Any threat especially against law enforcement or politicians will get you banned.
Categories
Medicine Politics

AZ Abortion Ban from 1901 Upheld: Judge Kellie Johnson Devastates Pro-Abortion Advocates

Hits: 36

A Pima County judge cleared the way Friday for a 121-year-old near-total ban on abortion to go back into effect in Arizona.

Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson’s ruling reinstated a law from 1901 — more than a decade before Arizona was granted statehood — that banned abortion except to save the life of the mother, KOLD-TV reported. There is no exception for cases of rape or incest, according to the report.

Johnson’s ruling lifted a 1973 court injunction against the ban.

Johnson heard arguments one month ago in the case brought by Planned Parenthood of Tucson against the Arizona attorney general’s office, according to KGUN-TV.

Pro-abortion advocates, including Democratic gubernatorial nominee Katie Hobbs, were infuriated at the ruling.
Katie_Hobbs, pro-abortion AZ gubernatorial candidate

“I am outraged and devastated by today’s decision by the Pima County Superior Court to allow a territorial ban on abortion to take effect,” Hobbs said, according to KOLD. “There’s no doubt in my mind that this draconian 1901 law will have dire consequences on the health and well-being of Arizona women and their families.”

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich lauded the new development.

“We applaud the court for upholding the will of the legislature and providing clarity and uniformity on this important issue,” Brnovich wrote in a tweet.

“I have and will continue to protect the most vulnerable Arizonans.”

KGUN reported that the 12-decade-old law, now codified in Arizona as Revised Statute 13-3603, “does not mention any timeline for when an abortion may be permitted. There’s no 15-week rule, like the one stated [in] the more recent state law, SB 116.”

The statute mandates a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers.

Johnson cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v. Wade as the legal basis for her ruling.

58
Share
Categories
Opinion

Paul Harvey: Broadcaster, Analyst and Seer

Hits: 15

From 1951 to 2008, his programs reached as many as 24 million people per week. Paul Harvey News was carried on 1,200 radio stations, on 400 American Armed Forces Network stations, and in 300 newspapers.

Paul Harvey, (Paul Harvey Aurandt) was born Sept. 4, 1918, in Tulsa, OK and died Feb. 28, 2009, in Phoenix, Ariz. He was an American radio commentator and news columnist noted for his firm staccato delivery and his conservative but individualistic opinions on current events. He enjoyed almost unparalleled longevity as a national broadcaster.

Harvey was descended from five generations of Baptist preachers. He and his sister were brought up by their mother after their father was shot to death under uncertain circumstances.

His legend started following a medical discharge from the Army Air Corps in 1944, when he shortened his name to Paul Harvey and began broadcasting for Chicago radio station WENR. Paul Harvey News and Comment proved immediately popular in Chicago and was nationally syndicated by the American Broadcasting Company in 1951. In 1976 the program spun off The Rest of the Story, whose brief biographical narratives were written by the Harveys’ only child, Paul Harvey Aurandt, Jr.

He called his particular conservative cast “political fundamentalism.”

He broadcast News and Comment on mornings and mid-days on weekdays and at noon on Saturdays and also his famous The Rest of the Story segments. From 1951 to 2008, his programs reached as many as 24 million people per week. Paul Harvey News was carried on 1,200 radio stations, on 400 American Forces Network stations, and in 300 newspapers. (One of them was 610WTVN in Columbus, OH that I listened to growing up and into adulthood. In fact, his morning segment was the last thing I listened to before heading for work.)

His mix of current-events news, human-interest anecdotes, and common sense editorials reached some 24 million listeners via 1,600 radio stations daily.

Harvey’s mix of current-events news, human-interest anecdotes, and common sense editorials reached some 24 million listeners via 1,600 radio stations daily. His staccato pacing, bouncing intonation, and signature hooks (e.g., “Stand by…for news!” and “Paul Harvey…good day!”) helped make his voice one of the most recognizable in the history of radio. Harvey often opined on rising taxes, bloated government, and the decay of American values. He called his particular conservative cast “political fundamentalism.”

One of his most talked-about commentaries — which evolved over time, although it stayed true to the original opinions — was called “If I were the Devil.” It first appeared in 1964 as a newspaper article:

If I Were the Devil — If I were the Prince of Darkness, I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.

So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve, “Do as you please.”

To the young I would whisper “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that “man created God,” instead of the other way around. I would confide that “what is bad is good and what is good is square.”

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be “extreme” in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old I would teach to pray — to say after me — “Our father which art in Washington.”

Then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could, I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.

I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get preachers to say, “She’s right.”

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.

Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.

Then in his own churches I’d substitute psychology for religion and deify science.

If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the Devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work.

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.

If I were Satan I’d just keep doing what I’m doing and the whole world go to hell as sure as the Devil.

Here is the version he broadcast (erroneously claiming to be from 1965, it is in fact from the version he wrote in 1996:

video
play-sharp-fill

It’s eerie, in 2022, to realize just how accurate his observations were.

More of his observations include:

“If we cannot count on ourselves to do the right thing how can we count on anyone or anything else? Self-government won’t work without self-discipline.”

“The indignation of politicians is NOT a good measure of the gravity of any situation.”

We’ve drifted away from being fishers of men to being keepers of the aquarium.”

“Ever occur to you why some of us can be this much concerned with animals’ suffering? Because government is not. Why not? Animals don’t vote.”

“These things I wish for you-tough times and disappointment, hard work and happiness. To me, it’s the only way to appreciate life.”

“If there is a ’50-50 chance’ that something can go wrong, then 9 times out of ten it will.”

“Like what you do. If you don’t like it, do something else.”

And. finally,

“Luck is a word used to describe the success of people you don’t like.”

In closing, here is one of his stories that started as another of his signature phrases: “And now you know — the rest of the story”

video
play-sharp-fill
57
Share
Categories
Uncategorized

Desperate CNN Gives Primetime Slots to Daytime Anchors Who Have Been Repeatedly Trounced by Fox News

Hits: 26

CNN announced Thursday that hosts Jake Tapper, left, and Alisyn Camerota, right, will be moving to primetime. (Dimitrios Kambouris / Getty Images; Kevin Mazur / Getty Images)

As CNN continues to change its programming and shuffle its hosts, Jake Tapper and Alisyn Camerota have been promoted to primetime spots despite their current viewership falling behind other major networks.

Tapper, who works as CNN’s main Washington anchor, will move to the 9 p.m. slot throughout the election season, CNN announced Thursday.

That slot hasn’t had a set host since the network fired Chris Cuomo in December 2021, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

“The world has come to rely on Jake’s no-nonsense approach to covering the news, especially during high-stakes election cycles,” CNN’s new CEO and chairman, Chris Licht, said in a statement.

Tapper has been with CNN since 2013, hosting shows such as “State of the Union” and “The Lead.” Before that, he was ABC News’ senior White House correspondent, the Inquirer reported.

CNN said he will start his stint in the 9 p.m. slot on Oct. 10 and remain there until Nov. 11.

John Berman and Brianna Keilar will move from the morning to take over Tapper’s 4 p.m. slot.

Meanwhile, Camerota will be moving from her co-anchor spot on the afternoon “CNN Newsroom” to the 10 p.m. spot that was previously held by Don Lemon, CNN announced. She will share anchor duties with senior legal analyst Laura Coates.

“This move will showcase [Tapper’s] tough reporting, smart analysis and consequential interviews as our audiences navigate the myriad of issues at stake in the midterms,” Licht said. “By adding the insights, experience and strong voices of Alisyn and Laura, we will advance and expand on that coverage, creating something complimentary and compelling in primetime.”

However, neither Tapper nor Camerota has fared very well with viewers in their current time slots on the network, Mediaite reported.

Looking back at some of last week’s numbers, Fox News thrashed the CNN hosts.

Tapper had a mere 742,000 viewers for “The Lead” at 4 p.m. Friday, just over half the number — 1.37 million — that Fox News drew for “Your World with Neil Cavuto” in that period, Mediaite reported. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace was first in the time slot with 1.51 million viewers.

“CNN Newsroom,” which Camerota co-hosts from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., was similarly pummeled by Fox News on Friday, with about half the viewership, according to Mediaite.

In their primetime slots, Tapper and Camerota will be up against Fox News heavyweights Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld, who routinely dominate from 9 to 11 p.m.

Licht continues to shuffle a lot of CNN anchors and shows since he started as CEO in April.

The announcement of Tapper and Camerota’s moves comes on the heels of the news that Don Lemon was losing his 10 p.m. spot and moving to a morning show, Wolf Blitzer was getting more time on air as he anchors 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., and “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter was fired.

Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper are two of the only anchors who will remain on their regular shows during their regular hours (7 and 8 p.m., respectively), CNN said.

58
Share
Categories
Corruption Crime Elections Politics

It ‘Could Cause a Lot of Problems’ FBI took Trump’s Will (That’s a document covered by the warrant???)

Hits: 39

Former President Donald Trump said during a Wednesday night appearance on the Fox News show “Hannity” that his will is missing and he thinks the Justice Department has it.

Last month, the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida, and confiscated boxes of documents, claiming they should not have been in his possession and included classified material.

The former president denounced the unprecedented raid and said the FBI took a wide range of private papers along with other documents.

On Sunday, Trump made his first trip to Mar-a-Lago since the raid, and he spoke about that with host Sean Hannity in an interview at the Florida estate Wednesday night.

Hannity noted that Trump had lost about 500 pages of documents protected by attorney-client privilege.

“They took a lot. I think they took my will. I found out yesterday,” the former president said. “I said, ‘Where is it?’”

“Am I in it?” Hannity asked as Trump repeated, “I think they took my will.”

“That could cause a lot of problems,” he said, smiling at the Fox News host’s question.

“That could cause a lot of problems if that gets published for people who won’t be so happy, or maybe will be very happy,” Trump said.

The former president said the Justice Department “shopped” until it found someone who would sign the warrant to raid his property.

Trump, who was not at Mar-a-Lago for the raid, said he learned of it when a worker called him.

“I was in New Jersey. I got a call in the morning from somebody that’s here. … ‘Sir, the FBI just came in.’ I said, ‘What? The FBA? Who?’ And they go, ‘The FBI.’ And I said, ‘How many people?’ And he said, ‘Many, many people, sir. Many, many people.”

He said he was told the FBI wanted to do the raid “quietly, silently.”

The former president told Hannity that after he received questions from the media about the raid, he put out a statement announcing it.

“These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided and occupied by a large group of FBI agents,” Trump wrote in a statement on Aug. 8.

“Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before. After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate.”

video
play-sharp-fill

During the “Hannity” interview, Trump said, “I declassified everything.”

That question was debated Tuesday in a hearing by special master Raymond Dearie, who wanted the former president’s attorneys to point to a specific instance or document proving Trump’s claim, according to The New York Times.

Dearie indicated that absent such proof, he would be inclined to agree with the Justice Department on the issue, meaning documents it says were classified will be treated as such.

Trump has repeatedly criticized the conduct of the FBI during the raid.

“Arrived in Florida last night and had a long and detailed chance to check out the scene of yet another government ‘crime,’ the FBI’s Raid and Break-In of my home, Mar-a-Lago. I guess they don’t think there is a Fourth Amendment anymore, and to them, there isn’t,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“In any event, after what they have done, the place will never be the same. It was ‘ransacked,’ and in far different condition than the way I left it. Many Agents — And they didn’t even take off their shoes in my bedroom. Nice!!!”
90
Share
Categories
Just my own thoughts Leftist Virtue(!) Stupid things people say or do.

Sad Day: Closing An Article

Hits: 44

by The Phoenix Rises

Some people just don’t get it.

I am now closing a second OP in a week, both due to one person’s persistent inability to distinguish between the discussion of morality (or ethics, if you want to go with David Gerrold in When Harley was One) and a discussion of religion.

Despite being warned many times that the article was about morality, not religion — even though the original article was published in 2015 by a religious commentator, and I pointed this out in the OP — this person kept injecting religion-tainted comments into his responses, mostly in a negative sense.

Morality is not inextricably linked to a particular religion.

Morality — right and wrong — is not inextricably linked to a particular religion. Or to ANY religion, for that matter. And to continually link the two in a negative fashion is, at best, a disingenuous tactic. Had a fellow Mod not requested the poster be allowed to continue on the site so the Mod could try to talk sense to him, I would have banned him for his disruptive behavior long ago.

This person exhibits a lot of behaviors typical of leftist trolls, such as “circling back” to the same position over and over again and other, similar, logical fallacies. While people left of center are welcome here for well-mannered discourse, trolling is not.

I’ve noticed that potential “right-wing” trolls don’t last long on left-leaning websites. So it’s hard to compare their behavior. Why? Because left-leaning websites and their denizens tend to have rather unique definitions of inclusion, tolerance, diversity, and freedom of speech — something they are always virtue-signaling and claiming that the “right-wing” posters are against it.

And, in continually injecting religion (namely Judeo-Christianity) it was inevitable that someone else would feel the need to defend his/her faith against these perceived attacks.

Since this OP has been devolving into something neither MC as the original owner nor I as the current owner, wish to see. I am closing that thread for this reason.

77
Share
Categories
Corruption Economy How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics The Law

Here he goes again: Newsome Signs ‘Most Aggressive’ Package of Green Laws

Hits: 46

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday announced a sweeping package of what he called the country’s “most aggressive” climate measures to “accelerate the state’s transition” to non-conventional energy sources.

The package includes 40 bills that appear to provide new green rules on laws related to things ranging from large-scale industry to the family home and private and public transportation.

The Democratic governor’s office said in a statement the package of climate change-focused measures aims to cut pollution and target “big polluters.”

It comes as America’s most populous state has struggled to provide stable electricity for residents amid a heat wave, which saw the state asking residents to use less power and suggest the best times to use air conditioners or charge electric cars.

“This month has been a wake-up call for all of us that later is too late to act on climate change. California isn’t waiting any more,” Newsom said in a statement. “Together with the Legislature, California is taking the most aggressive action on climate our nation has ever seen.”

“We’re cleaning the air we breathe, holding the big polluters accountable, and ushering in a new era for clean energy,” he continued. “That’s climate action done the California Way—and we’re not only doubling down, we’re just getting started.”

In July, Newsom called for “bold actions” to combat climate change. He declared his climate-focused vision for California involves a push to achieve 90 percent “clean energy” by 2035, “carbon neutrality” by 2045, “setback measures” to target oil drilling, carbon capture programs, and to “advance nature-based solutions” to remove carbon from “natural and working lands.”

40 “Green” Bills

Newsom’s office said his sweeping package of measures will create four million new jobs over the next 20 years, cut air pollution by 60 percent, and reduce state oil consumption by 91 percent.

How this would be achieved was not explained in the governor’s news release.

The package of measures, the governor’s office said, will save the state $23 billion by avoiding damage from pollution. It further aims to cut fossil fuel use in buildings and transportation by 92 percent and refinery pollution by 94 percent.

The governor named a list of the 40 new green bills, which touch on things from the broad scope of the climate to more everyday matters such as community air quality, electricity supply, vehicle permits, and gas pricing.

Some of the bills, which were all named in the governor’s news release, include:

  • AB 1279: “The California Climate Crisis Act”
  • AB 1389: “Clean Transportation Program: project funding preferences”
  • AB 1749: “Community emissions reduction programs: toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants”
  • AB 1857: “Solid waste”
  • AB 1909: “Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill”
  • AB 2075: “Energy: electric vehicle charging standards”
  • AB 2622: “Sales and use taxes: exemptions: California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project: transit buses”
  • AB 2836: “Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program: vehicle registration fees: California tire fee”
  • SB 529: “Electricity: electrical transmission facilities”
  • SB 1063: “Energy: appliance standards and cost-effective measures”
  • SB 1205: “Water rights: appropriation”
  • SB 1230: “Zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicle incentive programs: requirements”
  • SB 1322: “Energy: petroleum pricing”
  • SB 1382: “Air pollution: Clean Cars 4 All Program: Sales and Use Tax Law: zero emissions vehicle exemption”

How the package of new green laws and regulations might impact, for example, standards required for cars to be permitted on Californian roads; how and when homes can be cooled; the source of electricity allowed to be supplied to homes; the manufacturing of everyday appliances and products, etc., were not outlined in the governor’s news release.

This latest pronouncement comes on the heels of Newsom enacting regulation to phase out sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

70
Share
Categories
Corruption Economy Elections Faked news Politics

Duh! Democrats Will Continue to Play the ‘Not Trump’ Card in Midterms and Beyond: Strategists

Hits: 23

Former President Donald Trump with Justice Samuel Alito. Alito briefly blocked a lower court order forcing the Biden administration to reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, giving the Supreme Court a few days to consider the case. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
By Michael Washburn for Epoch Times September 16, 2022

Democrats believe their best hope is to position themselves as the only alternative to Trump

In the coming midterms, Democrats believe their best hope is to position themselves as the only alternative to Trump and his brand of Republicanism, according to political strategists.

Democrat candidates and their supporters, they say, are hoping that the furor around former President Donald Trump’s alleged storing of sensitive documents in Mar-a-Lago, as well as his alleged role in the events of Jan. 6 will not abate even slightly between now and the November midterm elections, and will distract voters from the Democrats’ shortcomings, particularly with regard to the economy.

Even in battleground states where a variety of Republican candidates competed in this week’s primary elections, Democrats are acting as if their best bet is to paint all Republicans as nascent or actual extremists and to capitalize on some voters’ dissatisfaction with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the strategists argue.

President Joe Biden and his party have come in for severe criticism for their handling of the economy and for an inflation report credited with bringing about the stock market’s worst day of 2022 on Sept. 13, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down nearly 1,300 points. Some economists view the highest inflation in four decades as a function of the Biden administration’s expansionist monetary policy, which they argue has led to too much money chasing too few goods. For fiscal year 2022 as a whole, the federal budget deficit is projected to be $1 trillion.

These dismal figures may motivate GOP voters as much as, or more than the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will drive Democrat turnout, strategists predict.

In this context, Democrats are quick to seize on any potentially bad news for Trump as good news for their embattled party. Indeed, for some Democrats, the ongoing investigation of Trump’s alleged legal and financial violations may help cast the midterms as a referendum not only on the current president and his economic performance, but on Trump and those Republicans who, they claim, fit the same mold. Given the severity of Biden’s problems, Democrats will do their best to exploit charges and allegations against Trump to their fullest political advantage whether or not the attacks have merit, strategists say.

“Every day brings the risk of more bad news about Trump, which splashes mud on every Republican. The Dobbs ruling is known and GOP candidates either get on the right side of the issue or shift to the economy, which is a bigger deal for most voters,” Keith Naughton, a political consultant and the director of Germantown, Maryland-based Silent Majority Strategies, told The Epoch Times.

Epoch Times Photo
Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower in N.Y. on Aug. 9, 2022, the day after FBI agents raided his Mar-a-Lago Palm Beach home, in Fla. (David ‘Dee’ Delgado/Reuters)

A Double-Edged Sword?

Mark C. Smith, a professor of political science and Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University in Ohio, acknowledges Trump’s continuing prominence within the GOP and his popularity with many Republican voters. This has helped make the coming elections, in large part, what some voters in either party would like it to be: a Trump-Biden rematch as much as a spate of House, Senate, and gubernatorial races.

“Unlike other losing presidential candidates, Trump has maintained a strong presence within his party. He is endorsing candidates, raising funds, and holding rallies. This changes the dynamic of the midterm,” Smith told The Epoch Times.

“Interestingly, the Democrats are happy if Trump continues to headline for Republicans. While popular within the GOP, Trump is toxic for independent voters, and he runs poorly with college-educated white voters, as well as suburban women. In light of his recent legal troubles, Democrats are fine with Trump’s expanded role,” Smith said.

But given the severity of the economic problems and other factors, Smith does not believe that the Democrats’ strategy of decrying Trump’s alleged extremism, and that of “Trump-y” candidates in local issues, will succeed.

“If we consider the political climate, this should be a huge election for Republicans. A relatively unpopular president and a struggling economy, in addition to foreign affairs instability, should put the GOP in a strong position,” said Smith.

While the electoral math of midterm contests varies, it is possible to identify a statistical mean when looking at long-term trends, Smith argued.

“On average, the party out of power picks up around 26 House seats, and five or six Senate seats. To the degree this election is normal, it will be good for Republicans and they will take both houses of Congress,” he said.

While turnout in midterm elections is often low compared to presidential elections, Lonny Leitner, vice president of the government affairs firm LS2 Group, which has offices in Iowa and Minnesota, believes that the Mar-a-Lago raid has backfired and that its findings will not dissuade GOP voters.

“I spent a few days out at the Minnesota State Fair, and I can count on one hand how many times someone brought up the fact that they were concerned about the FBI raid, which tells me it is yet another failed attempt by the Democrats to end Trump once and for all. When will they learn?” Leitner told The Epoch Times.

It was far more common for people he encountered at the fair to voice serious concerns over inflation, fuel prices, out-of-control crime, and the crisis at the border with Mexico, Leitner said.

grocery store
People shop at a supermarket in Montebello, Calif., on Aug. 23, 2022. U.S. shoppers are facing increasingly high prices on everyday goods and services as inflation continues to surge with high prices for groceries, gasoline, and housing. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images)

The Case of New Hampshire

To understand the Democrats’ approach, it is useful to look at one state in particular that has been fiercely contested in recent election years, namely New Hampshire, believes Andrew Smith, Director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and an expert on elections and electoral methodology.

Smith believes that New Hampshire is not as politically conservative as its reputation and famous license plate motto (“Live Free or Die”) might lead some people to believe.

“New Hampshire’s electorate is divided between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats generally have a little bit of an advantage in presidential elections, but it’s not that big an advantage in midterm elections with a Democrat president,” Smith told The Epoch Times.

“It’s also a state with higher levels of education and income than most states, and it’s a suburban state,” he said, noting a large proportion of its population lives in the suburbs surrounding Boston. “In that sense, it’s similar to other suburban areas of the northeast that lean Democrat. It’s not a Republican state, that’s a myth,” he added.

Generalizations

In the GOP primary elections held in New Hampshire on Sept. 13, Karoline Leavitt won the race for the first congressional district against a field of rivals including Matt Mowers, Gail Huff Brown, and Russell Prescott, with 34 percent of the vote compared to 25 percent, 17 percent, and 10 percent respectively. In the second congressional district race, Robert Burns scored a victory with 33 percent of the vote versus 29 percent for George Hansel, 25 percent for Lily Tang Williams, and smaller numbers for other competitors.

In the Senate primary, former military officer Donald Bolduc, who hopes to unseat Democrat Senator Maggie Hassan in November, barely edged out his GOP rival Chuck Morse, winning 37.1 percent of the vote to Morse’s 35.8 percent.

In the GOP gubernatorial primary, incumbent Chris Sununu easily trounced all his rivals, winning 78 percent of the vote.

Epoch Times Photo
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu speaks during a ceremony in Manchester, N.H., on Sept. 2, 2020. (Scott Eisen/Getty Images for DraftKings)

The winning candidates come from a wide variety of backgrounds and have diverse views and ideologies. Leavitt is a former assistant press secretary in the Trump administration, Burns is an entrepreneur and former treasurer of a New Hampshire county, while Sununu has a reputation as a moderate Republican who helped secure funding for a cause championed by Democrats, namely state funding for full-day kindergarten.

While some in the media may wish to associate Bolduc with Trump, it is important to remember that he lost New Hampshire’s 2020 Senate primary to Trump-endorsed candidate Corky Messner, Smith said.

In spite of the eclecticism of these candidates and the impossibility of categorizing them all as strictly “Trump-y” figures, Smith argued, Democrats will treat the candidates in New Hampshire and other states as Republicans in the Trump mode in the hope of wooing the roughly 42 percent of voters in the state who register as independents. Smith said that the tactic put to use in New Hampshire is a microcosm of a broad political strategy.

“Democrats are going to use all these candidates’ connection with Trump—whether it’s there or not—as arguments to vote against them. But that’s true across the country. Democrats are running as if Trump is still in office,” he commented.

With the tricky position in which Democrats find themselves amid so much bad economic news, they place their hopes in controversies around a figure who remains powerful and influential within the GOP.

“All the Mar-a-Lago stuff, they’re praying that will go on until after the midterm elections, because they’re running at a moment when the president is not very popular, and that’s a difficult place to be, as we saw in 2010 and 2014,” Smith continued.

In the New Hampshire races in November 2010, Republican candidates won both the congressional districts contested in this week’s primaries, though they did not win the governorship, Smith noted. Looking at the 2010 midterm elections nationally, Republicans won a majority in the House of Representatives, which they held onto in 2014 in addition to winning majority control of the Senate.

Epoch Times Photo
President Joe Biden delivers a primetime speech at Independence National Historical Park Sept. 1, 2022 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Biden described “MAGA Republicans” as being extremists who posed a threat to democracy. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The ‘Extremism’ Charge

Since the spring, when predictions widely favored the GOP in the coming midterms, Democrats have found more opportunities to try to paint Trump and the GOP more broadly as extremist and will rely heavily on this political strategy all the way through the elections, believes David Bateman, a professor of government at Cornell University.***

***According to his own words and published books and articles, Bateman leaves hard left. (Pro-abortion,anti-conservative values, etc) –TPR

This strategy does not come at the expense of, but rather goes hand in hand with, a strong emphasis on the Dobbs ruling and other issues of concern to Democrat voters at the local level, he argued. To a certain extent, voters will decide in accordance with the narratives crafted by the party leadership as Democrat spokespeople try to link congressional and gubernatorial hopefuls to the 45th president.

“Elections are never about one thing, whether that is a referendum on presidential leadership, national economic or other issues, or the local performance and responsiveness of the incumbent. And voters make choices not only on the basis of their priorities, but on the basis of the choices and narratives presented to them by parties. Democrats probably want voters to make a choice on the basis of local issues—which tend to favor incumbents—and then on the extremism of the GOP, as showcased by Trump but as embodied locally by GOP candidates,” Bateman told The Epoch Times.

Though predictions about the likely outcome of the midterms have swung since the spring and do not monochromatically favor GOP candidates as much as before, Democrats still play to what they see as their strengths.

“I expect Democrats’ basic strategy remains the same: have their congressional candidates highlight how they have delivered locally for their districts as well as the extremism of their GOP rivals, while the larger party apparatus and the president emphasize GOP extremism nationally. The abortion decision has helped Democrats a lot, as has the continued attention to Trump,” Bateman said.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the DNC for comment.

58
Share
Categories
COVID Medicine Sports

17-Year-Old Student Suffers Heart Attack After Cross Country Race – Found 2 Bloodclots – Doctors Baffled on Exactly What Happened

Hits: 34

High school officials in Tennessee said that a student and cross country runner suffered a heart attack following a race in Florida on Saturday, September 10.

Gabe Higginbottom, 17, a junior at Bartlett High School in Tennessee, participated in a cross-country race in Pensacola, Florida.

According to a Facebook post, Gabe didn’t bounce back following the race.

“Yesterday after the Pensacola race he didn’t bounce back,” according to a post published in the Bartlett High School Boys Cross Country Facebook group.

“After an hour he was taken by some of the dad’s and coach to the medical tent. His vitals were good. Out of an abundance of caution, the doctor on site said he should go to the hospital. At the hospital, his vitals were good until they weren’t. He was then airlifted with his mom to Gainesville Florida for further tests. Today he had surgery and it went well. Please pray for this family and our team,” the post concluded.

A healthy, athletic kid has a heart attack, doctors find blood clots. Hmm, I wonder if he got the Covid-19 experimental gene therapy clot shot.–TPR

The Bartlett City Schools also released a statement regarding the incident. According to the school, doctors found two blood clots after they performed a 3-hour surgery.

“On September 10th, after a race in Pensacola, FL, one of Bartlett High School’s Cross-Country runners suffered a heart attack. Gabe Higginbottom, 17, a junior at Bartlett High School was sent to Ascension Sacred Heart Pensacola Hospital at the advice of the on-staff medical team. Sacred Heart performed a CAT scan which revealed further action needed to be taken.”

“Gabe was transported to the UF Shands Heart and Vascular Hospital in Gainesville, FL by helicopter that night. In Gainesville, they found his right artery was completely blocked. The doctors performed an angioplasty to insert a balloon to open up that artery. Later, they performed a 3-hour surgery inserting two stents and found two blood clots.”

“Cross Country coach, Kris Harman, and Gabe’s mother, Edrika, remain by Gabe’s side, as he is currently recovering at the UF Shands in Gainesville, FL. A Go Fund Me page has been set up by the Cross Country Booster Club. The money raised will be used to offset any medical bills. No amount is too small. Please pray for Gabe and his family as he begins the rehab process,” the post concluded.

More from Kentucky.com:

Kris Harman, a team coach, told WREG something just wasn’t right with Gabe after competing.

“He started complaining about his chest hurting and kept complaining and we went to the trainer’s tent…everybody initially thinks it’s hot, it’s heat exhaustion so give him ice but he’s still complaining about his chest,” Harman told the outlet.

Harman told WREG that doctors found Gabe had a blocked artery and performed a procedure to fix it. “Now, they’re just trying to figure out what caused it,” Harman told the outlet.

Phil Clark, the athletic coordinator at Bartlett City Schools, told the Memphis Commercial Appeal that doctors said the heart attack wasn’t heat related and that they don’t know what caused it. “The doctor at the hospital he’s at, he told our track coach he had seen one (other) instance like this in his 11 years down there,” Clark said, the outlet reported.

He said Gabe is working toward recovery.

“They’re going to get him up and get him walking down the hallway this morning and they think everything is going to be fine,” Clark said Tuesday, Sept. 13, according to the Commercial Appeal. “He’s a strong, healthy young man, which surely helped in this situation.”

77
Share
Categories
Corruption Crime Politics The Courts

Philadelphia DA Found in Contempt by State Lawmakers One Day After Judge Says He Made ‘False’ Claims to Court to Free Man from Death Row

Hits: 18

NEW YORK, NY – JUNE 25: Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner speaks to a reporter at of the election party of public defender Tiffany Caban moments before she claimed victory in the in the Queens District Attorney Democratic Primary election, June 25, 2019 in the Queens borough of New York City. Running on a progressive platform that includes decriminalizing sex work and closing the Rikers Island jail, Caban narrowly defeated Queens Borough President Melinda Katz and scored a shocking victory for city’s the progressive grassroots network and criminal justice movement (Photo by Scott Heins/Getty Images)

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner (D), one of the first of a wave of progressive prosecutors elected on a criminal justice reform platform, made “false” claims that his office communicated with the family members of the victims of a man that he sought to free from death row, a federal judge found.

The following day, in what could only be described as a rough week for the top prosecutor, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for failing to cooperate with the committee investigating his possible impeachment.

“Extremely Disappointed to Learn of the District Attorney’s Stance”

According to a scathing 28-page memorandum opinion, the district attorney’s office wrongly suggested the relatives of the Pennsylvania couple killed by Robert Wharton supported his release from death row. In fact, U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg found, Krasner’s office did not even contact the sole surviving victim of the attack: Lisa Hart-Newman, who was an infant when Wharton killed her parents, turned off the heat, and left her inside the house to die.

“This Court (which only learned of the family’s opposition through the Attorney General’s Office) is not the only one who considered the District Attorney’s representations misleading,” the opinion states. “Lisa Hart-Newman, the infant, now age thirty-seven, who was left to die by Wharton after her parents were murdered, stated she was ‘extremely disappointed to learn of the District Attorney’s stance and very troubled that he implied that the family approved of his viewpoint.’ […] Michael Allen, one of the brothers of the deceased, also noted, ‘[I]t would appear that there was a substantially deficient briefing by the DA’s office regarding the significance and implications for vacating Wharton’s death penalty.’”

Krasner, who worked at the Federal Public Defender’s Office before becoming an elected prosecutor, is an opponent of capital punishment, and one of his early actions in office was to drop dozens of drug charges as the city braced to decriminalize marijuana. His office sided with Wharton in his federal habeas death penalty case on the grounds that his lawyer failed to properly investigate and present evidence of his positive adjustment to prison.

The DA’s office argued they did not they did not need to present a full investigation of the facts for and against Wharton, but Judge Goldberg noted that the Third Circuit gave prosecutors precisely the opposite instruction.

“Trial courts and lawyers take direction from appellate judges,” wrote the judge, who — ethics disclosure here — is the father of Law&Crime’s director of podcasting Sam Goldberg. “This is such a basic legal principle that no precedential or statutory citation is needed.”

“‘Egregious’ and ‘Exceptional’”

Finding Krasner’s office committed “egregious” and “exceptional” violations of the federal rules of procedure, the judge ordered the DA to “send separate written apologies” within 30 days of the ruling to victim family members Tony Hart, Michael Allen, Patrice Carr, and to victim Lisa Hart-Newman. Goldberg, who is approaching his 14th anniversary of his appointment to the federal bench by George W. Bush in 2008, also ordered more candor from the DA in future cases in his courtroom. He declined to impose financial penalties.

The day after Monday’s ruling, a committee of the GOP-dominated Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to hold Krasner in contempt. Calling itself the Select Committee on Restoring Law and Order, the body was formed over the City of Brotherly Love’s rising crime and murder rates. One Republican lawmaker called for Krasner’s impeachment over what he called the top prosecutor’s “dereliction of duty.”

According to the New York Times, Krasner spurned the legislature’s investigation as antidemocratic and illegitimate. He was voted into office twice by significant margins. The Philadephia Inquirer reported that even large members of his party supported the contempt resolution over his refusal to comply with a subpoena, which passed by a 162-38 margin with almost all Republicans and some 49 Democrats.

The Times reported that the resolution could subject Krasner to a range of penalties — up to imprisonment, but the legislature has not decided upon what to pursue.

Krasner’s office did not immediately respond to Law&Crime’s email requesting comment.

Read the ruling below:

[photo by Scott Heins/Getty Images]

Law&Crime’s managing editor Adam Klasfeld has spent more than a decade on the legal beat. Previously a reporter for Courthouse News, he has appeared as a guest on MSNBC, BBC, NPR, PBS, Sky News, and other networks.

57
Share
Categories
Child Abuse Emotional abuse Leftist Virtue(!) Privacy Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse

A Plan to Transform America — How Homosexuality Has Been Promoted As Acceptable

Hits: 149

Introduction by The Phoenix Rises:

First off, this is not a hit piece on individual gays or lesbians. They have both good and bad people in their group, just like everybody else. Second, what knowledgeably consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody else’s business. Third, being in a close relationship with someone of the same gender need not have anything to do with sexual activities. One obvious example: Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gangee. Another example: the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

That said, predators and groomers (of any sexual preference) deserve any backlash and/or punishment they receive for their unjust and immoral behavior in their treatment of others. Especially those too young to give informed consent.

Finally, what is objectionable is putting on a public show and demanding that everyone else should kowtow to your viewpoint. Again, this applies to ANY group, no matter what they profess to. This goes for BLM/Antifa, the KKK and other racist groups, ISIS, other rabid ‘religious’ groups, and so on.

While this article comes mainly from a Christian denomination’s article on the subject,  it almost bends over backward to counter any accusations of bigotry or bias. It is about morals. Morality is a separate issue from religious dogma, as many atheists will attest to.

__________________________________________________________

Originally by Charles Melear in Beyond Today – a United Church of God publication.

The startling shift in American attitudes toward gays and same-sex marriage is not the result of chance or random events. More than a quarter century ago, gay strategists laid out a plan to transform the nation—with astounding success.

Do you consider yourself an independent thinker? What is the source of your conclusions regarding right or wrong? How do you determine your opinions regarding the news and political events?

Professional marketers develop strategies to influence and persuade potential customers to purchase their products. Some are very successful, as you can probably hum or sing dozens of pithy jingles or recognize the logos of many companies.

But you should also realize that people are affecting our culture who you’ve probably never heard of. How about Dan Wieden, co-founder of the advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy? Have you ever repeated the Nike slogan “Just do it”? Wieden developed that in 1988.

How  abouter used the expression, “Where’s the beef?” Wendy’s hamburger chain profited from that slogan’s creator, Cliff Freeman, around 1984. You’ve probably never heard of him either.

You’ve also likely never heard of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Nevertheless, these men have directly affected your life and American culture—strategically, gradually, subtly and definitely intentionally.

In the November 1987 edition of Guide, a magazine for homosexuals, the two men authored an article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America.” There Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public relations consultant, laid out a blueprint to fundamentally change Americans’ attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality. In 1989 they expanded that blueprint into a 398-page book titled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s.

The “bible” of the homosexual agenda

Their goal was to make homosexuality acceptable and to forge negative opinions of any who disagree. The article began by stating: “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference . . . She likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.” (We quote from the Guide article rather than the book, which at times is quite vulgar and graphic. Interested readers can find the article in whole or in part online.) Full text for THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA

One person described “The Overhauling of Straight America” as the “bible” of the homosexual agenda. It is quite a contrast to the Bible of Christianity.

The authors, relating to the culture of the late 1980s, were realistic. They continued: At least in the beginning we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can only get them to think that is just another thing . . . , then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.

To understand how startlingly successful their blueprint proved to be, consider this: In 1987, the year that article was published, Gallup polls showed that only 33 percent of those polled thought that same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, while 55 percent thought such action should be outlawed (numbers don’t total 100 percent because some offered no opinion). By 2015, the numbers were more than reversed—68 percent believed such sexual relations should be legal and only 28 percent were opposed.

Same-sex marriage was so off the radar that it wasn’t even asked about in Gallup polls until 1996, when only 27 percent approved and 68 percent were opposed. Today, Gallup polls show that 58 percent approve and 40 percent disapprove—another startling turnaround in attitudes.

Gallup polls in 1989 showed that only 19 percent of Americans believed people were born homosexual, with 48 percent believing it was due to environmental factors such as upbringing. By 2015 those numbers had dramatically shifted to 51 percent believing homosexuals were born that way and only 30 percent attributing it to other factors. (This is in spite of the fact that extensive genetic research and many studies of identical twins where only one was homosexual have disproven genetic determinism.)

Well-researched surveys (as opposed to some with markedly skewed samples and/or methodology) have consistently placed the homosexual population of America at around 2 to 3 percent—yet the influence of homosexuals on American culture is vastly out of proportion with their actual numbers. How did this come to be?

For those who remember what American culture was like in 1987 when the blueprint was first published, you can easily evaluate whether the six strategies they outlined have been successful. For those too young to remember the late 80s, consider how pervasive these things are in the culture you experience today.

What was their blueprint for overhauling American attitudes? Following are the six steps they advocated a quarter-century ago.

Step 1: “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”

Authors Kirk and Madsen say that almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it . . . The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way . . . Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.

Consider this quote: And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed . . . First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!

When we are exposed to anything repeatedly, it becomes routine and normal. What initially might shock someone eventually can become acceptable. And acceptability is the ultimate goal. What at one time was highly offensive to the vast majority of Americans is now no big deal. They’ve been lulled into complacency.

Where we talk is important, wrote Kirk and Madsen. . . . The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed . . .

 So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.

So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films . . . On the whole the impact has been encouraging.

Have you noticed the number of homosexual characters appearing in TV programs and how they are overwhelmingly depicted positively? From a rarity on TV in the 1980s, such characters are now almost inescapable. A USA Today article last year reported 32 regularly appearing bisexual or homosexual characters in primetime network scripted series for the 2014-15 television season, with another 64 appearing in cable TV shows (Bill Keveney, “Yes, You Really Are Seeing More LGBT Characters on TV,” Oct. 1, 2014). 

If a child grows up hearing about the gay lifestyle and seeing it portrayed positively his entire life, won’t that make it seem normal?

Kirk and Madsen also described a strategy by which the homosexual movement could counter and largely nullify opposition from America’s churches. They wrote: When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency.

This they have certainly accomplished—enlisting liberal scholars to explain away biblical teachings about homosexual practices, reinterpreting their plain meaning. 

They continued:Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.

Again, their strategy has succeeded remarkably well. Those who hold to biblical teachings about homosexuality and marriage are condemned as bigots, homophobes and backward thinkers who are a threat to progress.

Some who have stood up have been fined, ordered to attend pro-homosexual “sensitivity training,” lost jobs or had their businesses sued out of existence by government agents and agencies that support the homosexual agenda.

The next step in their stated strategy similarly turns truth on its head.

Step 2: “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection,” Kirk and Madsen wrote. Of course this does not address the issue of whether the gay lifestyle is right or wrong. It is an attempt to emotionally manipulate others with the motive of getting them to accept values they otherwise wouldn’t agree with.

If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our ‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image, they wrote.

. . . This means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured.

They then add this caution for those who would want to push the gay agenda too far: It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which as its name suggests promotes adult-child homosexual sex] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims . . .

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims . . . To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards . . . they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach.

It should be obvious that we are beyond this strategy today. The gay community should no longer be considered victims in the United States—and in reality those in the gay movement have become aggressive challengers of traditional values and biblical beliefs on many fronts.

This brings us to the next step in their strategic blueprint.

Step 3: “Give protectors a just cause.”

A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such . . . Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, [but] should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme.

The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws—these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

Again, this tactic is antiquated now. Law and due process should’ve always protected all citizens equally. The real issue is whether there is a true Creator God who authored the Bible and if that God has the right to determine right and wrong and what is best for those He’s created.

Step 4: “Make gays look good.”

n order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society.

This approach can be considered mission accomplished. Kirk and Madsen also pointed out the benefits of “the celebrity endorsement.” It doesn’t matter whether the celebrity is straight or gay, the important thing is the endorsement of homosexuality as normal.

Of course, most celebrities are part of the entertainment world, where values are overwhelmingly liberal and opposed to biblical standards. Is it any wonder that so many celebrities have “come out of the closet” in recent years or proclaimed their support for gays? 

Step 5: “Make the victimizers look bad.”

Kirk and Madsen continued: At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights . . . it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified . . . Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types. (emphasis added throughout).

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America, Kirk and Madsen wrote. To this end, they then suggested that those who oppose the homosexual agenda be linked with images such as the Ku Klux Klan, “bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred,” thugs and convicts, and Nazi concentration camps.

This strategy—aided and abetted by sympathetic news media and government agencies—has led to us entering a stage of aggressive attacks by some in the gay community against those who sincerely believe that homosexual behavior violates the laws, instructions and principles of God. Bible-believing Christians are indeed “vilified” and branded as bigots and homophobes.

Do rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious beliefs and freedom of association work both ways? We’re seeing a time in which constitutionally guaranteed citizens’ rights are being stripped away to accommodate new supposed rights invented by various court rulings and government policy.

Step 6: “Solicit funds: The buck stops here.”

Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years—an unprecedented fundraising drive, they acknowledged.

Yet at the same time, they made a statement showing that gays really aren’t the oppressed, victimized group Kirk and Madsen advocate they be portrayed as: Because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.

If you’ve ever wondered why so many American businesses cater to a gay clientele, donate money to support homosexual causes and celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, it’s because they recognize this simple fact: Homosexual couples, who typically don’t have children, have substantially more discretionary income than families who do.

The impact of this is also being felt in the political arena, where wealthy gays help bankroll campaigns for sympathetic candidates who will advance their interests and fund ads attacking those who stand for traditional and biblical values.

Kirk and Madsen go on to praise the fact that homosexuals have been able to infiltrate American news media to advance the cause of issues important to them. Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage.

In the 26 years since they wrote that, most U.S. media has tilted even more to the left, so proponents of the homosexual agenda are usually assured of favorable coverage and free publicity for their cause. 

What is the right Christian response?

Those who believe the Bible and care about the future of America should be aware that today’s issues regarding the gay lifestyle have been orchestrated by activists for more than 25 years. This was no accident or chance course of events.

A gay person should not be afraid of a Christian as some hate-monger. True followers of Jesus Christ are to always show love toward others (Matthew 5:44), recognizing that all have sinned and need God’s mercy and forgiveness (Romans 3:23). But this does not mean excusing and accepting sin.

Recall that Jesus didn’t condemn a woman who was caught in adultery and brought before Him (John 8:2-11). But He didn’t say that what she was doing was acceptable either. He told her to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Moreover, He had to die to pay the penalty of her sin—and ours.

We should call sin what it is. And the Bible clearly labels homosexual activity a sin (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Of course, we must have compassion for those who don’t understand—and for those who do who struggle with this sin.

In communicating with others, Christians should be wise enough not to be trapped by phrases mislabeling the Christian approach. “Are you anti-gay?” can be a very misleading question. Understanding the definitions of someone you are having a discussion with is important. Acceptance, tolerance and inclusivity can be controversial and emotionally charged words.

Our culture has accepted two huge lies

Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren observed that our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.

Both notions are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. Disapproval is not hate. Disapproval of what is wrong and harmful is a part of godly love.

Don’t let your life be controlled by the clever marketing of evil as good and good as evil.

__________________________________________________________

Afterword by TPR:

In the years since this was first posted (almost seven years to the day), we can see how other groups have adopted the same strategies to foist their <s>opinions</s> demands on the rest of the population. Those that doesn’t agree with them are smeared as various ‘-phobes’ and ‘-ists’ because they dare to disapprove of the group’s agenda.

As the article correctly points out, the far-leftists (true liberals are just as concerned about individual’s right to live their own lives as are conservatives) whole-heartedly support this agenda as one more tool to take over the freedoms of others. They talk about promoting a “live and let live” attitude — but only if that phrase is defined as “let me do whatever the Hell I want, no matter who else gets hurt in the process!”

Again, this isn’t about religious dogma, it’s about what as morally just.

 

201
Share
Share
Share
Any threat especially against law enforcement or politicians will get you banned.