We are at WAR, part 2

My last post concerned an e-mail I received earlier in August.  The e-mail contained comments written by Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired.  That first post entitled “We are at WAR” also gives a website for his biography.  Tonight, I present part two of his comments.


“So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.  

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question—what does losing mean?  (We will lose if we do not have the will to continue a war that can not and will not be won by using a conventional war model.  Those who have short attention spans and demand instant gratification must not be the influencing, deciding voice in this conflict.  Defeating guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics demands perseverance and sacrifice something that modern Americans seem to lack.  We had better realize the consequences of appeasement quickly or suffer the consequences of our unwillingness to face the realities of this type of war.—my addition)


It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam.  This is as far from the truth as one can get.


What losing really means is:


We would no longer be the premier country in the world.  The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase.  Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet.  (I think that needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated.  THEY WANT US DEAD!!!—my addition.)  If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years.  The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.


We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.


They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time.  It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq.  Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops.  Anything else they want Spain to do will be done.  Spain is finished.  (Spain is an example of the weak willed easily buckling under to one terrorist action.  The cases will multiple if we do not stand strong and stand firm.  I don’t care how much libertine Democrats ridicule that concept.  They will never be able to stop terrorists with their appeasement tactics—never.  Terrorists see appeasement as weakness and use that weakness to their advantage.—my addition)


The next will probably be France.  Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France.  France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!  (I would not hold my breath waiting for France to see the light.  They seem to be already blind.—my addition)


If we lose this war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it.  After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.  If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?  (I don’t think it will happen as quickly as the author implies.  But, make no mistake about it, losing in Iraq by pulling out prematurely will only embolden the terrorists and make life more difficult than it is now.  You can not compromise with terrorists because terrorists don’t accept compromise except as a delaying tactic to strengthen their cause.  Terrorists murder and slaughter because that is the only way they see to achieve their objectives.  They are not rational.  They are killers!!!—my addition)


The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost.  We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.  (I would not say at any cost [We must not give up our Christian morality to win although we have given too much of it up in the U.S. already—murdering the unborn, homosexuality as a civil right, removal of GOD from the public arena.], but this is an important paragraph and it is the difference between us and them.  They are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause.  We complain about every little inconvenience.  We had better wake up!!!  The strongest does not always win in part because they have grown fat and unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good.  The terrorists expect us to lose our will to fight long before they do.  [While typing this, I just heard an ABC radio newscast that said 52% of the public does not think the Iraq War is worth the sacrifice.  Have we lost already?  I pity us if that poll is correct.  We are too fat and comfortable for our own good!!!]    Listening to libertine Democrats, I can understand why they believe that will happen.  All they have to do is outlast us.  Given our short attention spans and our obsession with comfort and materialism, given our sinfulness and decadence; why wouldn’t they expect to outlast us?—my addition)            


Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing?  Simple.  Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning.  And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.  (If true, we are in serious trouble!—my addition)


So, how do we lose the war?


Again, the answer is simple.  We can lose the war by ‘imploding.’  That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort.  If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.  If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!  (Again, are we in trouble?  We had better start praying and better start acting!!!—my addition)


(To be continued)  

We are at WAR

The following is a second e-mail I received while my connection was down and again dealing with the War against Terrorism.  I received this from a second unrelated individual on August 23, 2006.  Again quoting from the e-mail:


“The WAR


Foreword:


Please take the time to read the attached essay by Dr. Chong.  It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq.  If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give a fair evaluation.


I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of his thoughts….  So when I received them, I almost deleted them—as well-written as they are.  But then I did a ‘Google search’ on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio.  So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and these are his thoughts.  They are worth reading and thinking about!  (The same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)


Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it.  Our leaders in Congress ought to read it, too.  There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!


If you would like to see who this fellow is go to this Air Force web site and look him up.
http://www.af.mil/bios/alpha.asp?alpha=C



Subject: Muslims, terrorists and the USA.  A different spin on Iraq war.

This WAR is for REAL!  Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it.  Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).


The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let’s examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

   Many will say September 11, 2001.  The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

• Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
• Beirut, Lebanon Embassy, 1983;
• Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
• Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
• First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
• Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996
• Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998
• Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998
• Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
• New York World Trade Center 2001;
• Pentagon 2001

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)


(Note that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which occurred basically on the same day at the same time were the 10th and the 11th attacks on the U.S. since 1979.  These two attacks were not the first time we were attacked on U.S. soil.  The first attack on the World Trade Center was, of course, an attack on U.S. soil.  However, according to International Law, every U.S. embassy and its land is U.S. soil.  Therefore, the four attacks against U.S. embassies were also all attacks against the U.S. on U.S. soil.  Jimmy Carter was President during the first listed attack.  Ronald Reagan was President for attacks two through four.  The first world Trade Center attack occurred in February of 1993 when Bill Clinton was President.  In all, five of the attacks occurred while Bill Clinton was President.  Of course, The 2nd World Trade Center attack and the attack on the Pentagon occurred on September 11, 2001 approximately eight months after George Bush became President.—my addition)

1. Why were we attacked?

   Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.  The attacks happened during the Administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 (If the dates are correct on the eleven listed attacks, the author is not correct about any of the attacks occurring during the first Bush Administration.  George Bush, the father, was elected in 1988 and took office in January of 1989.  Since he only served one term, he left office in January of 1993 and the first World Trade Center attack occurred in February of 1993.—my addition), Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors Presidents Ford or Carter.

1. Who were the attackers?

   In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslims.

1. What is the Muslim population of the World?

   25%

1. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful?

   Hopefully, but that is really not material.  There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), [I would emphatically disagree with this statement.  He may have claimed to be Christian.  He may have grown up in a Christian environment.  However, as a Christian, I will testify that his actions and beliefs were inherently unchristian.  Anyone can claim to be Christian; that claim does not make him Christian.  The same is true for being Muslim.  Claiming to be Muslim does not necessarily make one Muslim—my addition] that made no difference.  You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated.  There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis (Proof that Hitler was not a Christian along with many other actions.—my addition) for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).  (See http://www.nazis.testimony.com.uk/7-a.htm.)  [I did not check any of the websites listed.—my addition]      


Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities.  Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or taking over the world—German, Christian or any others.


Same with the Muslim terrorists.  They focus the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way—their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.  (Many more fellow Muslims have been murdered in Iraq by terrorists than U.S. military personnel who have been killed; they murder anyone they can because that is what terrorists do.—my addition)  The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing—by their own pronouncements—killing all of us ‘infidels.’  (Which includes libertine Democrats although they don’t seem to get it!—my addition)  I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims.  What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?  (I would hope it would not be shut up!—my addition)

1. So who are we at war with?

   There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists.  Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal.  There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.”  (We are at WAR!!!  Like it or not, accept it or not, believe it or not, deny it or not; we are at WAR!!!—my addition)


(To be continued)
        

European Cowardice

I have not been able to get onto the internet for almost two weeks.  Hopefully everything is now taken care of.  I received the following e-mail on August 19, 2006.  I have been planning a series of posts on terrorism.  This seems like a good time to begin.  I am quoting practically the entire e-mail.


“A MUST READ—A GERMAN EDITORIAL”


“If any of you feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source.  It’s fascinating that this should come out of Europe.  Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany’s largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.


This is a must-read by all Americans.  History may well certify its correctness.

EUROPE—THY NAME IS COWARDICE


(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)


A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, ‘Europe—your family name is appeasement.’  It’s a phrase you can’t get out of your head because it’s so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.


Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.


Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.


Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word ‘equidistance,’ now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.


Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush….  Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.


And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.  How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere?  By suggesting that we really should have a ‘Muslim Holiday’ in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not.  A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State ‘Muslim Holiday’ will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.  One cannot help but recall Britain’s Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European ‘Peace in our Time’.


What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it?  There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization’s utter destruction.  (In case you missed that phrase: INTENT UPON WESTERN CIVILIZATION’S UTTER DESTRUCTION.  That is you and me!—my addition)


It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century—a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by ‘tolerance’ and ‘accommodation’ (or appeasement—my addition) but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.  Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.


His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth.  We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery.  And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy.  His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.


In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society’s values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.    


On the contrary—we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those ‘arrogant Americans’, as the World Champions of ‘tolerance’, which even (Germany’s Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.  Why?  Because we’re so moral?  I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.


For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the America economy—because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake—literally everything.  (We are at war!  If we don’t win, none of the other things are going to matter.  Do you really want terrorists winning this war!!!—my addition)  


While we criticize the ‘capitalistic robber barons’ of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems.  Stay out of it!  It could get expensive!  We’d rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation….  Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to ‘reach out to terrorists.  To understand and forgive’.


These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor’s house.


Appeasement?


Europe, thy name is Cowardice.


---God Bless America---  


The following is from the Peoria Journal Star published on July 28, 2006, page A2.  “Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader called Thursday for Muslims to unite in a holy war against Israel and to join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from ‘Spain to Iraq.’”


“Addressing the world’s ‘downtrodden,’ al-Zawahri said non-Muslims should join Islamic militants in the battle against ‘tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America.’”

“’The war with Israel does not depend on cease-fires ….  It is jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq,’ said al-Zawahri.  ‘We will attack everywhere.’”


“We will attack everywhere.”  Do we need to be hit on the head with the obvious?  We are at war!  We are at war whether we like it or want it or not.  Terrorists want to destroy us and our freedoms.  Period!  No rationalizations will change that fact!  No complaining by libertine Democrats will change that fact!  No appeasement will change that fact!  We will either fight them now or at some point in the future fight them when they are stronger.  Or we can just surrender!  We are at war!!!
  

Parental Notification Act

The following is from Illinois Family Institute.  The website for the organization is http://www.illinoisfamily.org/ and I copied this information on July 30, 2006.  At the present time, Congress is on their normal August recess.  Consequently, contacting Illinois offices may be more beneficial.  


“IFI E-Alert: Sen. Durbin Undermines Parental Rights

7/30/2006 7:24:00AM
By Elise Bouc


Our own Illinois Senator and Assistant Minority Leader Senator Dick Durbin is using a procedural move to block important parental notification legislation that was passed by overwhelming margins in both the houses of Congress.  What’s at stake is your right as a parent to know about your young daughter’s decision to have an abortion.” (Murder an unborn child.—my addition)


ACTION: Contact Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (R—Tennessee), and Senator Dick Durbin to ask them to please move this legislation forward.  Concerned citizens must contact Senate leaders to encourage them to bring this bill to a cloture vote, and send it to President George W. Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. (Phone calls are the most effective means to communicate with elected officials.)


Senator Dick Durbin
332 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-2152 – Washington, D.C.
312-353-4952 – Chicago
217-492-4062 – Springfield
618-998-8812 – Marion”


“Senator Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2854 – Washington, D.C.
312-886-3506 – Chicago
217-492-5089 – Springfield
618-997-2402 – Marion”


“Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344 – Washington, D.C. (my addition for Washington D.C.)
202-228-1264 (fax)” [Washington, D.C.—my addition]
  
Background
Last week the U.S. Senate passed the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) by a 65-34 vote.  This act makes it a criminal offense to transport minors across state lines to circumvent parental notification laws for the purposes of an abortion. (Both Senator Durbin and Senator Obama voted against the Senate version of this proposed law.  The editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star also oppose this proposed law.  Tells you right there; this is a needed law!—my addition)


In essence, the CCPA mandates that only a parent (or guardian—my addition) can transport their child across state lines for purposes of abortion.  This act is important because in some states, parental notification is not required for abortions involving minors.  Thus, those who wish to bypass parental rights are transporting minors across state lines to more permissive states so that they can have abortions without their parents’ knowledge. (Done often by members of Planned Murderhood and their supporters.  Probably why Senators Durbin and Obama oppose the law since they seem to be puppets of Planned Murderhood as well as the usual libertine cohorts.—my addition)  The CCPA will help stop this violation of parental rights.  A stronger version of this act was also passed in the U.S. House.  Now the act must go to conference in order to reconcile the two versions.


Unfortunately, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin filed an objection Wednesday night to appointing members to the conference.  As a result, this act can not move forward until his objection is removed or overruled.  Since Senator Durbin is from our state, it is vital that we contact him via e-mail and phone to demand that he allow the CCPA to move into conference. (I would recommend by regular mail rather than e-mail.  I think regular mail carries more weight with Senators and Representatives.—my addition)  He is in essence blocking the democratic process.”


“Senator Durbin’s contact information is listed above.  A sample letter, that you can modify as you wish, is posted below.  Please take a moment to contact him and other Senate leaders (The “s” was left out of the original copy.—my addition) to encourage them to allow this important act to go to conference.  Calls and e-mails to Senator Obama would also help as he voted against this act and may be supporting Senator Durbin in his objection. (Contact information for any Senator may be found at http://www.senate.gov/.  Contact information for any member of the House of Representatives may be found at http://www.house.gov/.  My addition.)

Thank you for all you do.


Sample Letter



Dear Senator,


As a concerned constituent and voter, I urge you to allow the Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403 [The Senate identification number.—my addition]) to move to conference.  This legislation would make it a crime for minor girls to be transported across state lines to circumvent parental notification laws.  Minors cannot obtain medicine at school, participate in sporting events or go on field trips without the permission of their parents, yet they can be taken across state lines to terminate a pregnancy without their parents’ knowledge or permission.  This is an absolute violation of parental rights.  Furthermore, both the Senate and the House have already exercised the democratic process and voted by clear majorities in support of this act.  To stand in the way of this act is to stand in the way of democracy.  Please support parental rights and allow this legislation to move to conference.


Sincerely,


Your Name”

    

Attack on morality, part 7

Do not be deceived!  Do not be misled!  Do not doubt it!  Do not be lulled into a false sense of security!  WE ARE AT WAR!!!  It is a cultural war.  It is a war for morality.  It is a war for the hearts, souls, and spirits of our children.  It is war for the SPIRITAL life of every person on this planet.  It is a war between GOD and Satan.  It is a war between righteousness and evil.  Righteousness through the death, burial, and resurrection of JESUS, the CHRIST—GOD’S SON—has already won!!!!!!!  And yet.


The real war is over how many will be SPIRITALLY saved and spend eternity with GOD and how many will be lost and be eternally punished with Satan.  In this war, GOD expects; GOD requires that Christians stand firm against Satan and the forces of evil.  GOD expects; GOD requires that we boldly proclaim HIS truth and boldly fight the righteous fight for righteousness.


I fear that Christians have been neglecting their responsibilities.  Some, who claim to be Christians, don’t even seem to know the difference between good and evil.  Some, who claim to be Christians, don’t even seem to know the difference between the acts of the sinful nature and the acts of the SPIRIT.  Some, who claim to be Christians, don’t even seem to know the WORD of GOD—the Bible—and/or accept what is taught in the WORD of GOD.  Some, who claim to be Christians, seem to believe that they know better than GOD what is best for mankind.  Some, who claim to be Christians, seem to be deceiving Christians who should know better.


This war has been going on since the Garden in Eden and the first sin by man.  At one time, GOD destroyed the population of earth except for Noah and his family.  At times, righteousness seemed to prevail.  At times, evil seemed to prevail.  Final, ultimate victory occurred at the cross—but evil continued for those who did not believe, did not repent, did not confess that JESUS the CHRIST is LORD and SAVIOR, were not baptized for the removal of sin, did not live a life in obedience to GOD’S WILL and HIS WORD.


World War II stopped the evil of the Third Reich.  The war did not stop evil.  By the start of the 1960’s, evil seemed to incrementally accelerate.  The list of seemingly accepted evils is long and I won’t attempt to list them all.  Think about the many different forms of evil that seem to have taken root and grown in the United States.


In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was permissible for mothers to murder their unborn children.  Homosexual behavior started to become acceptable.  Adultery seemed to increase.  Sexual affairs outside of marriage seemed to increase and to become more acceptable to society.  Group sexual interaction was trumpeted as a means to improve relationships.  Pedophilia seemed to increase.  Divorce became an accepted practice.  A man and a woman living together without the benefit of marriage increased.  Pregnancy outside of marriage increased.  Child abuse seemed to become more and more prevalent.  Homosexual activists demand the opportunity to marry.  The sense of community seemed to decrease dramatically.  The use of drugs, both legal and illegal, to dull the pain and/or provide a “kick” has radically increased.  Gambling has increased and become recognized by some as a sport.  The love of money has flourished.  The accumulation of things is emphasized as a worthwhile goal for the “good” life.  The forces of evil have demanded and have tried to remove GOD from the public sphere.


What have Christians done?  Obviously, not enough!  Sin can only thrive when allowed to do so.  We have failed to shine the light of GOD and HIS righteousness as we should.  Sin can be overcome through GOD’S righteousness.  However, GOD wants, GOD expects our personal involvement.  GOD wants, GOD expects our prayers for HIS will to be done.  GOD wants, GOD expects Christians to boldly proclaim HIS righteousness, HIS will, and HIS SON.  GOD wants, GOD expects Christians to live a life of righteousness.  GOD wants, GOD expects Christians to do their part.


What have Christians done?  What have you done?  Have we promoted evil?  Have we promoted good?  Have we been indifferent?  It is not too late if we turn to GOD and apply HIS WORD.  


ARE YOU READY?  Or are you going to sit back and let evil continue to grow?  Evil can be stopped.  Evil can only be stopped through GOD, JESUS, and the HOLY SPIRIT.  We each have a choice.  What is your choice?


“Do not be deceived: God can not be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)                          

Attack on Morality, part 6

My last two posts dealt with “How America Went Gay” by Charles W. Socarides M.D. which is posted at http://www.leaderu.com/.  Tonight, I will conclude that article.  Talking about his homosexual patients, the author stated at the conclusion of my last post: “They were not free.  They were not happy.  And they wanted to see if they could change.”  He continued on with these thoughts.


“Over the years, I found that those of my patients who really wanted to change could do so, by attaining the insight that comes with good psychoanalysis.  (I don’t place a lot of confidence in man being able to change his behavior by himself.  However, I do know that GOD has promised each new Christian the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT.  I do know that the HOLY SPIRIT is powerful if we allow HIM to work within our lives.  I do know that a Christian can change with the guidance, direction, and power of the HOLY SPIRIT.  Personally, I can not understand those people who claim to be Christian and then in the next breath claim that people can’t change their homosexual behavior.  Don’t they know the power of the HOLY SPIRIT???  Have they never received the HOLY SPIRIT and experienced HIS power?  IF not, no wonder they claim homosexual behavior can not change.  They are not Christians if they have not received the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT because all Christians receive the HOLY SPIRIT.  What an admission for them to make!!!—my addition)  Others found other therapies that helped them get to the bottom of their compulsions, all of which involved high motivation and hard work.  Difficult as their therapeutic trips were, hundreds and thousands of homosexual patients—about a third of them—are married today and happily so, with children.  One-third may not sound like a very good average.  But it is just about the same success rate you will find at the best treatment centers for alcoholics, like Hazelden in Minnesota and the Betty Ford Clinic in California.”


“Of course, I could bat .997 if I told all my patients in pain that their homosexuality was ‘a special call’ and ‘a liberation.’  That would endear me to everyone, but it would not help them.  (End sin by declaring there is no sin!!!  Easy but not true!!!—my addition)  It would be a lie—despite recent pieces of pseudo-science bolstering the fantasy that gays are ‘born that way.’  The media put its immediate blessing on this ‘research,’ but we were oversold.  (“Behavior—the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment.” [Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; © 1995; page 103.]  Homosexual behavior is just that—a behavior.  No one ever has to act out a behavior.  We have to breathe—that is not a behavior.  We never have to have intercourse—that is a behavior.  Our heart has to beat—that is not a behavior.  We never have to kill someone—that is a behavior.  We control our behaviors; not our genes!!!!!!!  We are not programmed robots!!!!!!!—my addition)  Now we are getting reports, even in such gay publications as The Journal of Homosexuality, that the gay-gene studies and the gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis.  (The author of one so-called ‘gay-gene theory’ is under investigation by the National Institutes of Health for scientific fraud.)” [my underline]        


“Their former promiscuity may have looked a lot like ‘liberation.’  But it was not true freedom.  It was a kind of slavery. (It is slavery!!!  Slavery to the sin of homosexual behavior!!!—my addition)  And it was not a lifestyle.  With the onset of AIDS, as the playwright and gay militant Larry Kramer said in a 1993 interview, it turned out to be a death style. (Without repentance, it will more importantly be a SPIRITAL death style.  One that after death, one can not repent from!!!—my addition)  I have had some patients tell me, ‘Doctor, if I weren’t in therapy, I’d be dead.’


Testimonials from my recovered patients make me feel my work is worthwhile—despite regular demands from the gay rights community for my silence.  What would they have me do?  Pack my bags, find a new profession, lock up a lifetime of research and analysis, hide my truth under a bushel?  It is not my psychoanalytic duty to tell people they are marvelous when they are out of control, much less ask disingenuous rhetorical questions like, ‘What kind of God would afflict people with an ‘objective disorder’ in the disposition of their hearts?’


Giving GOD the credit for their gayness is a persistent refrain in much gay literature today, and I am saddened to see people of evident good will become unwitting parties to the blasphemy.  Gays ascribe their condition to God, but he should not have to take that rap, any more than he should be blamed for the existence of other man-made maladies—like war, for instance, which has proven to be very unhealthy for humans and for all other living things.  God does not make war.  Men do.  (Again, homosexuality behavior is a behavior that the person involved in the action must take responsibility for—he makes that decision.—my addition) [my underline]


And, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children.  An exaggeration?  Well, what are we to think when militant homosexuals seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of 14 (as they did in Hawaii in 1993) or (as they tried to do in England in 1994)?  In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, ‘We’re here.  We’re queer.  And we’re coming after your children.’


What more do you need to know?”  (It seems a lot more.  People seem to be hearing and believing only what they have been propagandized into hearing and believing.  The radical, militant homosexual activists are relying upon the general apathy of the general public and hoping that if they respond at all, it will be too late.  When one has fallen off of a cliff and floated 1/3rd of the way to the bottom, it is difficult to return to the top of the cliff without GOD’S assistance—my addition)


“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)

  

Attack on morality, part 5

My last post concerned an article entitled “How America Went Gay” by Charles W. Socarides, M.D. and ended with mention of a tract entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.  The second part of Dr. Socarides writing begins tonight continuing with material from the article.  The entire article may be found at http://www.leaderu.com/.



“In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth.  The authors knew the techniques had worked in China.  All they needed was enough media—and enough money—to put them to work in the United States.  And they did.  These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America—by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion. (my underline)


They would desensitize the public by selling the notion that gays were ‘just like everyone else.’  This would make the engine of prejudice run out of steam, i.e., lull straights into an attitude of indifference. (Prejudice as homosexuals perceived it.—my addition) [my underline]


They would jam the public by shaming them into a kind of guilt at their ‘bigotry.’  Kirk and Madsen wrote:


‘All normal persons feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack….  The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting 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.’ (Of course, to homosexuals anyone who disagrees with their perversion are bigots and hate homosexuals which, in reality, includes GOD in their definition of a bigot.—my addition)


The best thing about this technique, according to Kirk and Madsen: The bigot did not even have to believe he was a loathsome creature:


‘Rather, 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.  The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.’ (Thanks to the aid of the mass media and the entertainment industry, homosexuals received that mass propaganda exposure.—my addition) [my underline]


Finally—this was the process they called conversion—Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among bigots, ‘if we can actually make them like us.’  They wrote ‘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 nation via the media.’” (Even people who claim to be Christians and should know the Bible and its condemnation of homosexual behavior were converted by these propaganda lies.—my addition) [my underline]


“By 1992 the President of the United States said it was time that people who were openly gay and lesbian should not be ousted from the nation’s armed forces.  In 1993 the nation’s media celebrated a huge outpouring of gay pride in Washington, D.C.  Television viewers chanted along with half a million marchers, ‘Two, four, six, eight!  Being gay is really great.’  We felt good about ourselves.  We were patriotic Americans.  We had abolished one more form of discrimination, wiped out one of society’s most enduring afflictions: homophobia.  Best of all, we knew that gay was good, gay was free. (Homosexual behavior will always be sin no matter what man proclaims.  Man did not create man—GOD did!!!  GOD knows that which HE created better than the created does!!!—my addition)


Excuse me.  Gay is not good.  Gay is not decidedly free.  How do I know this?  For more than 40 years, I have been in solidarity with hundreds of homosexuals, my patients, and I have spent most of my professional life engaged in exercising a kind of ‘pastoral care’ on their behalf.  But I do not help them by telling them they are O.K.  Nor do I endorse their ‘new claim to self-definition and self-respect.’  Tell me: Have we dumped the idea that a man’s self-esteem comes from something inside himself (sometimes called character) and from having a good education, a good job and a good family—and replaced that notion with this, that he has an affinity to love (and have sex with) other men? [Unfortunately, some have—replacing it with a complete emphasis on self and satisfaction of his sinful nature.—my addition]


In point of fact, many of my patients had character; they had an education; they were respected ad men and actuaries and actors.  But they were still in pain—for one reason and one reason alone.  They were caught up in this mysterious compulsion to have sex with other men.  They were not free.  They were not happy.  And they wanted to see if they could change.” (my underline)


“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)        


(To be continued)

      
    

Attack on morality, part 4

The following material is taken from “How America Went Gay” by Charles W. Socarides, M.D. and the entire article may be found at http://www.leaderu.com/.


“Charles W. Socarides, M.D., is clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York.  He is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and author of Homosexuality: A freedom Too Far (Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, Arizona).”


For most of this century (This article was originally published in 1995.—my addition), most of us in the helping professions considered this behavior (homosexuality—my addition) aberrant.  Not only was it ‘off the track’; the people caught up in it were suffering, which is why we called it a pathology.  We had patients early in their therapy, who would seek out one sex partner after another-total strangers-on a single night, then come limping into our offices the next day to tell us how they were hurting themselves.  Since we were in the business of helping people learn how not to keep hurting themselves, many of us thought we were quietly doing God’s work.


Now, in the opinion of those who make up the so-called cultural elite, our view is ‘out of date.’  The elite say we hurt people more than we help them, and that we belong in one of the century’s dustbins.  They have managed to sell this idea to a great many Americans, thereby making homosexuality fashionable and raising formerly aberrant behavior (sin according to the Bible—my addition) to the status of an ‘alternate lifestyle.’ (and a so called civil right—my addition) [my underline]


You see this view expressed in some places you would least expect.  The Pope says same-sex sex is wrong, but a good many of his own priests in this country (some of whom are gay themselves) say the Pope is wrong.  Indeed, in much of academe and in many secondary school classrooms (and elementary schools now—my addition) gays are said to lead a new vanguard, the wave of the future in a world that will be more demographically secure when it has fewer ‘breeders’ (which is what some gay activists call heterosexuals these days).    


How did this change come about?  Well, the revolution did not just happen.  It has been orchestrated by a small band of very bright men and women—most of them gays and lesbians—in a cultural campaign that has been going on since a few intellectuals laid down the ideological underpinnings for the entire tie-dyed, try-anything-sexual Woodstock generation.  In various ways, Theodore Reich, Alfred Kinsey, Fritz Perls, Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman preached a new cultural gospel.  ‘If it feels good, do it.” (Another way of saying—self, self, self!—my addition) [my underline]      


It was all part of a plan, as one gay publication put it, ‘to make the whole world gay.’  I am not making this up.  You can read an account of the campaign in Dennis Altman’s The Homosexualization of America.  In 1982 Altman, himself gay, reported with an air of elation that more and more Americans were thinking like gays and acting like gays.  There (I believe the word should be ‘they’ but it is written ‘there’ and I am quoting from the article.—my addition) were engaged, that is, ‘in numbers of short-lived sexual adventures either in place of or alongside long-term relationships.’  Altman cited the heterosexual equivalents of gay saunas and the emergence of the swinging singles scene as proofs that “promiscuity and ‘impersonal sex’ are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women.’


Heady stuff.  Gays said they could ‘reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves.’  To do this, these reinventors had to clear away one major obstacle.  No, they didn’t go after the nation’s clergy.  They targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself.  In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (Significantly, in January of 1973, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time in history that it was legal to murder your unborn baby!—my addition) and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they ‘cured’ homosexuality overnight-by fiat.  They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was ‘not a disorder.’  It was merely ‘a condition’—as neutral as lefthandedness. (my underline)


This amounted to a full approval of homosexuality.  Those of us who did not go along with the political redefinition were soon silenced at our own professional meetings.  Our lectures were canceled inside academe and our research papers turned down in the learned journals.  Worse things followed in the culture at large.  Television and movie producers began to do stories promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.  A gay review board told Hollywood how it should deal or not deal with homosexuality.  Mainstream publishers turned down books that objected to the gay revolution.  Gays and lesbians influenced sex education in our nation’s schools, and gay and lesbian libbers seized control of faculty committees in our nations’ colleges.  State legislatures nullified laws against sodomy.  (Even very conservative Arizona did so a few years ago.—my addition) [my underline]


If the print media paid any attention at all, they tended to hail the gay revolution, possibly because many of the reporters on gay issues were themselves gay and open advocates for the movement.  And those reporters who were not gay seemed too intimidated by groupthink to expose what was going on in their own newsrooms.


And now, what happens to those of us who stand up and object?  Gay activists have already anticipated that.  They have created a kind of conventional wisdom (man’s wisdom; not GOD’S—my addition): that we suffer from homophobia, a disease that has actually been invented by gays projecting their own fear on society.  And we are bigots besides, because, they say, we fail to deal with gays compassionately.  Gays are now no different (by their perverse definitions—my addition) than people born black or Hispanic or physically challenged.  Since gays are born that way (one of the many lies promoted—my addition) and have no choice about their sexual orientation, anyone who calls same-sex sex an aberration is now a bigot.  Un-American, too.  Astoundingly now, college freshmen come home for their first Thanksgiving to announce, ‘Hey, Mom!  Hey, Dad!  We’ve taken the high moral (turning morality upside down—my addition) ground.  We’ve joined the gay revolution.’ [my underline]


My wife, Claire, who has an unerring aptitude for getting to the heart of things, said one day recently in passing, ‘I think everybody’s being brainwashed.’  That gave me a start.  I know ‘brainwashing’ is a term that has been used and overused.  But my wife’s casual observation only reminded me of a brilliant tract I had read several years ago and then forgotten.  It was called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. (my underline)


That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once catalogued by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.” (my underline)


“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time, we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)


(To be continued)            

Attack on morality, part 3

As with part 1 and part 2 of “Attack on Morality,” the information presented is taken from “’Sexual Orientation’ and American Culture” by Robert Knight.  It is from a fourteen page article found at www.cultureandfamily.org which is a website sponsored by “Concerned Women for America” at www.cwfa.org.

“Although homosexual pressure groups contend that they are only seeking tolerance, many ‘gay’ writers (and their critics) acknowledge that their gains are already having a radical effect on society.”

“As homosexuality becomes more accepted, so too is the trend toward homosexuals acquiring children through adoption.  Although many experts quoted in the media continue to repeat the idea that: ‘Children with two parents of the same gender are as well adjusted as children with one of each kind,’ there is no solid science to back this view.  In a look at 49 studies about children in homosexual households, Robert Lerner, Ph.D. and Althea Nagai, Ph.D. found that all had fatal flaws, such as tiny sample size, skewed selection of subjects, and built-in biases of the researchers.  A study in the April 2000 edition of American Sociological Review by pro-homosexual researchers also refutes the idea that research proves that children are unaffected by living in ‘gay’ households.” (my underline)  [Rationally, that view is also nonsense.  If homosexuality is evil as stated in the Bible, if marriage is to be between only a man and a woman as declared in the Bible; then, it would be apparent that two homosexuals raising children contrary to GOD’S WILL would not produce a positive result, in general.  “Two wrongs do not make a right!”  Ultimately, disobeying GOD will not result in good!!!]  

“Cultural analyst Patrick Fagan notes that the homosexual push for acceptance became possible only because marriage itself had already fallen into a sorry state.  ‘Most of heterosexual America is now very close in its attitudes about sexuality to the heart of the homosexual affective disorder: the inversion into the self.  These attitudes have created for children a culture of rejection that is incapable of providing the antidote to the demands of the homosexual movement.’ (my underline)

In summary, the growing acceptance of homosexuality cannot help but to undermine societal support for marriage and family.  Christopher Wolfe, professor of political science at Marquette University, puts it this way:

‘The most significant harm of legitimizing active homosexuality—the way it would harm the family the most—would be the educative impact on the formation of people’s ideas regarding the nature and purpose of sex, marriage and family.  Most important, the legitimization of active homosexuality would be the most straightforward and comprehensive attempt to separate the essential connection between sex and children that society has ever proclaimed.  In so doing, society would be undermining one of its most fundamental institutions, marriage.’”  (It’s the philosophy that anything goes, everything should be for me, I am the most important concept in a world that does not accept absolute truth.—my addition)

“Corporations that accord nonmarital relationships the same status and benefits of marriage are helping to undermine society’s ability to produce productive, honest, hard-working employees.  What might appear to be a concession to a relatively few employees actually constitutes a frontal attack on the institutions of marriage and family.  Not only is the incentive to marry reduced, but the temptation to attain marital benefits outside of wedlock reinforces extramarital sex, with all its consequent problems of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and risk of domestic abuse.  Domestic partner policies also send an indelible, socially dangerous message to young people: Marriage is no longer important.”  (It also encourages the murder of unborn babies.  Since self is elevated to the pinnacle of importance, any inconveniently conceived child can rationally be removed by an operation or a pill.—my addition)

“Marriage-based family life is the organizational principle behind all civilized cultures.  Marriage brings the sexes together in a unique legal, social, economic and spiritual union.  Because it is indispensable, societies have accorded it various protections and privileges not granted to other types of relationships.  No other relationship transforms young men and women into more productive, less selfish and more mature husbands and wives, and fathers and mothers.  No other relationship affords children the best economic, emotional and psychological environment.” (my underline)  [I would qualify these comments by saying that being a Christian is more important.  However, being a Christian also deepens the understanding of the importance of marriage.  The intended GODLY relationship of a man and a woman in marriage is used in the Bible as a means to illustrate the intended GODLY relationship between CHRIST and the church.  Not knowing the GODLY relationship intended in marriage makes it more difficult to understand the GODLY relationship intended between CHRIST and the church.  GOD never intended “throw away marriages”—and the two shall become one.—my addition]

“The acceptance of ‘sexual orientation’ as a civil right is having profound effects on businesses and on American society as a whole.  As the drive for acceptance of homosexuality increases, societal support for marriage and family decreases, with predictable negative consequences.  One of them is a loss of freedom for people who believe in traditional morality.  Another is a loss of stability in communities, with a rise in crime, sexually transmitted diseases and other social pathologies.  Still another is a shortage of employable, stable people.  (Don’t let the media’s lack of exposure to the problems of homosexual activities mislead anyone.  Homosexual unions are not more idyllic than marriage between heterosexual couples.  In general, homosexual relationships are less stable and also fraught with more problems than traditional marriage.-my addition)

The stakes are very high: Absent a marriage-based culture, can America continue to function as a self-governing republic?  History indicates that the chances are slim.

America’s best hope is to reverse the trend away from traditional morality and to bolster the institutions of marriage and family, the surest producer of stable, productive citizens.”  (America’s best hope, ultimately America’s only hope, is to turn to the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD in obedience to HIS will which includes GOD given morality and marriage between one man and one woman.—my addition)

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)

Attack on morality, part 2

Last night, I posted information from “’Sexual Orientation’ and American Culture” by Robert Knight posted on www.cultureandfamily.org, a website sponsored by Concerned Women for America which is located at www.cwfa.org.  Tonight, I continue with part 2 of that article.

“When ‘sexual orientation’ is added to a legal or corporate nondiscrimination code, it is a giant step toward the adoption of policies that discriminate against people with traditional views of morality.

In companies that have ‘sexual orientation’ in nondiscrimination codes, employees face pro-homosexual diversity training, and even programs that openly assail traditional morality. (my underline)  As homosexual ‘diversity guru’ Brian McNaught writes in his book
Gay issues in the Workplace, ‘There are people who believe that homosexual behavior is forbidden by the Bible (my underline).  This too is a personal belief.’  McNaught, who frequently consults for AT&T and other Fortune 500 firms, counsels employers to dispense with any references to marriage: ‘[H]eterosexist language can also be changed.  We can say, for instance, partner or significant other rather than spouse.  (Sound familiar: listen to any newscast; read any newspaper.—my addition)  We can say, ‘Are you in a relationship?’ rather than, ‘Are you married?’’  As for employees who decline to go along with the homosexual program, McNaught has this advice:

‘If individuals insist that the company’s efforts to create a safe work environment for gay employees ‘discriminates’ against the religious conservative employee and their values, I would ask them to 1) utilize the support services, such as counseling, made available to distressed employees; 2) speak to their supervisors so that they will be aware of their stress; and 3) do their best to stay focused on the purpose of their time at work.  If the stress is so great that they are unable to function at work, I would reaffirm the company’s policy on discrimination and tell them if they could not be comfortable with this policy I would understand why they would feel it necessary to seek employment elsewhere.’” (my underline)

The author then gives three examples of the results of these new “sexual orientation” policies for specific individuals.  I will skip that portion and give three examples given of more far reaching consequences.

“Even though they won a U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2000 that affirms that the Boy Scouts of America have a right to set their own membership standards, the Scouts have been under attack in many places for resisting homosexuals’ demands for inclusion.  In virtually all cases, critics of the Scouts point to laws or policies containing the term ‘sexual orientation.’

   In June, 2001, the District of Columbia’s Commission on Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to reinstate two openly homosexual leaders.

   In Broward County, Florida, in March 2001, the Scouts were forced to sue after county commissioners barred their access to public schools in the fall of 2000.

   The Ann Arbor, Michigan, City Council cut ties in August 2001 to the local United Way for its refusal to eject the Scouts from the United Way program.

   More than two dozen chapters of United Way have cut off the Scouts, and at least 359 school districts with a total of 4,418 schools in 10 states have taken action against the Scouts, according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

   Former Vice President Al Gore pledged someday to use the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill to empower the federal government to ban discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation’ in all workplaces with 15 or more employees, to force the Scouts to admit homosexuals.  (With an agenda like that being supported by the Democratic Party, why would anyone who knows that GOD condemns homosexual behavior ever vote for a Democrat until they change their policy position?—my addition)

   During the week of June 17-23, 2001, PBS (The Public Broadcasting System—my addition) aired ‘Scout’s Honor,’ a one-sided documentary making the Scouts out to be bigots. (my underline)

   On June 19, 2001, the American Medical Association’s policy-making arm, the House of Delegates, voted to urge the Scouts to admit homosexuals on the grounds that exclusion is a medical risk.  Ignoring the voluminous data regarding the health risks of homosexual behavior, delegates aired comments like this one: ‘Homophobia is a health hazard,’ said Dr. Thomas Hicks, a supporter of the resolution, according to American Medical News.” (my underline)

I will add my own experience in this area.  I was living in Tucson at the time.  After the Supreme Court decision, the Tucson City Council voted not to provide funds to the Scouts as they have done in the past.  Then, they threatened the local United Way with the loss of funds if the United Way did not do the same.  The United Way buckled under to the blackmail and did just that.  The President of the University of Arizona tried to remove the Boy Scouts from the approved list of organizations that UofA employees could donate to through the UofA.  He rescinded the order only after UofA employees objected.  

When the obvious was pointed out, that these actions were discriminatory, the largest local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, had one of their resident homosexuals write an article on good and bad discrimination.  It was bad discrimination to discriminate against homosexuals according to this homosexual reporter.  It was good discrimination to discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America.  So much for tolerance as proclaimed by homosexual activists!!!!!!!

“Despite all the media-driven attacks, most Americans support the Scouts’ right to set their own moral standards.  In an October 2000 Chicago Tribune poll of Chicago-area residents, ‘82 percent said the Scouts should be allowed to meet in schools and other public buildings.  Only 10 percent disagreed, and 7 percent had no opinion.’”

“Another organization that has run afoul of laws containing ‘sexual orientation’ is the Salvation Army, perhaps America’s most respected charity.  In 1997, the Salvation Army gave up $3.5 million in San Francisco city funding rather than submit to an order for them to offer ‘domestic partner’ benefits to homosexual employees.

In Washington, D.C. homosexual D.C. City Councilman David Catania boasted in crude terms in July 2001 about how he threatened Salvation Army officials over their policy on ‘sexual orientation.’

Recalling a conversation with a national Salvation Army official, Catania related: ‘I said this faggot [referring to himself] controls federal grants in the District as well as local and you’ll never see another cent as long as you live.  I’ll subpoena every one of you mother [expletive]s and I’ll bring you down and I’ll turn my chamber into a national circus.  Do we understand each other?’ (Personally, I would have taken his offer of a national circus.  He would have been the one to look bad—not the Salvation Army.—my addition)

Catania had made news on July 11, 2001 when he threatened the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts with cutting off city grants in the wake of a Washington Post report that Salvation Army officials had tried to reach an agreement with the Bush White House on the faith-based charity initiative.  The Post had reported that Army officials wanted assurances that they would be exempt from local and state policies mandating special rights for ‘sexual orientation.’”

“We need to look no farther than our neighbor to the north to see what America’s future may hold as ‘sexual orientation’ policies and laws proliferate.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a First Amendment to protect the freedoms of speech, press, religion and free assembly.  But Canadians share many cultural similarities with Americans, so their experience with ‘sexual orientation’ contains clues about where the concept eventually leads.

   Section 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code banning ‘public incitement of hatred and promoting hatred’ has been used against people who are critical of homosexuality. (my underline)

   Dianne Haskett, the mayor of London, Ontario, was brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission for declining to declare ‘Gay Pride Weekend.’  The city was fined a total of $10,000, of which the mayor helped pay half by stepping down and forfeiting salary for three weeks.  (Later, in an election in which her opponent backed ‘gay’ rights, Mayor Haskett prevailed in a landslide.)

   A Saskatchewan newspaper publisher and a man who bought an ad featuring a list of five Biblical verses about homosexuality were fined $4,500 each and warned never to run a similar ad.    

   The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has warned major U.S. broadcasters such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family that Canadian stations may carry their programs only after excising any segment dealing with homosexuality.  Following a 1997 Focus on the Family program in which panelists discussed scientific claims about genetic studies and homosexuality as well as the aims and activities of homosexual pressure groups, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council issued a statement saying that Focus on the Family “attributed to the gay movement a false and flimsy intellectual basis and a malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose, which, in the view of the Council, constitute abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of ‘sexual orientation.’’”

Can the same type of thing happen in the United States?  Yes!  If we continue to remain silent and/or continue to vote for and support libertine Democrats, homosexual activists, and murderers of the unborn; that is probably exactly what will happen in the United States.  We can not expect to be protected by provisions of the Bill of Rights.  Supreme Court members have demonstrated time after time a proclivity to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own desires and agenda.  United in CHRIST we can not fail; divided and silent GOD may very well allow evil to momentarily triumph.  HE has done so in the past when the faithful have not done their part to support the will of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD.

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)  

(To be continued)