaders at least since 1971.
The “frisson of doubt” inserted through emotional conditioning is especially effective on men in the clergy. They view themselves as men of conscience and compassion — and like to be seen by others as such. Thus, when the pastor speaks in accord with the scriptures and calls gay sexual practices a sin, he may feel an almost unconscious shiver of doubt and shame. It is not the shame of violating a universal moral law or upholding the truth of the Bible. It is the shame of violating a social taboo and the fear of being seen by men that he is lacking in compassion and sensitivity. It plays to the ultimate fear of many pastors, the fear of public disgrace.
Denominations like the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists are in a pitched battle over whether to ordain gays, or to bless gay unions. Many of the theological moderates and many of the Bishops have taken to saying that they are “open” to hearing both sides. By taking no public position, they hide from the threat of being defamed by one side as being a “bigot” and a “hater,” or being charged by the other side with being unscriptural.
The resistance against the gay agenda in the churches is left to the most conservative, the most principled, and those most willing to stand alone. Those who love God and truth more than they hate being publicly slimed by the gay activists and their liberal allies must often bear a heavy cost. When the liberal clergy seize control of a denomination and back the gay agenda, they ostracize the conservatives who oppose the gay agenda and exclude them from the seminaries, from denominational committees, and from speaking engagements. So much for liberal “tolerance” and “inclusion.”
One aspect of the shaming technique is to portray how much pain the gay suffers as a result of the intolerance of the bigot. The movie Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks, is a media tour de force in getting wide audiences to sympathize with the sufferings of a gay man and to be disgusted with the persecutions of his bigoted tormentors. Everyone who places a high value on compassion is bound to be swayed by the movie. It is one of the greatest masterpieces of propaganda ever put on screen. The not-so-subtle message is — “Shame on you bigots for not giving your approval to the cute and sensitive Tom Hanks — who just happens to be gay.” With one stroke, the bigots are jammed and shamed and the gay wins sympathy. Brilliant propaganda — that. The Chinese would be proud.
3) Conversion — The third step is conversion of the public to be receptive to the gay agenda. Conversion requires a change of heart. The change of heart will occur “…if we can actually make them like us,” says Kirk and Madsen. “Conversion aims at just this…conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the media.” When the audience begins to sympathize with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, the process of conversion has begun.
On television, gay comedienne Ellen DeGeneres once used abrasiveness in comedy. Since her public disclosure that she is a lesbian, she has emphasized personal likability. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy emphasizes a goofy cuteness and sweetness. Public likability has eluded the hard-boiled Ellen, but the “fab five” of Queer Eye have been fantastically successful in winning the sentimental favor of the public. No line is too sappy and no situation too mushy for the fab five. Don’t you just want to hug them? Folks, this is conversion. Serious conversion. Never underestimate the gushy sentimentality of the American public. The cuteness of Topsy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin did more to turn public sentiment away from slavery than all the abolitionists combined.
The big lie


The big lie technique has been used by almost all totalitarians. As explained by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, “Tell a lie, make it a big one, repeat it often enough, and a lot of people will believe it.” The Chinese propaganda techniques used for the gay agenda are more sophisticated than the bombastic Nazi methods. But as true totalitarians seeking mind control, the people behind the gay agenda are promoting three big lies: 1) Homosexuality is genetically determined, 2) Change is not possible, and 3) Gay rights are part of the civil rights agenda. Homosexuality is placed on a par with race and gender. According to the gay agenda, these truths are obvious. No debate is needed. Opposition to these points signifies bigotry.
1) Genetic determinism — Genes determine human choices and the trajectory of human development, we are told. This means that the gay is a programmed automaton and has no choice but to perform those sexual acts which the genes dictate. A full menu of sexual perversions are written into the genes and require only the right opportunity and stimulation to express themselves. This is nonsense, of course. Gays have free will and choice, as do every human being. Sexual perversions must be learned through some combination of experimentation and instruction.
At present, there seems to be no scientific evidence linking particular genes to particular sexual practices. But there is scientific evidence to the contrary. A sample of 90,000 identical twins (who have the same genes) shows no meaningful correlation of the sexual preference for twins raised apart. Fraternal twins had a higher correlation. If genetic determinism was true, there should be 100% correlation. (Source: Bearman & Bruckner, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 107, No 5, 2002)
The Journal of Homosexuality, a gay publication, reports that certain gay-gene studies and gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. Many gays want the truth instead of the big lie. Others prefer the big lie. The author of one of the criticized gay-gene studies is under investigation for science fraud by the National Institutes of Health for Science Fraud.
2) Gays can’t change


Dr. Socarides says that one-third of his former gay patients are now married and most have children. This corresponds with the success rate of the Betty Ford clinic. Another third of Socarides patients remain homosexual, but are not part of the gay scene. They report more control over their impulses and a more responsible approach to sex. The point is that two-thirds of his patients made positive changes to some extent. This excludes the blanket assertion that gays can’t change.
3) Discrimination against gays is a civil rights issue

Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics that are fixed at birth. No moral judgment can be made of race and gender, because no one chooses their race or gender.
By contrast, gay sexual activity is a behavior — and a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influence the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgments.
In view of these facts and controversies, what we need today in America is a moral citizenry immune to such brainwashing and disinformation. If we are to preserve civilization in the face of the relentless lies and deceptive techniques of the gay agenda, enough God-fearing Americans must be willing to stand up for what is right, courageously, and make a difference in the culture war.











Obama ‘further escalating’ confusion about marriage, North Carolina’s

bishops say

Ben Johnson Mon Mar 26 16:13 EST Faith

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, March 26, 2012, ( – The Roman Catholic bishops of North Carolina have stood up to the president of the United States over the state’s proposed marriage protection amendment.

Earlier this month, Barack Obama made a rare comment on a pending state issue, saying he opposed the North Carolina voter referendum that would amend the state constitution to preserve marriage as a union between one man and one woman. His North Carolina campaign spokeswoman Cameron French, said, “While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the president does not support it.”

Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Raleigh and Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte responded in a letter dated March 21 sent to thousands of registered members of

“In his comments on the upcoming referendum in our state, the president regrettably characterized the marriage amendment as a matter of discrimination,” they wrote, adding: “While we are respectful of the office of the president, we strongly disagree with this assessment.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

“His stated opposition to the referendum on the marriage amendment in North Carolina is a grave disappointment, as it is reported to be the first time the president has entered into this issue on the state level, further escalating the increasing confusion on the part of some in our society to the very nature of marriage itself.”

The Catholic Church has strongly supported the amendment, which will appear on the ballot during the May 8 primary election. The state’s pro-family organizations say they are thankful for the bishops’ leadership.

“Both the bishop in Charlotte as well as the Bishop in Raleigh responded to the president’s position, stated it’s a grave disappointment, and they went on to point out the unique place marriage has, not only in the church but into our society,” Jere Royall, legal counsel at the North Carolina Family Policy Council, told His organization has led the campaign for the amendment.

The bishops’ letter states, “Children have the right to the indispensable place of fatherhood and motherhood in their lives as they grow, are loved, nurtured, and formed by those whose unique vocation it is to be a father and a mother through the unique bond of one man and one woman in marriage.”

Royall agreed, saying, “there are thousands of studies” from “a Biblical, medical, social, scientific perspective” that show “the best place environment for raising children is with their married father and mother.”

Although the state has laws protecting true marriage, Royall is supporting a marriage amendment to the constitution to make the definition permanent. “By putting [the definition of marriage] in the constitution, then the institution of marriage would be protected from being changed by either the courts or the legislature,” he said.

“If private corporations want to offer benefits to unmarried couples, they can still do that,” he added, “but the government won’t recognize any other domestic legal union other than one man and one woman.”

Although it would only affect state government employees, the North Carolina amendment has become a political issue nationwide. In addition to the president, homosexual activist organizations and the California state Democratic Party are trying to defeat the measure.

“California Democrats stand ready to help and we will soon be in touch with ways that Democrats here can start getting the word out to voters in North Carolina about the need to defeat Amendment One,” party chairman John Burton said last week.

Tami Fitzgerald, the chairwoman of Vote For Marriage NC, replied, “The fact that the Democrat Party of California wants to help defeat North Carolina’s marriage amendment will only help us. The voters of North Carolina want to determine for themselves, without interference from activists outside the State, that marriage cannot be re-defined to be genderless.”

Royall says he is working with local churches to counteract the outside pressure. He and other marriage supporters have organized voter registration and education drives, he said. Under 501(c)3 regulations, churches cannot campaign for a person or a party but may take sides on a pending ballot issue.

Christians must be involved in society to fully live out the Gospel, he stated. “It’s part of how we love our neighbors, to be involved in the public policy process, as well as the election process,” Royall said. “If we’re committed to the greatest good of our neighbor, then we will be involved.”

The Democratic National Convention will be held in Charlotte this summer.

Polls currently show the amendment with strong support statewide.












Honor Killings Grow in the West: Islam’s Gruesome Gallery (VIDEO)


March 27th, 2012


As Islamic honor killings continue to rise in the West and on U.S. territory, our media and higher literary culture remain completely silent about them.

While our own president gets personally involved in the Trayvon Martin case, joining the race hustlers that have set out to convict George Zimmerman based on narrative, not evidence, the world is waiting for him to breathe one word on behalf of Islamic honor killings victims.

In this context, the editors of Frontpage believe it is an important time to rerun Honor Killings Grow in the West: Islam’s Gruesome Gallery compiled by modern day freedom fighter Pamela Geller, the editor of Atlas Shrugs.

Below we provide a link to the gallery. We also run Frontpage editor’s recent speech in Orange County on behalf of Islamic honor killing victims, in which he explains the Left’s callous and heartless indifference to the suffering of Islamic women under Islamic gender apartheid.

We encourage all of our readers to get involved in bringing attention to the terrible suffering of Muslim women under Islamic gender apartheid and to call out the Left on its shameful effort to push Islam’s victims into invisibility.

To view Islam’s Gruesome Gallery, click here.

See Jamie Glazov’s speech on honor killing victims and the Left’s silence below:










H.R. 347

USA Under Siege:  Congress and Obama Vote in Secret to End Bill of Rights

and other Atrocities

Sher Zieve

Monday, March 26, 2012

Canada Free Press


America, we have an enormous problem.  And, it’s a quickly expanding one.  Fueled by the palpable fear of We-the-People that is now observably apparent from arrogant elected members of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government, Orwellian bills denying the American people their Constitutionally protected rights are now being routinely crafted and passed by an increasingly draconian “ruling—not governing—political class.”

For the first time in the history of the United States of America, its people are being reigned over and reined in by thoroughly totalitarian and an almost completely corrupt set of individuals…individuals whom we elected.

The USA has been heading for Leftist rule for many decades.  The markedly minority Marxists and Maoists have been incessantly and, for years, feverishly working to take over our country and install a Stalinist/Hitlerian-styled government.  In fact, in 2010 at least 70 members (we suspect there are probably more) of the US Democrat Party were listed as members of the American Socialist Party.  But, this is the first time they have claimed the unconditional power to do so.

In the past, we were able to keep these subversive and patently destructive elements at bay.   The way in which we were able to effect our continued survival as a free country was via the Republican Party.  Tragically, those days appear to be gone.  The “Republican Establishment” (aka  “Rockefeller Republicans,” Global Elitists or New World Order followers) is now firmly in control of the GOP and it has no intention of releasing its iron grip.

Note:  Leftists are leftists wherever they deign to appear.

Recently, leftist John McCain (R-AZ)—one of the GOP “Sleeper Cell” members?—partnered with leftist Carl Levin (D-MI) in greatly increasing the Executive branch’s power over the American people.  The ‘McCain-Levin US citizen Imprisonment Bill’ effectively does away with the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process (under the law)” clause which mandates:  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Obama signed the bill as quickly as possible and then immediately issued a signing statement outlining his new powers.  In it, he states:  “I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.

In other words, although Section 1022 provides a bare skeleton structure (one sentence) “protection” for US citizens and legal resident aliens, Obama claims he can (and I suspect will soon) affect its subordination-to-his-will and use the “national security” excuse to eliminate due process for those who oppose him and his policies.  He claimed this “power” with his signing statement.  And yet, The Republicans in Congress (even those who falsely represented themselves as being “conservative”) went along with and voted for this tyrannical legislation.  Sadly, even my representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) voted for it as well as the extreme H.R. 347 that not only says protestors may not protest any government official within the confines of now “restricted” government buildings but, apparently, gives the Secret Service (SS) the power to say that wherever the POTUS is located (think Obama) will be designated as a restricted area in which no “free” anti-Obama-speech shall be allowed.

To be fair, I emailed Pearce’s Press Secretary Jamie Dickerson and was provided with his position statement on HR 1540:  “There were also important objections on the conservative side to this bill, dealing specifically with whether or not the provision in section 1022 excluding American citizens from the “covered persons” language went far enough. This was discussed thoroughly in the Republican Conference before the bill went to the floor for debate. Two of my colleagues, one of whom sits on the Armed Services Committee, had objections to the language.

“However, after consulting with the Chairman on protection of civil liberties, and getting a supportive response that the Chairman would work in the future to assure our rights are not violated, both Congressmen voted for it. I listened to all objections, from constituents and other Members of the House. I read the language personally many times, and asked my staff to research every objection brought to our attention. We concluded, after many internal discussions and hours of research, that section 1022 sufficiently protected our liberties.”

Hmmm.  Here is how the protection of liberties (in Section 1022) statement reads:  “Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens.”  That’s it—-somewhat nebulous (the word “requirement” does not necessarily restrict it from being used and “inapplicable” will apparently be overridden at the whim of Obama).  This is, also, the section to which Obama claims “broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories.”
Then, there is the passed in secret HR 347, which restricts free speech (First Amendment being summarily dismantled) to the point of its being denied.  Mr. Dickman’s response is:  “We’re still gathering information on the articles constituents have sent, but our interpretation of the accusations in the articles and the Judiciary Committee staff who drafted the bill conclude that the accusations are inaccurate. The bill does not change Secret Service practices from the past. Again, we are still gathering information, but our position on this bill is the same as it was three weeks ago when it came up for a vote.”

Rep. Pearce is not unique in his support of both of these bills.  Most in Congress voted to pass both of them.  He is just one of the latest apparent  casualties to shed himself of the restrictions of working for the people of his district and our country.  I strongly suspect this is to protect themselves from the active electorate who now sees that Obama and his supplicant—on both sides of the aisle—Congress are working only to enrich themselves.   However, none of them would need said protection from the US citizenry if they actually listened to and abided by the directions from their respective constituencies.

If, in 2012, we do not elect true and verifiable Constitutionalists to replace many of our fallen brethren we as a free (the few vestiges that are still left) country and people are finished.  Most of it is already gone.  Either we vote in a majority of Constitutionalists or we can kiss ourselves goodbye.  By the way, is there a Constitutional Conservative slated to run against Speaker Boehner in Ohio and Sen. McConnell in Kentucky?  Just asking.

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” – John Adams

The New National Defense Authorization Act [HR 1540] Is Ridiculously Scary

H.R. 347 House Congressional Reps Voting Record:

Judge Napolitano – Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony!!! BILL H.R. 347:

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks:

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks (2):

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:









Cardinal Martini and the false theology promoting homosexuality

John-Henry Westen Tue Mar 27 14:31 EST Faith

ROME, March 27, 2012 ( – Cardinal Carlo Martini, who at the conclave of 2005 was a favorite of ‘social justice’ Catholics to be elected Pope, has penned a book wherein he supports homosexual relationships.  The powerful Cardinal who was Archbishop of Milan until his retirement in 2002 at age 75, now lives in Jerusalem and suffers from Parkinson’s disease.

Given Cardinal Martini’s prominence in the Catholic Church (some sources suggest that he had quite a few votes to become Pope in the 2005 conclave) his statements on homosexuality point to a powerful counter-ideology that has made significant inroads into the Church’s teaching on the matter of homosexuality.  It is an ideology or theology that was warned about already in 1986 by Martini’s contemporary Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

In his newly released book, Credere e conoscere (Faith and Understanding), Cardinal Martini posits his disagreement with the Catholic teaching against homosexual civil unions.  “I disagree with the positions of those in the Church, that take issue with civil unions,” he wrote. “It is not bad, instead of casual sex between men, that two people have a certain stability” and that the “state could recognize them.”

Cardinal Martini says that he can even understand (but not necessarily approve) gay pride parades.  He says he agrees with the Catholic Church’s promotion of traditional marriage for the stability of the human species, however he adds, it is “not right to express any discrimination on other types of unions.”

In his 1986 ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,’ then-Cardinal Ratzinger outlined the “causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching” on homosexuality.  He described a false “new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life.”

Cardinal Ratzinger laid out the false theology and counters it with a true Biblical exegesis which seeks, he says, to “speak the truth in love.”

He warned that “increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity.”

“The movement within the Church,” he explained, is made up of “those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. … One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.”

Most importantly he said, “No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”

He added: “But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”










Gay ‘marriage’ push aims to ‘recreate society’ and marginalise

Christianity: Archbishop of Glasgow

Patrick B. Craine Tue Mar 27 14:49 EST Homosexuality

GLASGOW/STRASSBURG, March 27, 2012 ( – Creating “gay marriage,” is an attempt to rewrite the natural law and “recreate society,” says Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow.

The bishop’s strong comments as the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there is no such thing as a “right” to “gay marriage” in the European Convention on Human Rights, a revelation that has yet to put a damper on the UK government’s enthusiasm for changing the legal definition of marriage.

“It is certainly not the role of law to recreate our society according to passing fashions and ideologies, nor to redefine nature whether in terms of persons and their rights or its natural institutions,” Archbishop Conti said in a homily at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh this weekend.

The prelate said that current plans to alter the definition of marriage, promoted by the Conservative government of David Cameron as an effort to strengthen marriage, are in reality just the next step in the “marginalisation” of Christianity and any voice opposed to homosexual activity.

“Those voices are growing ever louder in our country,” Conti said, “that attempted marginalisation is becoming ever more acute and we are witnessing the transformation of tolerance into a kind of tyranny in which religious views are the only ones which seem unworthy of respect and acceptance.”

The Archbishop cautioned, “We are witnessing the transformation of tolerance into a kind of tyranny in which religious views are the only ones which seem unworthy of respect and acceptance.

“Our society will descend further into ethical confusion and moral disintegration the more that those in Government and the judiciary slip society’s moorings from the capstans of virtue.”

While Prime Minister Cameron’s plans to rewrite the definition of marriage will only affect England and Wales, the local government of Scotland reportedly “tends towards the view” that the definition should also be altered in Scottish law. The consultation in Scotland closed in December, and never received the same media attention as England’s consultation that began this month.

In related news, a much-anticipated ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has come down against the concept of “gay marriage” as a human right, protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court said March 18th that the wording of the Convention itself restricting marriage to a man and a woman was “deliberate”. The ruling upheld one made earlier by France’s highest court prohibiting homosexual “marriage” and adoption.

There is no “indirect discrimination founded (…) on the impossibility of marriage,” the Court said. Article 12 of the Convention “does not impose on the governments of the state parties the obligation to open marriage to a homosexual couple”.

“Moreover, regard must be had to the historical context in which the Convention was adopted. In the 1950s marriage was clearly understood in the traditional sense of being a union between partners of different sex.”

Launching the British government’s consultation early this month, Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said, “Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.” It remains to be seen if the ECHR ruling, which is binding on the UK, that there is no such right, will put a damper on the government’s plans to introduce “gay marriage”.

The government’s plans are not popular among the British public. A recent ComRes poll showed that 70 per cent want marriage to remain defined as a “lifelong exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”. A similar poll in Scotland found that 53 per cent of the public thinks that “homosexuals should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else”. Members of Cameron’s party have warned the Prime Minister that while pushing “gay marriage” will win him few points on the extreme left it will alienate voters who are more concerned with the economy and immigration.

A petition being circulated by the Coalition for Marriage to oppose the plan has collected 323,986 signatures as of today. Colin Hart, the head of the Coalition, has described the government’s consultation on the subject as “a sham” in which the crucial question of whether the change ought to be made has already been taken, and all opposition will be ignored. The government’s document launching the consultation said that “points raised in responses that are out of the scope of the consultation and the consultation questions will not necessarily be considered”.

“I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views before making a decision,” Hart said. “Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they’re redefining the meaning of consultation.”

According to MEP Nigel Farage, the head of the increasingly popular libertarian United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), David Cameron’s unprecedented push to create “gay marriage” has less to do with a sincere interest in the homosexualist political agenda than with fear of appearing weak to a public that is increasingly disillusioned with the EU and its mechanisms.

“The last thing he needs at the moment is to have the European courts declare our law discriminatory again and demand it be changed,” Farage wrote.

“He does not want you to realise that a foreign court is the highest court in the land,” a UKIP brief said.

David Coburn, UKIP’s openly gay London Regional Chairman, warned that the government is pointlessly picking a fight with religious people in Britain who could find themselves accused of “hate crimes” for their support of traditional marriage.

“That would be a grotesque assault on peoples’ freedom of conscience. As we all know these things tend to be the thin end of the wedge once the government’s ludicrous overpaid /over-pensioned thought police get on the job.”

Coburn wrote on the homosexualist news service Pink News, “The same-sex marriage debate is not an old-fashioned left-right political issue. It’s about freedom.”

“The Tories over the last few years have raced to catch up with Labour’s authoritarian politically correct agenda.” All three mainstream parties, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour have adopted the authoritarian mode.

Calling the government’s plans for marriage “equality fascism,” Coburn said, they have “created a grotesque, maximum security, Kafkaesque society where everything including speech and thought are regulated in the name of security and equality.

“You can stab old ladies or promising teenagers and do three months, but woe betide if you transgress the language and thought police.”









































, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply, please --- thank you.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes