Standing for Marriage for The Good of All
A good friend, leader in ministry, and co-laborer in ministry, Andy Comiskey, Executive Director of Desert Stream Ministires has organized a call for prayer and fasting for the sanctity of marriage through the leadership of the Holy Spirit. I am embracing this call, and I am asking others to do so as well. Below you can read Andy Comiskey’s call and reasons behind the fast Please click on the hyper links for more information.
______________________________________________________________________________
—
Calling for 40 Days of Prayer and Fasting for Marriage • October 17 – November 25
Click here for more information
—
8 Reasons to Resist ‘Gay Marriage’
1. ‘Gay marriage’ radically redefines the meaning of marriage.
Marriage is the most basic and arguably the most important building block of civilized society. For thousands of years, society has made marriage the one context in which sexual attraction between a man and woman matures into an enduring, exclusive unit that creates and protects children.
Marriage has always been defined by gender complementarity, or gender unity within difference, and by commitment, a pledge of permanence and fidelity. ‘Gay marriage’ radically alters that definition, and the values that underlie it. To say that the definition of an apple must include the attributes of an orange changes the meaning of an apple. It ceases to be what it was. Similarly, ‘gay marriage’ changes the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood by civilized society.
A wise man said that ‘the corruption of society begins by a failure to call things by their proper names.’ I refuse to ascribe marriage to homosexual unions based on the original and true meaning of marriage. That is why I use quotes to reference the misnomer of ‘gay marriage.’ I urge you to do the same.
2. ‘Gay Marriage’ devalues gender differences in human relating.
‘Gay marriage’ is founded on the premise that gender should no longer matter in sexual relationships. For example, licenses in states which have legalized ‘gay marriage’ have replaced the language of ‘Bride and Groom’ with ‘Partner 1 and Partner 2’.
‘Gay marriage’ removes the centerpiece of marriage: how one gender provokes and balances the opposite gender, creating (besides children) an emotional, spiritual, and sexual whole. Instead, ‘gay marriage’ redefines sexual wholeness as the freedom to desire and wed whomever one wants, regardless of gender. That undermines the inner logic of man for woman, and woman for man, and makes freedom from that logic optional for all.
3. ‘Gay Marriage’ devalues monogamy.
‘Gay marriage’ tweaks the meaning of fidelity. Gay men in particular tend toward tolerating multiple sexual partnerships in the context of a commitment to one partner. A marriage license will not change that tendency.
J. Michael Bailey, Chair of Psychology at Northwestern University and one of the foremost researchers in homosexuality, contends that “regardless of marital laws and policies, gay men will always have more sexual partners than straight people do. Those who are attached will be less monogamous.”
4. ‘Gay Marriage’ is founded on a false understanding of homosexuality.
California’s ‘gay marriage’ decision was founded on a 1948 Court decision (Perez vs. Sharp) to strike down a state ban on interracial marriages. That means today’s Court tends to equate ethnicity with homosexuality. Bad reasoning. Unlike ethnicity, homosexuality is neither genetically-based nor immutable.
Same-sex attraction is a three-fold cord of nature, nurture, and culture, all bound together by one’s moral decisions. The fact is: many choose to change their homosexuality, and find peace and purpose in heterosexual relationships. ‘Gay marriage’ advocates refuse that truth and insist that homosexuality is destiny, which is a false understanding.
5. ‘Gay Marriage’ makes its opponents racists.
Based on #4, those who oppose gay marriage will be seen as bigots. ‘Gay marriage’ validates as normal and good the problematic, complex condition of same-sex attraction; all who choose to view that attraction as a problem not a birthright will inevitably be accorded the same social shame and even legal consequences that racists incur.
6. ‘Gay Marriage’ encourages and increases homosexual behavior.
Over the last 50 years, homosexual behavior has increased due to media advocacy, our culture of divorce, porn, and promiscuity, and the greater economic and emotional independence of women from men. Validating ‘gay marriage’ will further encourage men and women to explore homosexual unions.
Social shame used to inhibit homosexual experimentation; ‘gay marriage’ casts off the last restraint, and increases homosexual behavior in our society. Between 1995 and 2005, lesbian unions in the USA increased 7 times, while male unions doubled.
7. ‘Gay Marriage’ opens the door to other types of ‘marriage.’
In changing the meaning of marriage to include infidelity and gender sameness, ‘gay marriage’ sets a precedent for other types of units, like incest and polygamy. Legal cases involving polygamy now invoke the same legal precedents of gay rights advocates. What seemed unthinkable 10 years ago is now ‘gay marriage’ law. We flinch until we become sensitized, then we flinch no more.
8. ‘Gay Marriage’ unleashes a global legal nightmare.
‘Gay marriage’ will clog the courts with myriad issues. Already, married gay couples are demanding marriage rights wherever they settle, regardless of the current laws of that state or nation. Not to mention the hundreds of cases in the USA alone concerning a host of bewildering issues, like gay divorce and ownership of artificially inseminated offspring.
The profound needs and fragility of soul at the core of same-sex unions will make for messy and consuming court battles—all within an already beleaguered system that has no precedents for the legal Medusa that ‘gay marriage’ has created.
______________________________________________________________________________
Pray & Fast with staffs and participants of Desert Stream Ministries and with First Stone Ministries
Saturday October 17 through Wednesday November 25, 2009
—
We ask that each one joining us would ‘fast’ something of meaning for these forty days and pray instead.
—
Please set aside 30 minutes a day for this effort.
—
During the 40-days, we will employ the “Honoring Marriage for the Good of All” daily devotional guide, —available at www.desertstream.org.
Andy Comiskey will also post key battles we are targeting for prayer, and provide a daily podcast.
—
For more information contact info@desertstream.org or visit our website at www.desertstream.org.
—
Pray with understanding. We can all bow down and ask God to honor His image. And we can grow in our understanding as to why upholding His image in marriage matters for all.
—
Restore the broken. Our prayers issue out of a commitment to making every effort possible to provide restoration for those who know they are broken.We can and must give practical helps to those seeking healing for their personal lives and marriages.
—
Appeal to the good of reason. One man pledged to one woman helps ensure the well-being of the children they create, while providing a witness of gender order and stability to children in our culture who are not blessed with a Mom and Dad at home.
—
Yield to the Lord. Having prayed, offered restoration, and appealed to reason, we surrender to God. We dare not fight this battle in our own mind and strength.We prayerfully join the One who created man and woman in His image, and who wills that all of creation benefit from that image.
______________________________________________________________________________
I would like to know if you have made this commitment, you can email me at: stephen@firststone.org
Consider the Psychology Behind the “I PLEDGE” Video
—
Pay close attention to this well-thought-out very creative “educational-tool” created by the NEA and your tax dollars that is being promoted by the Barack Obama Administration.
This video begins and ends with political iconic cartoonistic graphics that are designed to appeal to children. The beginning message is emotional. A sympathetic message of loneliness in being the President, and then immediately the message calls for responsibility and loyalty. The next 98% of the video is dedicated to hearing the same phrase over and over, “I pledge.” I counted 33 times “I pledge.” This is no accident.
—
I don’t have a degree in psychology; however, I have studied enough psychology with classes in college and else where to know this is a directed message. Whoever created this video has methodically thought-through presenting a psychological message appealing to the hearts and minds of young people to “pledge” allegiance. What does an elementary school mind remember? The psychology behind this video is a consistent repetitive message of: “I pledge!” allegiance, 33 times! The video’s iconic cartoonish beginning and end is specifically designed to appeal to the elementary child’s mind. This doesn’t take a degree in psychology to discern, this was intentional.
—
—
The video then ends with a dramatic closure of all the Hollywood elitists coming together to form the face of Barak Obama. This message is clearly communicating an allegiance to the man, President Barack Obama, rather than to the United States of America or to defend the Constitution of the United States. Pledging allegiance to the United States or to the Constitution will not be the message a child comes away from in viewing this video. I also find it interesting that the National Educational Association, the Department of Education and the White House believes that Hollywood elitists who live sexually immoral lifestyles should be the role models for our children. Well, we were instructed to find the humor in everything. God help us!
If this had been a Presidential address to children to honor their parents, teachers and work hard and to defend the Constitution of the United States, I would give praise to this President, however; unfortunately this is another narcissistic endeavor of this administration to gather the masses to himself. It is appalling. I find this video to be a propaganda tool for environmentalists who pledge allegiance to the President rather than to the country. I find this dangerous, and this is the message the White House approved – to pledge allegiance to Barack Obama.
You decide and make your voice know to the superintendents, principals and teachers of your local school districts. I already have called. What will you do? We must get involved and make a difference.
Freedom from Homosexuality – A Letter to OKC Gazette Editor
Several years ago I meet Louis Hommel who had already started his journey with God in walking away from homosexuality. I had the honor and privilege to spend time serving Louis in discipleship care and support group ministry within First Stone Ministries. I am so proud of how consistent and diligent Louis has been in seeking Christ as Savior and Lord of his life and his sexuality. Many of us who have left homosexuality behind embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ Gospel communicates clearly that we must deny ourselves and live our lives separate from the desires of the world, the flesh and sensual powers. As people who used to identify as gay; we are on a journey looking for eternity and not the momentary pleasures of this life that is offered by the “gay” Gospel proponents. The “gay gospel” is a false gospel and a dangerous message Biblically. However, there is hope! I want to share with you the excellent letter written by Louis Hommel that he shared with the Oklahoma City Gazette. The letter was published a few weeks ago, however it was edited down. Therefore I asked Louis’ permission to post the entire letter, here it is:
—
A Letter to the Editor by Louis Hommel
In his letter last week Thomas Furlong makes a valid point, homosexuals are no different from other sinners and since all of us have fallen short of the glory of God, this is a message of hope! For many people who are Christian by identity and troubled by a homosexual inclination, the church’s message that it is sinful is a message of hope because God can help you stop sinning. The Church does not condemn people with a homosexual inclination by labeling it sin, it empowers them to gain control of their lives. This is not a theoretical argument because there are people who choose to leave homosexuality and have chosen the church to help them. Tolerance and respect for diversity is not a one way street and we should practice real compassion by giving them the respect they deserve. They have not been “led astray” by the church and “tricked” into adopting so called “homophobic” attitudes. They are discouraged by their experience of living a gay life and have chosen to leave of their own free will. When we blame the church we overlook these people and fail to realize that the church is meeting their demand to provide ministry for them.
In Mr. Batchelder’s letter he claims that the American Medical Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers claim that homosexuality is neither sickness nor sin. Sin is not a topic for psychology, psychiatry, social work or medicine. It is a topic for theology, which is a legitimate field of study and an authentic body of knowledge. Since theology is not a matter of opinion, we can no more decide for ourselves what is and is not sinful than we can redefine the value of pi as 3.17. All the major world religions are in agreement on the sinfulness of homosexuality, even though they made the decision separately thousands of years ago. It is this consistency in doctrine that has made religion so important in people’s lives for so many centuries.
Meanwhile psychology is less than 150 years old and has changed its mind several times on many topics including homosexuality. (Anyone remember lobotomy surgery or LSD enhanced psychotherapy, how about nude encounter groups?) Now some psychologists imagine that they are the governing body for religion? They must still be running around stoned and naked!
Religion is the guide most people choose for deciding how to live their lives. If you doubt this drive around your neighborhood and count the number of churches versus the number of counseling centers. Most psychologists can only dream of filling an arena like Billy Graham did, let alone write a book as popular as Rick Warren’s “A Purpose Driven Life” As for these organizations that claim that homosexuality is a natural trait and not a mental illness, it should be pointed out that they are professional associations and not governing bodies. It is individual states that govern licensure through licensing boards. The truth is that many psychologists offer reparative therapy for unwanted homosexual inclinations. To find out more visit the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (www.narth.com) . Here you can find out what scientific research really shows about homosexuality. For those who may be interested in learning about 12 step recovery from homosexuality you can visit Homosexuals Anonymous at: www.ha-fs.org. (There is also help with an entire network of Christian ministries world-wide called Exodus International www.exodus.to).
For anyone who is offended by this letter, let me be the first to welcome you to America where all people have their first amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom to petition. I know all five rights very well because I use them on a regular basis and encourage others to do so too!
Louis Hommel is a contact person for Homosexuals Anonymous in the Oklahoma City area. He is an advocate for the right of people to choose to leave homosexuality and embrace heterosexuality. Louis is a graduate student of psychology and is working on his internship in reparative therapy. Louis can be contacted at: okccourage@yahoo.com.
—
First Stone Ministries’ Staff Proclaims Freedom from Homosexuality!
There Really Is Something to Celebrate this Month! The Gospel of Jesus Christ!
—
Staff in photo from left to right:
Stephen Black, Andrew Franklin, Laura Leigh Stanlake and Joseph Thiessen.
Annual Exodus National FREEDOM Conference
I am attending, participating and serving at this years’ conference! I am very excited to be apart of a wonderful team of speakers, ministers, and professionals. I am equally exciting to see God moving in all of our hearts as we hunger for MORE of Jesus Christ and the power of His Spirit to give us grace and freedom to overcome our struggles and our griefs.
“Father, help us who minister to be ONE in Your Spirit and cultivate a desire to fulfill Jesus’ prayer in John 17 in the entire Church! Father make us ONE in holiness, truth, grace and mercy for Jesus’ sake! Amen!”
—
“Exodus International comforts the hurting, strengthens the weak, and encourages those who are struggling. Without judgmental-ness or self-righteousness, they love sinners to the Cross and just give them Jesus.” ~ Anne Graham Lotz
Watch This Video of Hope!
—
I have been to over a dozen of these conferences over the last 18 years. I thoroughly enjoy being with hundreds of people from a common background – relational and sexual brokenness; many desiring understanding and freedom from homosexuality. The power felt in the auditorium of hundreds of people of weakness worshiping God and reaching out to Him for help is an amazing experience I wished everyone I know could experience. The worship experience alone is worth coming to an Exodus conference; as you will experience God in the power of the Holy Spirit during those times. The teachings are also a wonderful time of equipping. You will also experience encouragement in the fellowship of people from around the world. This is a top notch conference, and is life changing for those who desire freedom.
I have personally been on my own journey of freedom from homosexuality now for over 26 years; and this conference is one of the most amazing experiences of hope and encouragement a person can have in overcoming homosexuality. I want to personally invite you to attend this conference if at all possible. You will not regret it. I am also plan on teaching at this conference this year.
A word about this location: Wheaton College Campus is an amazing place to have a conference. There are several beautiful things to see right there on their campus; The Billy Graham Center, The C.S. Lewis Library and you are only 30 minutes from Chicago. I also want you to know that the cafeteria at this campus is one of the best in the country. Please make your plans now! Sincerely in HIS love and service, Stephen Black, Executive Director, First Stone Ministries.
Have you ever considered attending an Annual Exodus International Freedom Conference? click here for registration and detailed information: www.exodusfreedom.org
Check out other Exodus related upcoming conferences: www.exodus.to/conferences I am excited to announce that First Stone Ministries will be the hosting ministry for the Exodus Mid-Central Regional Conference, October 2-4 this year in Oklahoma City. Save the dates now, October 2-4, 2009 in South Oklahoma City. More details to come.
Experience One Worship Song at last year’s conference
A Brother ~ My Brother! An Answer to Prayer!
FINALLY! A NATIONAL LEADER! A Man of God, Ken Hutcherson, the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington. Pastor Hutcherson is a beautiful black man in my view, for he is a courageous man of God, but not just because he is black, but that he has godly conviction as a black man. This is God’s beauty – the feet of those who preach good news! No doubt Pastor Hutcherson will take a lot hits (verbal abuse) over speaking the truth with the “One New Now” interviews. However I have no doubt that he will stand strong on the truth, boldly proclaiming, because Jesus Christ is his God and king. I am rejoicing today! FINALLY one my brothers in Christ who is boldly speaking the truth! A godly black conservative leader who is not afraid of the back lash or the “black lash” of the politically correct leftist elite. I am so grateful for Pastor Hutcherson’s interviews; this brought tears to my eyes as I read the articles and then again when I called Antioch Bible Church to express my gratefulness! I am sure that Pastor Hutcherson is not the only leader who is speaking up, however he just happens to be one who is speaking up loud enough to be heard nationally.
(See links to the articles below).
My heart was sincerely grieved over hearing the election exiting statistical poll data; 95% of black America voting for Barack Hussein Obama for President, which includes the black church in America. It is conclusive that this was based upon the fact of Obama’s skin color. Many Christians, white, black or otherwise voted for the “change” because they were frustrated with the war in Iraq and the economy; but they did not consider the actual facts of the stated Obama goals during the campaign that were actually anti-Christian. I found that grievous, since church percentages should have been more politically conservative no matter what a persons race. The numbers of 52 to 48 percent should have been the norm in the Church as was the entire election. I tried to remind people of the Obama campaign promises. I was told not to worry Barack Obama will govern more from the center. I didn’t believe it and said so, but I did hope so; unfortunately to no avail as Barack Obama became our 44th President.
Since the election and on the very day of the inauguration I have been praying for God to raise up black Christian leaders to speak the truth. President Obama was clear at his inauguration that he wanted to “remake America” and on the same day he posted the Gay Agenda on the White House Web Site. (However recently the White House staff re-worked the web page “Support for the LGBT” and is now condensed with less details. It is not quite as boldly pro-LGBT as it was. However there is more to read on the White House by searching you can see for yourself.) President Obama hasn’t changed his radically left desires to “remake America.” His desire to remake America includes barbaric practices of partial-birth abortion, Hate Crimes Legislation, and a Presidential Proclamation making June 2009 LGBT Gay Pride Month for America. I am in agreement with Pastor Hutcherson, I look for the moral compass of a leader when voting. Clearly if a man or woman cannot see the barbarianism of partial-birth abortion, they should not be a leader. If they cannot clearly see abortion as murder how can they have the clarity of character and conscience to lead our country? They can easily violate the other 10 Commandments of God if they are willing to promote partial-birth abortion. This CHANGE and “remaking America” direction also has built-in plans to stifle the voices of ex-gays. This is especially exasperating for me as a man who left homosexuality 27 years ago. This propagation of Hate Crimes legislation has what I believe the potential to lead to a culture war on traditional family value ministries and the church at large.
I have asked, “Where are my black brothers and black pastors who are equally appalled?” Sincerely I prayed that T.D. Jakes would repent. I have asked the Father, “please raise up godly black leaders!” You will not find many white leaders in the church asking out loud. It’s too politically incorrect. They would face condemnation of being racist, divisive and bigoted. I have asked where are the men who truly love God above the color of a man’s skin? I thought we were so much further along in racial reconciliation in the church at large including the black church. I was naive. I was appalled at T.D. Jakes and other major leaders in the black church of America who were unwilling to stand ground on Biblical principles in their voting rather than glorying skin color and/or a man’s race. Please don’t misunderstand me here. It is exciting that America has voted for a black man for President. This does prove we have made strides in overcoming racism. I can honestly relate to some of the prejudice. I was called awful names growing up. (I apologize now for the words in this next sentence, but imagine hearing them almost every day for 2 years.) I had one bully who for 2 years in junior-high school screaming at me almost every day within the hearing of my peers “Black – you sissy faggot, you queer, your nothing but a nigger faggot.” It was so painful, shameful and damaging to my identity. It was also terrifying to be followed home and beat with the name calling. Perhaps you can see, I am not insensitive. I can truly relate to these terrible words. My heart has been broken. I love black people, especially my brothers in Christ, but most powerfully I am in love with my granddaughter who is half white and half black, a gift from God. You see, I am not insensitive, I just desire truth and righteousness.
I am so grateful to God and I thank God for Pastor Hutcherson who is speaking the truth boldly in these articles to call for repentance of black leaders standing with our President when he is propagating anti-Christian policies. I am so thankful for the call to come back to character and godly living rather than merely standing with a person based upon skin color or because he is charismatic or loved by the media. I have been so grieved over the racism I perceive in the black church of America who voted for Barack Obama, kicking Jesus’ teachings aside and the leaving the Scripture behind simply for the affirmation of having a black man in the White House. Pastor Hutcherson set things clear in these interviews. He is an answer to prayer. If you feel the same way, I encourage you to write, call or email Antioch Bible Church and let Pastor Hutcherson know that you are standing with him, and then make sure you pray for him, his family and church. I am sincerely praying for revival in America, and then doing something about it by speaking out; as is Pastor Hutcherson. Will you join us by praying, and then influencing by talking to people about truth and The Gospel?
Read Pastor Hutcherson’s Interviews with Jim Brown at One News Now:
Pastor: Obama has no ‘black experience’ to speak of
‘No truth’ in Obama’s speech before homosexuals
Related Article: Obama hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality
Why The “Hate Crime Law” Is Destructive – Say No To Hate Crimes!
I have been communicating over and over that the purposed hate crimes legislation was unnecessary because laws are already in place to prosecute hate crime in all 50 states. Finally someone who is much more articulate has written a terrific and very clear article on this subject. Please read Dr. Gagnon’s article below.
Hate crimes legislation is not about hate crimes; it is a political agenda to normalize homosexuality at the same status of equality in our society as heterosexuality. Hate crimes legislation is a gay political agenda to stealthily bring civil rights status to homosexuality. This legislation makes homosexuality and many other sexual practices equal to gender and race. This is very bad news for ministries like the one I am involved. There are politically motivated gay activists whose sole existence is the demise of any ministry that proclaims freedom from homosexuality. Is President Obama and/or the Democrats really naive as to the intention here of gay political activists or are they very calculated? I believe the later. I believe President Obama, and you should too; when he said he desired to not merely bring change, but REMAKE AMERICA. He desires to make this a different country. I am not sure we can recover from 4 years of Obama policies fiscally and/or morally.
Dr. Robert Gagnon has written another well thought out excellent article on this subject. I plead with you, please read this article; do not be naive as to the intention of this legislation. This legislation, if passed, is destructive to our country. Please call your Senator’s now and say NO to Hate Crimes!
—
Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You
Promoting hatred of people opposed to homosexual practice and transgenderism
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. May 28, 2009
The so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (H.R. 1913), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives along party lines on Apr. 29 and introduced into the U.S. Senate shortly thereafter by Ted Kennedy (S. 909), is improperly named. The bill is really a hate-promotion bill as regards the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” among the groupings slated to receive special protection.
Supporters of this bill who rightly believe homosexual practice to be unnatural and sinful have been duped into thinking that this bill is primarily about protecting homosexual and transgendered persons from violence. They hear the rubric “hate crimes” and think: Who can be for violence toward homosexual and transgendered persons?
The real objectives of the “hate crimes” bill (hint: it’s not about crime)
Supporters of this bill who believe homosexual practice to be immoral rarely stop to consider that all necessary laws are already in place protecting everyone from violent physical attacks or verbal threats to do bodily harm, including persons who engage in homosexual and transgendered behavior. Even homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has recently commented: “The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that—and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.” There is absolutely no evidence that state prosecutors are systematically ignoring genuine crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons, once reported to law enforcement officials.
So why pass “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” so-called “hate crime” legislation? The reason has more to do with foisting an expansive homosexualist agenda on the nation than with concerns about crime. The bill serves the following vital aims of that agenda:
- It gets the federal government to enshrine in federal law “sexual orientation” (i.e. homosexuality and bisexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e. transsexualism and cross-dressing) as identity markers worthy of special protection and promotion alongside racial and gender diversity.
- This in turn gives federal backing to hatred of all persons who express opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism as the moral equivalent of racists and misogynists (sexists), no matter how loving that expression of opposition may be.
- It also lays the foundation for a litany of future “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” bills that will markedly abridge the civil liberties of all who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice and transgenderism.
The foot in the door
This “hate crimes” bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent that makes possible—indeed inevitable—all future laws involving “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” By simply placing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” alongside of “race,” “color,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability,” this “hate crime” bill does most of its damage. It ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender, and disability—an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots.
Note that while “religion” (an identity marker involving choice) is one of the protected categories of this “hate crime” bill, the bill mainly makes a connection between “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the one hand and a host of benign innate conditions on the other (i.e. the five other protected categories of the bill). I’ve never heard an advocate for homosexual practice and transgenderism make the connection between these behaviors and religious belief. The analogy is always made with race and gender.
The thought crime of “prejudice” against homosexual and transgender behavior
Make no mistake about the fact that this is an Orwellian thought-crimes bill. Suppose a young man and a 70-year-old grandmother push each at roughly the same time. The man does so after shouting out “You bigoted homophobe!” while the grandmother does so after responding “Well then, you are a sexual pervert!”
This “hate crime” bill would apply only to the grandmother and would do so solely on the basis that she believed that homosexual practice was a perversion of the natural sexual order. For the bill establishes this conviction to be a “prejudice,” stating that the federal government can intervene when “a crime of violence … is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived … sexual orientation [or] gender identity … of the victim” (emphasis added). The bill effectively (but wrongly, go here) declares this conviction to be a hate that society must prosecute vigorously by enhancing penalties and calling for massive federal intervention.
However, the bill shows no concern for classifying as hateful prejudice the alternative conviction; namely, that advocates of a male-female requirement for sexual relations are hateful, ignorant bigots. Rather, the bill promotes this alternative conviction to society at large. It essentially declares to all sectors of society that it is “open season” on hating and ostracizing persons who find homosexual behavior and transsexualism to be morally repugnant, much as society hates and ostracizes members of the Klu Klux Klan or skinhead Nazi groups.
Recent cases in point are the widespread intimidation tactics employed by homosexualist opponents of California’s Proposition 8 against its supporters (for example, go here, here, here, here, here) and the smear campaign against Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for daring to disagree with a homosexual pageant judge’s affirmation of “gay marriage” (note that the point holds whatever Prejean’s deficiencies may be as a role model for Christian sexual modesty). Why shouldn’t those opposed to homosexual practice or transsexualism get special protection from the federal government? The reason is simple: They’re bigots.
The analogy of other sexual orientations
This bill thus goes beyond protection of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons (who are already protected) to promotion of hatred—hatred toward those opposed to homosexual and transgendered behavior. If you have any doubt about that, consider whether adding pedophilia (‘pedosexuality’) to the list would imply promotion of pedophilic behavior by the state and antagonism by the state toward perceived opponents of pedophiles. Surely it would.
Sadly, this may not be the best example since Rep. Steven King unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to the “hate crimes” bill in the House that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation.” If you can believe it, the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee defeated the amendment along party lines, 13-10. To be sure, the Democrats are right that both “pedosexuality,” sexual desire for children, and “polysexuality,” sexual desire for more than one person concurrently, are “sexual orientations.” Where the Democrats err is in failing to recognize that this is a good reason for not having a “sexual orientation” provision.
Conclusion for part 1
So don’t fall for the line that, if you really love “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, you will support this “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “hate crime” bill. No, support for this bill does not mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Existing laws already make that point. Rather, it means that you support stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not, oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism. This is a hate-promotion bill.
Part 2
Proponents of the current “hate crimes” bill before the U.S. Senate argue that it is a lie that this bill will abridge in any way free speech protections for those who publicly express opposition to homosexual practice without causing, or attempting to cause, bodily harm. This claim is both irrelevant and inaccurate.
The first step of getting “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in federal law
It is irrelevant because, as noted in Part 1, this bill does most of its damage in creating, for the first time in federal law, the special legal-protective categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The first hurdle is the biggest: getting the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the books. A “hate crimes” bill functions as—no double entendre intended—the Trojan horse of an aggressive gay/transgender lobby, offering to the public the “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” law least likely to meet with massive public resistance.
Once the Trojan Horse is within the city walls, the rest of the task is relatively easy. If “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are special civil rights categories in federal law, then many other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws must be passed if society is going to turn back the “homophobic hate” and “discrimination” that makes bodily crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons possible in the first place. President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already indicated their eagerness to advance this agenda (go here, here, here, and here).
Removing the explicit free-speech protection in the bill
The claim that this bill will not lead to an abridgement of free speech is not only irrelevant but also inaccurate. It is inaccurate, first, because the bill itself does not provide much in the way of protection of free speech rights. When it was first introduced into the House the bill contained this provision:
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. (bold added)
Democrats in committee removed the material in boldface so that what was voted on by the full House no longer contained the explicit mention of free speech and free exercise. The remaining phrase “expressive conduct protected …by the Constitution” begs the question about what “expressive conduct” is protected. No piece of legislation could abridge the Constitution anyway so the phrase is useless. The issue is what constitutes abridgement and that is not spelled out in this bill.
U.S. Code stipulating that inducement is as liable as commission
Second, it is inaccurate to claim that free speech will not be abridged inasmuch as other existing legislation requires an extension beyond actual physical violence.
United States Code Title 18, Section 2, stipulates that “whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” Statements that “abet,” “counsel,” or “induce the commission” of bodily injury are thus not protected by the Constitution.
The omission of “any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses” makes it that much easier to prosecute strong statements against homosexual practice as abetting or counseling violence or as inducing its commission. There is nothing in this bill that explicitly prevents any homosexualist-activist judge, of which there are many, from ruling that calling homosexual acts a grave “abomination” by appeal to Levitical prohibitions constitutes an inducement to violence.
The existence of state and local “hate crimes” law that include mere disturbance
Third, this “hate crimes” bill puts free speech in jeopardy because some state and local “hate crime” laws already make simple assault or intimidation prosecutable offenses.
For example, the Illinois Hate Crime Law permits prosecution for mere assault (i.e., a threat or action that puts a person in apprehension of bodily harm prior to any actual harm), property trespass, “disorderly conduct,” or “harassment by telephone” or “electronic communications.” “Disorderly conduct” is defined in Illinois law as a person who “does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace” (emphasis added).
In 2007 two 16-year old girls from Crystal Lake South High School (Ill.) were arrested on felony hate crime charges for distributing about 40 fliers on cars in the student parking lot of their high school. The fliers contained an anti-homosex slur (the media have not reported what precisely the slur was) and a photo of two boys kissing, one of whom was identified as a classmate. The fliers contained no threats of violence. One of the girls was apparently getting back at a boy with whom she had once been best friend.
Assistant state’s attorney for McHenry County, Thomas Carroll, commented: “You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person’s race, creed, gender, or perceived sexual orientation.” Another assistant state’s attorney, Robert Windon, said: “We do not feel this type of behavior is what the First Amendment protects.” State’s attorney Lou Bianchi insisted: “This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the law against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity.”
The girls spent 18 days in jail (a juvenile detention center) and appeared in court for their hearing with shackles on their ankles. They were ordered by the judge to remain in home detention on electronic monitoring until the court sentenced them some months later. Relieved that they would be allowed to return home for the time being, the girls sobbed uncontrollably in court. Prosecutors eventually dropped the felony hate-crime charge in exchange for a plea bargain, in which the girls pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest (the girls fled the scene when a police officer arrived; they did not strike an officer).
The girls were sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to write letters of apology for distributing anti-gay fliers to the boy and the arresting officer, required to do 40 hours of community service, and given a two-week suspended sentence in the McHenry County Jail (to be implemented if the girls violated probation). The girls told the court that the whole matter was a joke that they took too far. State Attorney Louis Bianchi told the press that he still felt the hate crime charge was justified, while acknowledging that the plea bargain was fair for juveniles.
Conclusion of Part 2
Claims that the homosexual and transsexual “hate crimes” bill soon to be voted on by the U.S. Senate will not lead to an abridgement of free speech rights and other liberties are both irrelevant and inaccurate.
They are irrelevant because the primary purpose of this bill is not to reduce “hate crimes” against homosexual and transgendered persons (laws against violent acts are already in place) but rather to establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as specially protected classifications in federal law. This establishment will make possible—indeed, inevitable—an avalanche of other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws that in turn make “hateful bigots” of anyone who opposes homosexual and transsexual behavior.
They are inaccurate because (1) the bill has already had stripped from it explicit free-speech protection; (2) the U.S. legal code already stipulates that verbal “inducement” of a crime makes the inducer “punishable as a principal”; and (3) the federal “hate crimes” law will work in tandem with state and local “hate crime” laws, some of which already make prosecutable any “alarming” or “disturbing” of another.
In Part 3 we will look at other instances where “sexual orientation” laws have led to the curtailment of civil liberties and explain why religious exemption clauses are worthless.
Part 3
Many proponents of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” legislation contend that “sexual orientation” legislation will not endanger civil liberties in the United States—in Europe, Canada, and Brazil, but not in the United States. The evidence to date suggests otherwise.
An example of hate-speech prosecution in Philadelphia
In Part 2 I cited the example of two teenage girls being prosecuted for sexual orientation “hate speech” under Illinois law. Another example occurred in Philadelphia a few years ago. District Attorney Lynne Abraham prosecuted a small group of Christians who were peacefully demonstrating at a homosexual parade in Philadelphia in 2004 (go here for video). The group comprised eleven persons from an organization called “Repent America,” including two grandmothers and a 17-year-old girl. All eleven spent 21 hours in jail. After a preliminary hearing Judge William Meehan ordered four of the eleven to stand trial on three felony charges and five misdemeanor charges (a fifth person, the teenage girl, was required to stand trial in juvenile court). The three felony charges were “ethnic intimidation” (proclaiming that homosexual practice was a sin), possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible passages dealing with homosexual practice). These four Christian defendants faced up to 47 years in prison and fines of $90,000 each.
Although Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe subsequently dismissed the criminal charges (after comparing the Repent America group to Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan), had the prosecutor Lynne Abraham been the judge (or perhaps had Judge Meehan been the judge instead of Dembe), the verdict would have been quite different. That the prosecution was undertaken at all indicates that some legal authorities already believe that peaceful speech against homosexual practice is prosecutable. Expect judges to side with city prosecutors as the homosexualist agenda gains greater ascendancy through the passage of national “sexual orientation” legislation. Of note is the fact that in 2007 U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel ruled that the city of Philadelphia had a right to “exclude persons expressing contrary messages” from the vicinity of the “Outfest” parade even though the event was a admittedly a “public forum” conducted in a “public place” (namely city-owned streets and sidewalks; go here).
Other instances where “sexual orientation” legislation has already led to an abridgement of civil liberties
Certainly infringements of speech liberties have already taken place in all other Western democracies that have “sexual orientation” “hate crime” laws. In Canada, for example, among those fined thousands of dollars and threatened with imprisonment for repeat offenses of speech are:
- Father Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight Magazine for speaking against homosexual behavior.
- Bill Whatcott, a Catholic activist, for producing pamphlets that called homosexual practice immoral (Whatcott was also “banned for life” from criticizing homosexuality).
- Stephen Boisson, a pastor, for a letter to a newspaper denouncing homosexual practice as immoral (also ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexual practice in any public forum; for a video go here).
The argument that free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution will prevent such abuses from taking place rings hollow in view of the inducement to violence provision in Title 18.2 and in view of the fact that even U.S. Supreme Court justices have taken to citing precedents in foreign law (e.g., with regard to the Lawrence sodomy decision). Moreover, we already have instances in the U.S. where “sexual orientation” laws have led to abridgements of other liberties in three main areas:
- Mandatory indoctrination of children in public schools. Owing to state and local “sexual orientation” laws, children in many school systems throughout the country now face compulsory indoctrination, from first grade on, regarding the acceptability of both homosexual practice and transgenderism. Teachers are forbidden to say anything critical about any “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and must undergo “sensitivity training” that normalizes such practices. Curricula are at all levels are required to celebrate the homosexual and transgendered life. Provisions for parental notification and child opt-out provisions are refused on the grounds that the state has already declared “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to be specially protected legal classifications. For examples go here, here, here, here, and here.
- Terminating employees critical of homosexual practice. In 2008 an African-American woman, Crystal Dixon, was removed from her position as associate vice president for human resources at the University of Toledo simply because she wrote an op-ed in a newspaper saying that homosexual behavior should not be compared to being black (go here). In 2007-8 a community college professor in California, June Sheldon, was fired for leading a brief discussion on the nature vs. nurture debate as regards homosexuality. Rolf Szabo, Richard Peterson, Kenneth Gee, Annie Coffey-Montes, and Albert Buonanno are previous examples of persons fired from their corporate or government jobs for not wanting to “celebrate” at their work station “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” diversity. For details go here, here, here (pp. 10-17).
- Forcing people against their conscience to promote the homosexual agenda through goods and services. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission just this past year ordered a female photographer to pay over $6000 to a lesbian couple for declining to photograph their commitment ceremony on the grounds that it violated her Christian beliefs. A national Christian dating service (Harmony.com) was dragged into several years of litigation by the state of New Jersey for not providing services for homosexual partnering, until finally, out of financial desperation, the company capitulated to the state a couple earlier this year. A Christian ministry in New Jersey has been subject to state investigation for refusing to allow a lesbian civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property. In California a doctor was sued for declining to artificially inseminate a woman in a lesbian relationship. In Georgia a counselor was fired just for referring a lesbian woman to another counselor for relationship advice. The Boy Scouts in Boston were no longer allowed free use of city facilities as a result of their policy against having scout leaders attracted to the same sex; they now had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to use the same facilities for which they previously paid not a cent. In New York City a school of medicine under Orthodox Jewish auspices was forced to rent married housing to homosexual couples under a “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” law, while in California a Lutheran high school was sued for expelling two girls in a lesbian relationship. Catholic Charities of Boston had to get out of the adoption business because it did not want to place children with persons engaged in a homosexual relationship. For details and further examples, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here (2nd half), here, here.
Even legal experts who support homosexualist causes such as Eugene Volokh (UCLA) and Chai Feldblum (Georgetown University) have acknowledged that sexual orientation laws and their inevitable corollary, “gay marriage,” will ultimately force the end of “discriminatory” practices against homosexual persons by even “private entities, including Boy-Scout-like organizations, churches, religious universities, and other institutions” (so Volokh; go here and here).
Don’t be fooled by “religious exemptions”
Even if religious exemptions were to be added to any piece of “sexual orientation” legislation, they would be of little help, for two reasons.
First, religious exemptions are used as bait-and-switch tactics. As homosexualist forces tighten their hold on political rule expect such exemptions to be whittled away and ultimately eliminated. Just these past few weeks the New Hampshire House initially balked at providing the religious exemptions asked for by the governor in connection with a “gay marriage” bill. Eventually the House had to compromise with the governor to get the bill passed. The point here is that if homosexualist forces had the votes, they wouldn’t even have considered the exemptions. As culture continues to change, they and other legislative bodies will have the votes to refuse exemptions or overturn existing exemptions.
Second, in the interim let’s not forget that religious persons overwhelmingly work in secular venues where “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws and policies coerce their conscience and marginalize their existence to the equivalent of racists.
What does the future hold?
What else can we expect for the future? Religious institutions that “discriminate” against homosexual and transgender persons, including churches, will probably lose tax-exempt status. Religious schools will likely lose, in addition, federal grant money, access to student loans, and accreditation. Certainly these penalties already apply to religious institutions that discriminate on the basis of race (so the case of Bob Jones University). “Sexual orientation” laws equate sexual orientation with race as benign congenital conditions. Therefore we should expect the same rules to apply to religious institutions when they “discriminate” on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” All employers will have to subsidize homosexual relationships. Professional licensure for lawyers, mental health workers, etc. will require affirmation of homosexual unions and transgenderism. The list goes on and on.
Final – Conclusion
Don’t believe anyone who claims that this “hate crimes” bill, with its special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” won’t lead down the road to an abridgement of civil liberties for those who disapprove of homosexual and transgender behavior. All the evidence suggests otherwise. If you are tired of fighting these battles, just tell yourself that you haven’t seen anything yet. If this bill passes, the situation will continue worsening, not only for you but also (and especially) for your children. Is this an important issue, even a litmus test issue for determining which candidates for political office you will vote for? Well, can you think of any other religious belief that you hold for which you and your children could some day be ostracized, fined, fired, or worse? I can’t.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press).
Please call your Senator’s now and say NO to Hate Crimes!
Homosexual Behavior is More Like Consenual Incest… Will the USA have Hate Crime Laws?
When you look at the roots of homosexuality it becomes clear, especially for those of us who have come full-circle in leaving it behind, that there is a very distorted broken element of narcissism and the desire to repair the longings for connection to the same sex parent. I must say that the Lord Jesus Christ has been very kind to me in pointing out the condition of my own emotional, relational and spiritual state in coming of out of my sexual distortion and homosexuality. This posted statement is in no way a reflection of condemnation, but one of presenting truth, compassionately as one who has struggled; even as difficult as it may be to face; the truth can set you free. Does anyone really like looking at their own sin? However in looking at it honestly before God there is freedom in yielding to Him in Jesus Christ as Lord.
Dr. Gagnon has written a very compelling article in processing and reasoning out the problem of embracing of homosexuality and normalizing homosexuality to the level of race or gender. This is what is being purposed by the United States Congress in legislating “Hate Crimes.” I agree with Dr. Gagnon’s conclusion in this article. For me personally I see the conclusion of this legislation for revamping the USA society into a very distorted way of entering into relationships and sexuality, and thus it will continue to erode our society into characterlessness for the pleasures of being hedonistic. We are fast becoming a society that is hostile towards Judeo-Christian laws and morality. Please read Dr. Gagnon’s case
—
Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender
A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 1: The Initial Case
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 18, 2009
On Apr. 29 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” which places “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “real or perceived,” alongside of “race,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability” as benign conditions for which society should provide special protections in federal law. Those who oppose homosexual practice are, by analogy, implicitly identified in law as discriminatory bigots, akin to racists and misogynists.
The problem is that the analogy to race and gender doesn’t work well. Race and gender are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life, and therefore, intrinsically benign. Homosexuality and transsexuality are none of these things. While there probably are some biological risk factors for some homosexual development and even transgenderism, science has failed to establish that homosexuality and transsexuality develop deterministically like race and gender. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that at least one shift in the Kinsey spectrum of 0 to 6 is the norm over the course of life for those who identity as homosexual (75%). Most importantly, unlike race and gender, homosexuality and transsexuality are in the first instance impulses to engage in behavior that is structurally discordant with embodied existence (as male and female). They are therefore not intrinsically benign conditions.
I contend that a better analogy (i.e., with more points of substantive correspondence) can be made between homosexuality and transsexuality on the one hand and polysexuality (an orientation toward multiple sexual partners) and incest (here I am thinking of an adult-committed sort) on the other hand. The latter are, after all, two other sexual behaviors that are incongruent with embodied existence that, despite such incongruence, can still be conducted as committed, caring relationships between adults. If incest and polyamory are indeed better analogues to homosexuality and transgenderism, then it is clear that placing the latter alongside race and gender as conditions worthy of special protections and benefits becomes, well, misplaced.
In making these remarks, I trust that people of faith know that it is just as wrong to hate and commit violence against persons who engage in adult-consensual relationships with close kin or with multiple partners as it is to hate persons who engage in same-sex intercourse or who otherwise attempt to override their sex or gender given at birth. It is not right to hate anyone or commit violence against anyone.
As regards a logical connection to polyamory, the limitation of the number of persons in a valid sexual union to two persons at any one time is predicated on the natural “twoness” of the sexes, “male and female” or “man and woman.” This was certainly Jesus’ view in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, where he cited “God made them male and female” as the reason for overthrowing concurrent and serial polygamy). Polyamorous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate the natural pair constituted by the existence of two primary, complementary sexes, even when they are conducted in the context of consensual, adult-committed relationships. The very sex act itself, which accommodates only one act of penetration at a time, illustrates the essential sexual “twoness” of a sexual bond predicated on two (and only two) complementary sexes.
As regards a logical connection to incest, incestuous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate a requisite principle of embodied otherness within embodied sameness, even when such sexual behaviors are conducted consensually between committed adults. Incest is sex between persons who are too much structurally or formally alike as regards kinship. The high risk of birth defects that attend incestuous births is the symptom of the root problem: too much identity on the level of kinship between the sexual partners. That is why society rejects incestuous sexual relationships even when it occurs between consenting adults who either cannot procreate (whether because one partner is infertile or because both partners are of the same sex) or take active birth-control precautions. The structural impossibility of births arising from homosexual intercourse is likewise not so much the problem as the symptom of the root problem: namely, too much formal or structural identity between the participants and not enough complementary otherness, here as regards sex or gender.
In Part 2 I will look at what disproportionately high rates of measurable harms associated with homosexual relationships indicate for the unnatural character of homosexual relations.
Please Read the Concluding parts of Dr. Gagnon’s article:
Part 2: What Disproportionately High Rates of Harm Mean
Part 3: The Illogic of Homosexual Unions
Part 4: Responses to Counterarguments
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press). His website www.robgagnon.net contains new material and updates to published work.
Imagine Jihadi Mentality in U.S. Prisons ~ Imagine President Obama’s Plan
I thought this was an excellent, well thought out article, with common sense thinking from Michelle Malkin, Syndicated Columnist. Michelle communicated the possibilities America faces of an ongoing horrific Islamic jihad; not merely a “man-made disaster,” but a Koran-inspired religious war. President Obama refuses to clearly communicate the centuries-old roots of this type war. President Obama claims he can win this war faster, better, and cleaner than any of his predecessors; um hm; by filling our prisons with an extreme element of religious ideology that is filled with the hatred of everything Western?
Is our President completely misguided or very concisely calculated? You decide, I believe he is intelligent, knows exactly what he is doing, therefore very calculated; one must ask, “to what end?”
—
The Jihadi Virus in Our Jails
by Michelle Malkin
“President Obama’s speech on homeland security was 6,072 words long. Curiously, he chose not to spare an “a,” “and,” or “uh” on the New York City terror bust that dominated headlines the morning of his Tuesday address. Did the teleprompter run out of room?
After a year-long investigation launched by the Bush administration, the feds cracked down on a ring of murder-minded black Muslim jailhouse converts preparing to bomb two Bronx synagogues and “eager to bring death to Jews.” They also planned to attack a New York National Guard air base in Newburgh, New York, where the suspects lived and worshiped at a local mosque.
Not one word from the president on the jihadists’ intended victims, motives, or means.” (Click to continue to read): The Jihadi Virus in Our Jails
