Daily Archives: April 21, 2009

Credit where Credit is Due: Service Bill

As long as this isn’t also the “mandatory” service bill we’ve all been dreading–and the AP is conveniently leaving that out–this bill sounds pretty good, on the surface: expand AmeriCorps, and give education grants to various individuals for service work.

Of course, one could also point out that, if this bill does (as rumors have said) prohibit the service hours being applied to religious service, it is a way — like taxation itself — of diverting resources from Churches.

Advertisements

Sometimes "losing" makes you a winner: Miss USA pageant violates Equal Opportunity.

Apparently, the Miss USA pageant was held the other day, and, by several accounts, the “first runner up”, Carrie Prejean (“Miss California”), lost the contest because of her answer on a question of gay marriage. Here is her answer, as quoted in a Yahoo article:

“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um,
we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage
and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe
that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Carrie said to a mix of
boos and applause. “No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised
and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.”

I can see how that wishy-washy answer would manage to offend everyone at the same time. I can see criticizing her for an ineloquent or ill-refined response. “I think it’s great but I’m personally opposed” is bad philosophy, yet standard for American politicians.

But ineloquence and indecisiveness were not why she was cost the crown. The Miss USA organization is making it very clear that she was cost the crown because she opposes same sex marriage. The host, a fellow named Perez Hilton (?), who considers himself homosexual, said so. Again from the Yahoo article:

“The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a
doubt!” Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant. “Never before that I’m
aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA.”

Fox News has it this way:

Blogger Perez Hilton was also enraged, calling Prejean a “stuipd b***h” in a
video tirade he aired on his blog.

Keith Lewis, one of the directors of Miss California USA, said:

“I am proud of Carrie Prejean’s beauty and placement at the 2009 Miss USA
pageant. I support Carrie’s right to express her personal beliefs even if they
do not coincide with my own,” Keith told Access. “I believe the subject of gay
marriage deserves a great deal more conversation in order to heal the divide it
has created.”

So, basically, a beauty pageant really *is* about looks and not intelligence or ideas?

FOX adds the following quote:

“It’s ugly,” said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his
partner. “I think it’s ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the
value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience
and tell me how many gay men there are.”

????

So, first, there are apparently certain topics about which beauty pageant contestants should not express their religious or political beliefs. Doesn’t this violate Equal Opportunity?

Second, why are so many gay men involved in beauty pageants? I know it’s a stereotype, but it makes absolutely no sense. The only flagrant homosexual I spent any considerable time with was a former co-worker. At first, I thought he was just the opposite, because his cubicle was covered in pictures of scantily clad women. I suppose they can claim that lust isn’t a factor, but that hardly seems accurate, either. If homosexuals really aren’t attracted to women, why are they nevertheless obsessed with female beauty?

Third, it’s really a moral victory for Carrie Prejean. If she’d won, no one would know about her comment. Because they openly persecuted her, she’s making headlines.

Here’s an "angry white male" for you

The first domestic terrorist has been added to the FBI’s “Most Wanted for Terrorism” list, along with Osama Bin Ladin and others. #24 on the list:

Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist, has been on
the run since 2003 and is wanted in two bombings that year of corporate offices
in California, said Michael J. Heimbach, an assistant director of the FBI’s
counterrorism division.

How have we never heard of him till now? Bombings of corporate offices?
Animal rights activists regularly engage in acts of terrorism, and the MSM never speaks of it.

America lives under the impression that all pro-lifers are terrorists because of two or three whack jobs over 35 years.

Credit where Credit is Due: Service Bill

As long as this isn’t also the “mandatory” service bill we’ve all been dreading–and the AP is conveniently leaving that out–this bill sounds pretty good, on the surface: expand AmeriCorps, and give education grants to various individuals for service work.

Of course, one could also point out that, if this bill does (as rumors have said) prohibit the service hours being applied to religious service, it is a way — like taxation itself — of diverting resources from Churches.

Sometimes "losing" makes you a winner: Miss USA pageant violates Equal Opportunity.

Apparently, the Miss USA pageant was held the other day, and, by several accounts, the “first runner up”, Carrie Prejean (“Miss California”), lost the contest because of her answer on a question of gay marriage. Here is her answer, as quoted in a Yahoo article:

“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um,
we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage
and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe
that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Carrie said to a mix of
boos and applause. “No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised
and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.”

I can see how that wishy-washy answer would manage to offend everyone at the same time. I can see criticizing her for an ineloquent or ill-refined response. “I think it’s great but I’m personally opposed” is bad philosophy, yet standard for American politicians.

But ineloquence and indecisiveness were not why she was cost the crown. The Miss USA organization is making it very clear that she was cost the crown because she opposes same sex marriage. The host, a fellow named Perez Hilton (?), who considers himself homosexual, said so. Again from the Yahoo article:

“The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a
doubt!” Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant. “Never before that I’m
aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA.”

Fox News has it this way:

Blogger Perez Hilton was also enraged, calling Prejean a “stuipd b***h” in a
video tirade he aired on his blog.

Keith Lewis, one of the directors of Miss California USA, said:

“I am proud of Carrie Prejean’s beauty and placement at the 2009 Miss USA
pageant. I support Carrie’s right to express her personal beliefs even if they
do not coincide with my own,” Keith told Access. “I believe the subject of gay
marriage deserves a great deal more conversation in order to heal the divide it
has created.”

So, basically, a beauty pageant really *is* about looks and not intelligence or ideas?

FOX adds the following quote:

“It’s ugly,” said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his
partner. “I think it’s ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the
value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience
and tell me how many gay men there are.”

????

So, first, there are apparently certain topics about which beauty pageant contestants should not express their religious or political beliefs. Doesn’t this violate Equal Opportunity?

Second, why are so many gay men involved in beauty pageants? I know it’s a stereotype, but it makes absolutely no sense. The only flagrant homosexual I spent any considerable time with was a former co-worker. At first, I thought he was just the opposite, because his cubicle was covered in pictures of scantily clad women. I suppose they can claim that lust isn’t a factor, but that hardly seems accurate, either. If homosexuals really aren’t attracted to women, why are they nevertheless obsessed with female beauty?

Third, it’s really a moral victory for Carrie Prejean. If she’d won, no one would know about her comment. Because they openly persecuted her, she’s making headlines.

How the "Lavendar Mafia" controls the mainstream media (including FOX), the Democratic Party and the APA

I stumbled across this article from June 2002 while looking for the quotation from Rod Dreher about FOX news suppressing the “gay angle” in the priest sex abuse scandal.

The article uses a few incidents that were then-recent (including a vague reference to Dreher’s discussion with the FOX news guy), such as:

Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts shouted George Will down on ABC’s “This
Week” because he tried to state that the vast majority of priest sexual abusers
are homosexuals. NewsMax writer Phil Brennan reported, “After three or four
attempts to get a word in edgewise, Will gave up.”

Most of the article draws heavily from Goodbye, Good Men and from Bernard Goldberg’s Bias.

As often happens, conservatives had to go to the homosexual activist media to get what the MSM were suppressing:

(GLAAD), through its moles in the Church, reported news that the mass media
censored. Writing for GLAAD’s website, homosexual activist Cathy Renna said:
“We also learned more late last night about the anti-gay proposal offered by
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb. Bruskewitz’s ‘Amendment 27’ would have
stated that because the ‘current homosexual culture’ was the root cause of the
sex-abuse crisis, the bishops would be required to force strict conformity with
all Church doctrines on sexuality. His proposal was soundly rejected on a voice
vote, with a source inside the meeting telling me that it received only perhaps
a half-dozen votes of support.”

So who’s actually running the USCCB? The USCCB voted down a measure requiring priests to express complete orthodoxy on matters of sexual morality?

Subsequent to which, Bruskewitz and Vasa became criticized for “non-comformity” with the “safe environment” programs because they a) insisted on their sovereignty as bishops; b) insisted the scandal was caused by homosexuality and c) insisted that a solution to the scandal must include doctrinal orthodoxy???

As with the current Catholics United, radical activists like the Voice of the Faithful people tried to claim they were “non-partisan,” “just Catholics,” etc.

Yet one of the leaders of the “lay movement” in response to the crisis, who insisted she was not pushing a liberal agenda, was Mary Jo Blane:

“This is not an exaggeration. Dr. Mary Jo Bane, Clinton’s [former] Assistant Secretary of Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services, said: ‘If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are aised in families means there’s no equality. … In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.’

This woman is a Catholic???

To promote their agenda, the USCCB shut out the Catholic Medical Association but relied on the “testimony” of the very psychiatrists and psychologists who caused this mess:

To this end, the bishops running the Dallas meeting, according to the June 13 National Review’s article, had staged “briefings for the media on various aspects of the abuse scandal” by psychiatric panelists such as Rev. Canice Connors, Rev. Stephen Rossetti and others with a pro-homosexual agenda. Connors is known among sex abuse victims for his psychiatric and “spiritual assessment” of mass pedophile Fr. John Geoghan. He wrote that “there are no particular ecommendations concerning his spiritual life since he is involved in spiritual direction and seems to have a good prayer life.”
While accepting psychiatric advice from the likes of Connors, the bishops in control of the meeting, however, refused the expertise of Catholic Medical Association (CMA) psychiatrists, who are faithful to the Church’s full teachings.
The CMA considered so-called expert Stephen Rossetti’s advice to bishops as creating “a big part of” the sex abuse problem.

Similar methods were used in 1973 when the APA voted to “normalize” homosexuality:

According to psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, the American Psychiatric
Association (APA) had its own “lavender mafia” when it voted to “normalize
homosexuality” in the early 1970s. . . . The tactics used against the APA in the
“normalization of homosexuality” are presented in his book “Homosexuality and
the Politics of Truth.” The Congressional Record of May 1996 called it the “best
book on homosexuality written in our times.”

On the MSM:

Goldberg in “Bias” called ABC, NBC and CBS the three big “News Mafia” families. These “Big Three” are a large basis of the gay movement’s power. The “News Mafia” is the New Berlin Wall that is even now starting to crumble, as did the Berlin Wall and the “evil empire” which built that wall.
Goldberg’s “Bias” is like Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago,” the beginning of the end for the new “evil empire.” If talk radio and news sources like NewsMax continue to courageously fight the bias and lies of the “Big Three,” then they will
crumble as more and more viewers leave them.
But even the “Big Three” are only stooges of the New York Times and Washington Post. Goldberg said, “The problem is that so many TV journalists simply don’t know how to think about certain issues until the New York Times and the Washington Post tell them what to think. Those big, important newspapers set the agenda that network news people follow.”

Women who have abortions are three times more likely to suffer domestic violence