Some wonderful instruction here, as meditation forms the foundation of all healing from various infirmities: homosexuality, additions, pornography... This may seem simple, but it is truly profound. And in the spiritual life I LOVE the simple.
Friday, September 28, 2012
I have had some personal misgivings about the work of Fr. Richard Rohr. This wonderful article answered all my questions. Instead of Rohr, I would recommend the beautifully manly and solid writing of Fr. Joseph Classen and Fr. Larry Richards.
Despite the naysayers, also included in this video, these guys have it exactly right. Homosexuality is not something you are born with, and it is nothing something you choose, it is a psychological problem with deeps roots reaching all the way back to childhood. I do not agree with all of their methodology, but the basic principles are sound. I am also still not convinced that a man who struggles with same sex attraction can become heterosexual, or even bisexual. But anything is possible with God. He rose the dead, he can certainly heal us. They can certainly become chaste, as I am living proof of that. Unfortunately, the longer you stay in the gay lifestyle, the harder it is to leave, as your entire identity becomes dependent on it.
Although I deeply love my brothers and sisters who stand tirelessly in front of so-called “health” clinics and compassionately sidewalk counsel men and women about the evils of abortion (infanticide) and contraceptives, I have decided to take a different tactic and go after the hearts and minds of children before they become sexually active and feel that they must walk into a Planned Parenthood death-house. I believe, that in their efforts to create sexually active children, at a younger and younger age, Planned Parenthood ruthlessly promotes worldwide brain-washing seminars, thinly disguised as sex-education classes, in our public schools. These outlandish sex programs dig deep into the Pandora’s box of porn in an effort to make even the most deviant behavior seem acceptable. Dr. Judith Reisman has expertly documented the whole mess in her authoritative work: Sexual Sabotage. Sadly, for the most part, their efforts have been successful, and when children become pregnant, infected with various STDS, or in need of a condom supply: who do they turn to? Planned Parenthood.
To further prove that Planned Parenthood has signed an unholy alliance with porn, I will use their own words, pictures, and the statements of those who support them to prove my point. From the Planned Parenthood teenwire.com website: “...many people enjoy using pornography or erotica as a part of their sex play – alone or with a partner...There is no indication that using pornography causes problems...” Porn pusher Dave Pounder said of the site: “I think teens are going to have sex regardless...Comprehensive sex education is the way to go, and if pornography is included as part of the program, that's okay. Planned Parenthood is doing an exceptional job...” The GoAskAlice website, recommended for teens by Planned Parenthood, heralds the benefits of pornography and its positive effects on healthy sexual behaviors. In addition, Planned Parenthood highly touts the following three books for use by educators and parents in the school or home setting:
What's the Big Secret? (Supposedly for grade-schoolers. Includes a subtle, but cunning introduction to masturbation and pornography. On page 16, the authors compare masturbation to washing your hands, combing your hair, and a cat cleaning itself. In the picture, a small boy rubs a blanket while watching another boy on TV.)
It's Perfectly Normal (For the 10 and up crowd. Very explicit drawings of naked bodies and various sexual positions, including one which mimics the open “%$*@^!” shots pioneered by Penthouse Magazine.
Changing Bodies, Changing Lives (For 13+. A hard-core sex manual with everything from oral, anal, and gay/lesbian sex. From my perspective, the most bizarre section suggests that children who think they may be gay network with others on the Internet. Included is the very strange black&white picture of a male chest covered by multiple female hands.)
|I censored the photo.|
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Former teen singer and actress Miley Cyrus leaves little to the imagination in an upcoming episode of Two and a Half Men, a show I have never watched. The entire set-up of the photograph is extremely creepy as they have Cyrus dressed in some sort of childish-baby-doll outfit, sitting innocently cross-legged, and coyly smiling at the man next to her. It all reeks of child porn. Although, she is now 19, Cyrus is not the first child star to be thrown before the eyes of the nation's children as an under-age sex symbol; recall the similar sickening transformations of the once virginal-looking Britney Spears, Christina Aquilera, and Hillary Duff. The whole mess reminds me of Hustler's Barely Legal porn series. It seems that the entire aim of Hollywood producers is to take ideas from pornography, repackage it, and then make it palatable to the general public.
|Thomas Hart Benton|
Mike Rowe, the guy from the television show Dirty Jobs, wrote a letter to Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, in which he rather eloquently shared his views on the American work ethic. The current job-less rate and under-appreciation in the US populous for labor intensive work or menial jobs he correctly connected to the over-specialization in education and the abandonment of occupational training. Rowe wrote: “We have embraced a ridiculously narrow view of education. Any kind of training or study that does not come with a four-year degree is now deemed 'alternative.' Many viable careers once aspired to are now seen as 'vocational consolation prizes,' and many of the jobs this current administration has tried to 'create' over the last four years are the same jobs that parents and teachers actively discourage kids from pursuing. (I always thought there was something ill-fated about the promise of three million 'shovel ready jobs made to a society that no longer encourages people to pick up a shovel.)” As a former high-school History teacher, I worried about students, predominately males, who could not have cared less about what was going on in England during the Industrial Revolution. I talked about my concerns with some older and more experienced teachers, and they all bemoaned the near absence of work-related/vocational classes for these bored young men. Although I loved teaching History, I also wondered whether we were all doing a great disservice to these boys whose talents were not being nurtured. I thought: Does everyone have to go to college? As a student of Medieval History, I started to look back to the apprentice systems and the honor given to craftsman and various occupational guilds. Shouldn’t we go back to that?
Only we do not have to travel that far back in time to find instances when the sweat of the body appeared during activities that didn’t take place in a health club. One of my favorite periods in American Art was the time occupied by the Regionalists or Rural Movement. The most famous artists being: Thomas Hart Benton, Lewis Hine, and Grant Wood. They celebrated the common working man, primarily in the Mid-West and in the major Eastern cities, during the height of the Great Depression when destitute farmers where flooding West and into the overcrowded urban centers. But they did not focus on the overwhelming poverty of the times, but chose rather to reveal the overpowering grace and beauty in work. This would be a rare instance, for as soon as the World War II generation returned home, their children, the more affluent baby-boomers, flooded into colleges and universities, sparking the onset of yuppie-dom, the counter-culture, and the sexual revolution. The elegance of the Depression era works are a definite contrast to the pornographic destruction done to the male body by Andy Warhol in the 60s. Then, the overly cerebral and neurotic Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate replaced Gary Cooper as the new cultural hero. Now, current ideas of American manhood are epitomized by the ephebic Ryan Seacrest, Neil Patrick Harris, and Sheldon Cooper. Mike Rowe, and Dirty Jobs, with perspectives of quality still intact, is in line with the American idea of manliness that is frontier-driven, but not oafish. It's Lewis and Clark, the Pony Express, the tough brick-layers who built New York City, but it is also Frederic Remington, Jack London, and Neil Armstrong. It is something we should be proud of, and hopefully return to.
Here is the link to Mike's letter:
Monday, September 24, 2012
This last Saturday, I experienced an extremely sad and heart-wrenching moment. I was at the XO Ball in San Francisco helping The Pink Cross Foundation reach out with the love of Christ to porn stars, sex-workers, and the various attendees. Early on in the day, I was making my first walk-about the convention area: when I spotted a very young looking woman seated near the front the stage area. She was one of two pole-strippers that were offering lap-dances for a ten measily dollars. She looked at me with eyes of dread, then sorrow. I continued to stare at her and I smiled a little bit. Relieved, she smiled back. I went up to where she was and handed her and the other young lady a card from Pink Cross and said that I would pray for them. They beamed with happiness and joyfully thanked me. Now, that I was closer, I could see just how young they were: late-teens to very early-twenties. They wore sleazy and barley-there costumes, but not a lot of makeup. Their faces were still glowing with youth. Despite their present condition, anyone would still find them pretty.
After talking very briefly with them, I walked across the large open space from the vicinity of the stage to the concourse section where the various porn companies and actresses had set up their individual booths. Most glared at me disdain and flashes of unveiled hate. Because I was wearing one of Shelley Lubben’s Pink Cross T-Shirts, they knew exactly were I was coming from. These women were a great contrast to the two still fresh-faced younger strippers. For the most part, they were hard, jaded, and burned-out. One actress gave me a particularly ugly look so I handed her a card and said: God bless you. Well, that was it. She hissed and I could tell that this was a case of full-blown demonic possession. I walked away, but it got me thinking. In a few years, will those two girls be sucked into the porn industry: becoming the lifeless shells that shot venom from their mouths at me? Can we stop it or is the outcome of the whole sick process inevitable? I think the answer relies a lot on all of us: Do we continue to watch porn? Do we reach-out as a community of Christian believers or even as individuals? Do we allow our children to be sold into slavery?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Yesterday (Saturday 22, 2012) I got to spend much of the day with famed ex-porn star turned Christian evangelist and speaker Shelley Lubben at the XO Ball in San Francisco. Shelley is completely honest, candid, and forthright. Her exuberant enthusiasm for the Lord could be seen as outrageous by some, but I think the world has seen enough of sour and glum-looking Christians. She is fearless and not afraid to reveal the real person behind the glamorous movie image. Many love her for this openness, an equal amount unfairly mock her.
I arrived at the event a little early, and first got to know some of her dedicated volunteers: the beautiful Veronica and her husband, the lovely and talented Heather, Scott, and Ricky. They all shined bright with the light of Christ in an atmosphere of darkness and confusion. Before I even met her, I already knew Shelley must be a great lover of Jesus just from observing the company that she keeps.
When Shelley did arrive, with the perpetually pretty Jennah, her joy and enthusiasm, even in the midst of fighting an illness, immediately uplifted everyone she came in contact with. As impressed as I was with her, I was equally inspired by her humble husband Garrett. He is a very tall man, with a big heart. He has a quiet and certain strength that I always admired, though rarely saw in other men. He doesn’t have to flex, he just is. He is a modern model of Christian masculinity. His steady thoughtfulness is a beautiful counterbalance to her boundless energy.
I found Shelley to be thoroughly courageous, but also vulnerable. During the course of the day, I quickly discovered that one of her favorite expressions goes something like this: people have many layers, such as an onion, and those layers have to be peeled back. Just as those she wishes to help, I think Shelley is also equally complex, but she hides nothing and trusts completely. This leaves her open for big rewards, but also equally big losses. She takes that chance, and she doesn’t give up. I like that.
Friday, September 21, 2012
I reported in an earlier blog that former San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and gay activist, who was the first to use the phrase “domestic partner” in a court case back in 1982, was arrested on suspicion of possessing child pornography. Finally, the San Francisco SVU issued a warrant for Brinkin's arrest (September 21, 2012) as he will be formally charged with child porn possession and distribution. Among other things, Brinkin was instrumental in the implementation and enforcement of the landmark 1997 San Francisco Equal Benefits Ordination which became a model for similar laws throughout the country.
As I earlier wrote about sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, a closet homosexual and pedophile, whose bogus science led to the reevaluation of American sexual moral standards, unchecked and liberalized homosexuality can often contribute to an eventual and horrendous breakdown of all psycho-sexual barriers in the individual and in society. In deference to all, this is also the case with deviant heterosexuals, Ted Bundy being the penultimate example. We are all now reaping the rotten harvest from the sexual revolution.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
I will admit it, until today I had no idea what Grindr was. For other ancient relics, like myself, apparently this is the name of a networking application used on various phone devices that connects gay men with other men interested in anonymous or quicky sex. I came across this fact while reading an article which claimed that heiress Paris Hilton made derogatory comments about gays. It seems that a friend was explaining Grindr to her, and she reacted with words like “disgusting.” Although she may not have articulated her point well, she is still essentially correct. But this type of random-hooking-up is nothing new to the gay scene. When I was in San Francisco, back in the 90s, guys constantly went home with each other after meeting briefly in dance clubs or bars. Some even skipped the going back to your place step and did it right in the public spaces. One night, at a more sedate pub, I talked with an older gay gentleman, and I asked him what it was like being gay back in the 50s; before the homosexual liberation movement. He said that most of them were heavily closeted and married. Someone who either owned a restaurant or bar would open the place up, before or after hours, under the pretense of having a men's meeting, and the whole thing would turn into an orgy. Technology has changed, but not human nature.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The other day, I was thinking about when I first returned to the Lord. At that point, I knew next to nothing about God. I remember going to a local bookstore and grabbing almost everything off the shelves about Catholicism. I started reading them, then I turned on EWTN. I was like, “Whoa!” I couldn’t keep up with what they were writing and saying. Nothing penetrated my skull. I just wanted to learn how to be a human being again, I did not have to climb to the pinnacle of spiritual fulfillment. Then, I met a young priest, only ordained a few years. He spoke in black and white; the world was infested with evil, but also good. His speech was not nuanced; he didn’t throw about complicated words or theories. He spoke to the uneducated, the hopeless, and the lost. In some ways, he reminded me of Fr. John Corapi. You could tell that he too - knew and felt your pain. It was relieving to find another soul, especially an ordained man of the Church, that understood and was able to share simply the message of the Lord's redemptive power.
With this in mind, I believe that the greatest intellectuals in the Church have always also been the greatest mystics. For example, on December 6, 1273, St. Thomas Aquinas laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to a fellow priest, who urged him to continue his writings: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value.” St. Hildegard of Bingen, St Theresa of Avila, and St John of the Cross surely also belong in this group. They were extremely intelligent people, but also had mass followings among the poor and ignorant. Now, few in the Church have this special power to traverse all boundaries of class and education. The last were probably: Bishop Fulton Sheen, Mother Teresa, and Pope John Paul II. I am not anti-intellectual, but we are living in a world littered with the battle-shocked and incoherent. They need love. They need to know that the Lord will forgive them. They just need to know that there is a God.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Over the last few months, I read several books and essays which examined the origin of the pornography explosion of the late-20th Century. Many focused upon one key impetus. I argue that there was not a single factor, but many that just happened to occur in the same relative brief period of time. But first everyone must realize that porn is not something unique to the modern world, but existed in the earliest human civilizations. What is peculiar about contemporary porn is that it is mass produced for general consumption. Prior to the middle of the last Century, porn inhabited a rather closeted world of the Roman bath house changing rooms, the wealthy boudoir (many of the paintings by Boucher,) and the grainy cigarette cards passed between saloon patrons. Now, children text nude images of themselves to school chums. When did this start?
Probably the most important date in the history of modern porn is 1948, the publication year for Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Among other things, the book scurrilously convinced many that Americans were far from the sexual conservative moralists portrayed in the media, but were actually backroom perverts. The next generation, headed by the young Hugh Hefner, set their minds on rebelling against the supposed hypocrisy of their parents by beginning the sexual revolution. At the same time, the Hayes Code, which self-censored the film industry, began to become irrelevant as the movies, suffering from the growing popularity of television, attempted to lure consumers back to the theater by pushing what was acceptable. This was symbolized by the Hollywood lives of Jayne Mansfield, Mamie Van Doren, and Bridget Bardot who rose to international prominence during the 50s by starring in sophomoric sex-comedies, but were relegated to the D-list in the swinging-60s. All three would bare everything in front of the camera in vain attempts to resurrect their earlier fame. Nudity was no longer scandalous, but a career move.
In the 60's, Kodak revolutionized amateur photography with the introduction of the relatively inexpensive and easy to use Super-8 film camera. Now, anyone could be their own movie director. This easy access to once large and highly advanced equipment made pornography, from a production standpoint, possible. But it was not until the 1970's that porn first began to truly flourish. In 1969, Penthouse was introduced, followed by Hustler in 1974. Also, in 1969, the Supreme Court issued a horrendous ruling in Byrne v. Karalexis which declared a grossly pornographic Swedish film to be not obscene. The floodgate had been opened. With that, Penthouse and Hustler would go beyond Playboy in terms of explicitness and subject matter. Then, right in the middle of the two publication's separate creations, in 1972, the biggest grossing porn film of all time, Deep Throat, played in legitimate movie houses across the country. The pretentious hippie and peace movements of the 60s morphed into a self-centered quest for sexual fulfillment. In a mere twenty years the country went from Marilyn Monroe to Marilyn Chambers.
Also with the year 1972, the Supreme Court ruled, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, that unmarried women had the right to purchase the contraceptive “pill.” A few years earlier, Pope Paul VI prohibited the use of artificial birth control in Humanae Vitae. Open rebellion soon followed. The free-love generation made the need for cheap and easy birth control a vital necessity. It seemed that the Catholic Church was going against every societal trend. To only make matters worse, if the pill failed, the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that abortion would be legalized. Sex was now risk free. Women could be used and tossed away. For many, the Church and religion became irrelevant. There were new cultural leaders to follow: Bob Guccione, Gloria Steinem, and Timothy Leary. Imbibed with this mix of sex, freedom, and drugs, the disco years proved fertile ground for the porn industry. But everyone got caught up: couples tried swinging, men and women sought to “find” themselves and strayed, women went to work, the kids landed in daycare. Children were seduced, and wandered. Boys, like me, looked for solace in a magazine; girls wanted the boys to like them. Now, we have become a nation of porn-addicts. It has infected us: men are oversexed and impotent (in need of daily dosages of Viagra;) young women are bitter and unable to bare children after years of hormone therapy; our children have had multiple partners by the time they graduate from high-school. But it’s not too late; you simply have to switch it off.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Northstar, the Canadian speedster mutant and member of Marvel's X-Men (specifically the Astonishing X-Men line-up), is getting married... to a man. Sadly, the once great art of comic book publishing, as with much of American culture, has sunk into degeneracy. And this is not a first for Marvel Comics, back in 2002, Marvel revived Rawhide Kid in their Marvel Max imprint, and introduced the first openly gay comic book character to star in his own magazine. The first edition of the Rawhide Kid’s gay saga was called Slap Leather. The character’s sexuality is conveyed indirectly, through euphemisms and puns, and the comic’s campy style. The Young Avengers series, which debuted in 2005, featured two gay teenaged major characters, Hulking and Wicca homage to the new-pagan rite,) from its inception. The other comic book giant, DC, also jumped in with their own band of gay superheroes. In 2011, DC launched it’s The New 52 program, which introduced a number of new titles. Included were: Voodoo, which featured an African American bisexual woman as the title character. Additionally, The New 52 also introduced Bunker, the first openly-gay superhero ever to be featured in The Teen Titans ongoing series. In 2012, it was revealed that the original Green Lantern is gay. Not even the once squeaky clean and sickeningly wholesome Archies are immune. In Issue 202 of Veronica, published in September 2010, only in the U.S. and Canada, Archie Comics introduced openly gay character Kevin Keller.
This is social engineering and mass indoctrination at its worst; for it aims at our young people. But what makes it all the more-scary is that this is material is being produced by a major entertainment juggernaut: Marvel Entertainment. Bought by the Walt Disney Corp. in 2009, becoming the largest money-making franchise in existence. Marvel's The Avengers, was the biggest box-office hit of the year. Since then, they have also set-up a tevision division. The Marvel brand reaches into almost every other market: video-games, toys, cartoons, etc. I have rather enjoyed their films (I gave a very good review to Captain America) but these populist creations can never compensate for their underhanded brainwashing programs. Combined with the Fox TV-series Glee, which ruthlessly promotes straight and gay sexual activity among teens, in recent years, there has been a full-impact assault upon the moral sensibilities of the American youth. Unfortunately, these sick intrusions into the US home are neither innocuous nor silly, they will, particularly with confused teenagers who may think they are gay, cause countless numbers of deaths.
I would recommend that parents keep children away from ALL mass-produced comic books.
Friday, September 7, 2012
I have been doing some research on the many health risks involved in the homosexual lifestyle. Information is not that easy to find. I started with “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” (CDC.) On their web-site, they have some very impressive statistical fact-sheets which plainly reveal the horrible consequences of acting out on homosexual desires. For example, although gay men are only 1-2% of the population, they account for 61% of all new HIV infections in the US. Worse of all: among adolescent males aged 13-19 years, approximately 91% of all diagnosed HIV infections are from male-to-male sexual contact. In addition, syphilis and hepatitis A, B, and C are rampant in the gay male population. Yet, in a bizarre twist, the material made available by the CDC features healthy, happy, and smiling gay men. The only thing I can compare them to are the homoerotic propaganda posters which emerged from Nazi Germany, Soviet Russian and Communist China during World War II. They are meant to deceive. Images such as these are products of a megalithic uni-theoretical state. But the CDC is always in an odd situation. The numbers do not lie. Gay men are being infected with incurable diseases and dying. How to turn-it-all upside down? The gay lifestyle will kill you, but, while in it, you will be good-looking, youthful, and joyous. Only, I also discovered a much better source for the truth about homosexuality at “The Family Research Council.” They just list the facts...with no pretty pictures.Here are the links:
The Family Research Council:
Thursday, September 6, 2012
I was not a big fan of Rick Santorum during the Republican primaries. I thought his rhetoric and style was often shrill, divisive, and overly critical of other conservatives. While doing some research on another topic, I found a remarkable interview with Santorum from April of 2003 which fell at about the same time the Supreme Court was hearing the case of “Lawrence vs. Texas” which ultimately brought down all of the anti-sodomy laws in the US. The always stalwart Judge Scalia wrote in his opposition to the ruling:
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive...Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.
In other words, Scalia believed that the judgment against upholding anti-sodomy laws did not originate from the people, but from the court system which was pressured by the gay lobby, which in-turn, the Democratic Party is heavily indebted to. This wave of forced societal acceptance of homosexual behavior has a very corrosive affect on all cultural viewpoints, especially in our children. As religious and historical moral values are eroded away in favor of a blind-tolerance.
During the Associated Press interview with Santorum, predicting much of what Scalia would later write, though much more eloquently, he said about the question of homosexuality:
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.
This is a good bookend piece to the Scalia argument: Scalia is thoroughly precise and articulate, while Santourm speaks with a somewhat rough, but from the heart manner. But they both are offering the same essential point. Almost ten years later, we are all now living with the cultural fall-out. At present, a major political party, for the first time in Americans History, is backing a radical redefinition of marriage. The leader of that Party, the current President of the United States, is also advocating for same-sex marriage. This proves that national elections are truly important to all of use; and every vote does make a difference. But as Santorum wisely points out, the family is the cornerstone of society. We are in so much trouble today, because the family is breaking-down. And so goes civilization.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
I will be witnessing, handing out Bibles, and medals, at the XO Ball at The Cow Palace in San Francisco September 21-22. This is a major porn convention, attended by thousands of pornography addicts; many of the biggest porn “stars” will also be in attendance. I will be there trying to help The Pink Cross Foundation, which reaches out to those entrapped within the evil world of pornography. My wish is to give away Bibles to those who want them. I would love to fund this effort by myself, but business is weak (as always) at my store. If anyone could make a donation towards buying Bibles, please stop by St. Joseph's.
Prayers would also be greatly appreciated.
Please boycott anything these people touch:
Mary J. Blige
The Foo Fighters
Earth, Wind and Fire
Although, I have never heard of most of these entertainers, they all made the effort to attend the DNC Convention this week. Ask yourself this, Would you support a person with your hard-earned money who went to the Nuremberg Rallies to hear Hitler speak?
DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias addressed the Democratic Convention Tuesday night, and he talked about how proud he was as a gay man of his political party. He said: “The Democratic Party under the leadership of Barack Obama has dramatically improved the lives of millions of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual Americans and at no cost to anyone else...”
Well, here is the Truth.
Although the number of new HIV infections in the United States has remained steady, at around 50,000 cases a year over the past four years, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; the new data also shows that the largest increases were among bisexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM). Of that group, young, black men had what the agency called “alarming increases.” “More than 30 years into the HIV epidemic, about 50,000 people in this country still become infected each year,” said CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden. “Not only do men who have sex with men continue to account for most new infections, young gay and bisexual men are the only group in which infections are increasing, and this increase is particularly concerning among young African American MSM.” The HIV infection rate is highest among gay men aged 13 to 29. In a addition, there has been a massive increase in hepatitis-C infections among gay men in recent years.
First of all, if this man and the Democrats didn’t have so much blood on their hands, the above statement made at their silly praise-party for Obama would be laughable. But people have died. The young, the naive, and the uneducated have been duped by the Democrats and their allies in the gay movement into believing that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality. And secondly, why are teenagers, starting at age 13 in the statistics, having homosexual sex in this country. What has happened to us? It's a combination of religious apathy, the breakdown of the family, the sexualization of popular culture, and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle by self-serving politicians. As far as I am concerned these political hacks should be arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Democrats just released their Party Platform for 2012. No big surprises. Here is what they say about “gay marriage:” “We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference." The platform opposes "federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection under the law" to same-sex couples. Did they not make this same exact argument when it came to the Health-Care Mandate and their so-called respect for the religious liberty of others. We all know what happened there. However, Obama is no fool, he knows where the money is: at least 33 – or nearly 1 in 16 – of Obama’s top fundraisers, known as bundlers, are openly gay, according to a CNN analysis. “The Washington Post” estimates that the ratio is actually 1 in 6, while the gay issues publication “The Advocate” puts the figure at 1 of every 5. Between January and March of 2012, they collectively raised at least $8 million. It's a sick union of political ambition and spiritual desperation. For I have always argued that the gay populous will forever, until a major healing takes place, look to government for protection against the imaginary Christian villain. Bureaucracy replaces the love of an indifferent or nonexistent father. Worse of all are the unseen human costs. The Democrats, by promoting the normalcy of homosexuality, in their support for gay marriage, are only leading more young people down the road of destruction. “Look Mom and Dad...the President says it OK.” The children are watching.
Way back in the 1990s, when I mixed with numerous gay circles in San Francisco and the Bay Area: I never heard a single word about a push for “gay marriage.” Now, its all you hear homosexuals talking about. This got me wondering: where, when, and how did this phenomena start? First, I looked to past gay political platforms: anti-sodomy laws and gay liberation in the 1970's, AIDS research in the 80s, gays in the military in the 90s. What I found is that the rise of each of these movements were contemporaneous and coalesced around a particular political campaign; always Democratic. Many originated locally in San Francisco. As the gay political block got larger, more organized, and wealthier, their constituency became increasingly important on a national level. It is my contention, that the Democratic Party, purposely whips up a furor in the gay community about some issue, this time gay marriage, in order to solidify the homosexual vote behind one candidate. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethics or principles, and everything to do with winning. With the gay men that I knew, it was sort of a bizarre non-issue. This was not true with lesbians, who, like most women, are nesters and are not drawn to the restless wandering and promiscuity of gay males. Now, I can count on a single hand the male couples I knew who were exclusive with one-another, and they were all older and the unions always formed with exceptions. One couple told me that they had an open-monogamous relationship. Upon hearing that, I said: “What!” They explained that they could have sex with other people, but they were only emotionally attached to their mate. Therefore, without the batting of the Democrats, I believe this never would have arisen as a hot political issue. The Democrats will do anything, even destroy the moral center of this country, to remain in power. Nothing is sacred.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Democratic National Convention Committee released a list of female speakers heavy with rabid-pro-abortion advocates, including: Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund; Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; Lilly Ledbetter, the woman behind the equal pay law signed by President Obama; and Sandra Fluke, the former law school student who fell apart when called a name by radio host Rush Limbaugh for advocating health insurance coverage of birth control. Also the sham group “Catholics for Choice” will be holding a panel discussion on religious liberty; as well as a LGBT Caucus that I am sure will celebrate the inclusion of Gay Marriage in the DNC Platform.
This all makes me sick, not that they are speaking; because, even though I disagree with them, they still have the right to share their beliefs with those who want to listen. What bothers me is that many Catholics, who should really know better, fall for this garbage. I understand that many are uneducated, as I was, but if they are going to claim to be Catholic they should investigate what their Church actually teaches. When I was a liberal, I was a lapsed Catholic and claimed no allegiance to the Church. My problem with these Catholics-in-name-only is: if you are going to maintain membership in a religious institution than you need to take that assertion seriously. If you are truly a Catholic, vote as a Catholic.
Also, my heart goes out to these gay men and women who are being sold-out for their vote. Reminds me of the horrible scene in the film “Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang” when the two children are left alone, hungry and frightened, and the evil-child catcher lures them out of hiding with promises of free pastry and candy. The Democrats do not care for these people; they do not love them: they love their political power and money. They are only setting the trap. Building a false earthly paradise of sexual freedom. After my years in this lifestyle, over a decade later: I have still not recovered completely. There are psychological and physical wounds which will probably never heal. Wake-up!
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Mind and memory are a very strange thing. I am constantly amazed by the odd incidents from my life that I remember now. One, I was thinking about today. When I was a student at UC Berkeley, a group of friends and I made the long drive from the Bay Area up to the Sierra-Nevada Mountains. We were going to celebrate the Spring Equinox. I was riding in an SUV, in the backseat with my girlfriend, at the time, in the middle and her neo-hippie, liberal-feminist, eco-white-witch friend next to her. At some point, in the Central Valley, we stopped at a produce stand and picked up a few snacks. Back on the road, on the twisting freeway headed up the jagged and forested mountains, I sat quietly eating from the bag of cherries I just bought. As I did, I spat the pits out the car window. All of a sudden the friend of my girlfriend said to me:
“What are you doing?”
I said, “Eating cherries.”
“No, with the pits,” she retorted.
“Oh...I am spitting them out the window,” I said.
“You shouldn’t do that!”
With a quizzical look on my face, “Why not?”
“It's polluting the environment.”
I thought to myself, ...this woman is nuts.
Then, I said, sarcastically back at her, “The pit will grow into a new tree.”
Getting very angry, she barked, “You don't understand, you are introducing a foreign species into the local ecology!”
I just rolled my eyes and decided to shut-up. To be annoying in passive-aggressive sort-of way: I took a piece of tissue out of my pocket – placed the pits inside and then handed the sticky mess to the friend. The reason, that I am relating this peculiar day is to prove a thesis that I have been throwing about in my head for awhile: that on the environment, liberals, as on every other issue, are completely hypocritical. First of all, this girl's illogical mindset is nothing unusual. I came across it consistently during my sojourn in the progressive circles of San Francisco and Berkeley. There was a near cultish fanaticism with regards to the natural world. This went beyond tree-hugging to actually worshiping Nature. For awhile, I got into it as well. Now, it all seems beyond stupidity.
Those same people who herald the beauty and perfection of Nature are the identical cabal that directly oppose Natural Law when it comes to Mankind. For instance, they hold up homosexual activity as the epitome of epicurean refinement and egalitarian modernity. Hence the rise of lesbian-chic in American university social groups and the glorification of the metro-sexual male. They also celebrate the destruction of Life in the womb of a human mother while watching bleary-eyed to a live-streaming Internet feed of endangered California Condor eggs hatching. With regards to homosexuality, they will argue (and I have had these conversations with them) that this is only a natural variation. But what they do not understand is that Nature is also a ruthless arbiter of her laws and will always weed-out those that do not conform to the norm. Thankfully, for humans, Christian morality has given the homosexual population the opportunity to survive. This is not so in the Islamic world where the offense is punishable by death. As for abortion, for them it's a fundamental right. It makes no sense. I think it's an evil infestation of the brain that can only be healed by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.