Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Marshall Conyers wrote “Liberty’s Every Son and Daughter” (see below) a few weeks before July 4, 2012, to salute America’s soldiers.

The piece ran in a few newspapers in Conyers’ home state of North Carolina, but it hasn’t attracted a lot of attention.

On June 20, 2014, Conyers was a guest on the radio show “Talkback with Chuck Wilder on CRN” where he read the piece over the air.



Liberty‘s Every Son and Daughter

By Marshall Conyers

Though my name is lost among the twilight of the ages,

I would ask this solemn question of you now

Who Am I?

I, who felt the peppering muskets’ fire,

who faced the raging cannon roar

who saw the very earth itself run red at Lexington and Bunker Hill

I, who endured the bitter, ironclad wintryness of frozen Valley Forge

who gave of my youth and selfless blood

so that you might know the answer to the solemn question posed

Who Am I?

a loyal countryman of yours, I surely am indeed

a brother and a sister

a neighbor and a friend

I, who have a thousand names you cannot know,

ten thousand countless faces you’ve never seen before

yet, when duty, honor, country call,

you know me well by all of the remembered places I have been

Fort McHenry, Gettysburg, San Juan Hill

I was there unyielding amidst the thundering shot and shell

Chateau Thierry, Belleau Wood, The Argonne

I stood bravely there as well

Tarawa, Anzio, Normandy, Okinawa

battlefields where I fought and fell and bled

Inchon, Con Thien, Desert Storm .

each sanctified by honor and the sacred roll calls of our dead

Who Am I?

you know me well by my footmarks

left traced in blood for you upon the many beaches of the earth

you know me by all the burning desert sands I strode

that still hold my bleached and whitening bones

you know me by the mountains I have climbed

the seven seas I’ve sailed

the strange and distant lands I’ve marched

the skies I’ve soared for you where no eagle ever dared

and you know me best by all the far and lonely places

where I lay dying spread-eagle on my back,

calling out in that final fading moment of my life for Mama

for she who loved me most with the last breath I drew

Who Am I?

within your heart of hearts, you know the answer well

I am every son and every daughter of this great land who ever gave their all for you

I am a youthful name chiseled for all eternity into endless rows of white marble stones that mark Liberty’s highest sacrifice

and though twilight must surely fall and my name be forever lost among the ages,

I would have it no other way

for interred within this hallowed earth, my bones rest quiet in peace at last,

and there they’ll gently molder

Who Am I?

I have a name

I am the American Soldier!

An African proverb says, “Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” In other words, don’t discard a tradition or a practice until you understand why it was established and followed.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not moral equivalents. Civilizations have erected a metaphorical fence limiting sexual activity to men and women constrained in marriage. Throughout history, people scaled the fence to engage in premarital, extramarital, and homosexual sex, but the fence remained and the limits were visible and known to everyone. Climbing over the fence has always been recognized as a breach of those limits, even by the climbers themselves.

But now homosexual rights advocates are saying that there should be no fence, and that to tear it down is an act of liberation. Once the fence is torn down, adultery, polygamy, and pedophilia will become socially acceptable. Because no visible boundary to sexual expression will exist, civilization will ultimately collapse and disappear

Homosexual author Gabriel Rotello writes of the changes in homosexual behavior in the last century:

“Most accounts of male-on-male sex from the early decades of this century [20th] cite oral sex, and less often masturbation, as the predominant forms of activity, with the acknowledged homosexual fellating or masturbating his partner. Comparatively fewer accounts refer to anal sex. My own informal survey of older gay men who were sexually active prior to World War II gives credence to the idea that anal sex, especially anal sex with multiple partners, was considerably less common than it later became.”

According to a 2001 New York Times story, the practice of anal sex increased, condom use has declined 20 percent and multi-partner sex has doubled in the last seven years, despite billions of dollars spent on HIV prevention campaigns. “In many cases, the prevention slogans that galvanized gay men in the early years of the epidemic now fall on deaf ears.”

As societal approval of homosexual behavior increases, so does the behavior. A 1993 Newsweek story reported that the increased social acceptance of homosexual behavior led teenagers to engage in homosexual sex, viewing it as chic. The Associated Press reported, “the way gays and lesbians appear in the media may make some people more comfortable acting on homosexual impulses.”

Studies show that some people change their sexual behavior, which makes it impossible to define that person as homosexual. For example:

Does a man who has homosexual sex in prison count as a homosexual? Does a man who left his wife of twenty years for a gay lover count as a homosexual or heterosexual? Do you count the number of years he spent with his wife as compared to his lover? Does the married woman who had sex with her college roommate a decade ago count? Do you assume that one homosexual experience defines someone as gay for all time?”

Despite the difficulty in defining homosexuality, what is clear is that those who engage in same-sex practices or identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual constitute a very small percentage of the population. The most reliable studies indicate that 1-3 percent of people consider themselves to be homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual, or currently engage in homosexual sex.

Homosexual rights advocates are doing great damage to America’s social fabric and the American people. In promoting homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, they are killing Americans, killing society, and destroying the nation’s identity.

Nearly 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer, while slightly more than three-quarters of a million are affected by AIDS, yet AIDS spending per patient is more than seven times that for cancer. And the inequity for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking. Consequently, the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS detracts from research into cures for diseases that affect more people.

In denouncing and marginalizing anyone who opposes and criticizes the gaystapo agenda as homophobic, homosexual rights advocates are destroying people’s humanity, physical being, and soul, and robbing researchers of funds that could help them develop treatments and cures for diseases that afflict tens of millions of people.


This 7:15 youtube video was taken from The Millstone Report web cast, a two-hour show that aired Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

The TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2 on the Resistance Radio Network.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube.

Depression and drug abuse often cause homosexuals to engage in unprotected sex with strangers, even when they’ve been educated and trained to understand the deadly consequences of such reckless sexual behavior. A 2001 New York Times report featured the stories of some homosexual men who knew the risks of engaging in unprotected sex but did so anyway.

In once incident, a homosexual HIV prevention educator named Seth Watkins got depressed and had unprotected anal intercourse without a condom with a stranger and became HIV positive. In spite of his job training, the HIV educator continues to engage in unprotected sex and put other people at risk.

I don’t like to think about it because I don’t want to give anyone HIV,” he said.

In another incident, a homosexual male, who had never engaged in anal intercourse without a condom, went to a sex club on the spur of the moment when he got depressed and had unprotected sex.

“[T]here was just something about that particular circumstance and that particular person. I don’t know how to describe it. It just appealed to me; it made it seem like it was all right,” he said.

One of the homosexuals interviewed in the Times story openly admitted that he cares more about self-gratification than he cares about spreading HIV.

“The prospect of going through the rest of your life having to cover yourself up every time you want to get intimate with someone is an awful one. …Now I’ve got HIV and I don’t have to worry about getting it. There is a part of me that’s relieved. I was tired of always having to be careful, of this constant diligence that has to be paid to intimacy when intimacy should be spontaneous,” he said.

A 1998 Seattle study found that 10 percent of HIV-positive males engaged in unprotected anal sex, and the percentage doubled in 2000. According to a study of males who attend homosexual “circuit” parties, 10 percent expected to become HIV-positive in their lifetime. The study reported that 17 percent of the circuit party attendees were already HIV positive, two thirds of circuit party attendees had oral or anal sex, and 28 percent did not use condoms.

Researchers found that 95 percent of the partiers used psychoactive drugs at the most recent event they attended, and that there was a direct correlation between the number of drugs used during a circuit party weekend and the likelihood of unprotected anal sex. The researchers concluded that “the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern.”

A study of homosexual males attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent claimed to have a “primary partner.” Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners “had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend.

According to a University of New South Wales study, it is the well-educated professional males, who experienced the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, that are most likely to forego the use of a condom.

If homosexual males were not compelled to gratify their insatiable sexual hunger, they’d avoid circuit parties and use condoms. But neither education nor counseling deters them from engaging in such reckless behavior.

The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. Males engaged in homosexual or bisexual lifestyles can cut up to 20 years off their lives. The study concluded that only 32 percent of 20-year-old homosexual or bisexual males would live to be 65 years old, compared to 78 percent for men in general. On average, cigarette smokers lose about 13.5 years of life expectancy.

The impact on length of life may be even greater than reported in the study. Suicide rates are higher among homosexual males than the general U.S. male population. Syphilis, anal cancer, and Hepatitis B and C also affect homosexual and bisexual men disproportionately.

For homosexual males, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Homosexual males reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.

Studies reveal that long-term sexual fidelity is rare among homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual couples, particularly among homosexual males. In one study, only 15 percent of homosexual males and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.


This 8:48 youtube video was taken from The Millstone Report web cast, a two-hour show that aired Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

The TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2 on the Resistance Radio Network.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube.

Homosexual author Gabriel Rotello writes, “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'”

Simply put, the negative consequences of homosexual relationships far outweigh the positive ones for society. Studies show that homosexual couples are more promiscuous than heterosexual couples and that excessive promiscuity increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Anal intercourse exacerbates the potential for injury because the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood vessels. This means that any organisms introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The friction caused by penile penetration tears the single layer tissue and exposes both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

In addition, ejaculate contains immunosuppressive components, which allow the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female to fertilize the egg. But semen in the rectum may impair the immune defenses of the recipient, which would make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections.

The following diseases are frequently found among homosexual practitioners of anal-genital intercourse:

Anal Cancer

Chlamydia trachomatis

Cryptosporidium

Giardia lamblia

Herpes simplex virus

Human immunodeficiency virus

Human papilloma virus

Isospora belli

Microsporidia

Gonorrhea

Viral hepatitis types B & C

Syphilis

Some STDs transmitted among homosexual males are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. And others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity.

According to a 1999, King County, Seattle, Washington, report, 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.

A 1988 CDC survey found that 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases were homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted. This shows that homosexuals, who make up only 1 to 3 percent of the population, have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.

Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids,

anal fissures,

anorectal trauma, and

retained foreign bodies.

Homosexual practitioners of “rimming,” which is oral-anal sex, have an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections. In fact, “gay bowel syndrome” is the name used to describe the conditions that occur as the result of engaging in anal fellatio following anal intercourse. Combined with anal intercourse and other homosexual practices, “rimming” provides a rich opportunity for a variety of infections.

Although some women get some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with “gay bowel,” the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have had sex with men.

Also, a preponderance of Hepatitis A is found among homosexual males. And Salmonella, which is rarely associated with sexual activity, is found among homosexual males who have oral-anal and oral-genital contact after anal intercourse.

Human Herpes Virus 8 (called Herpes Type 8 or HHV-8) is found exclusively among male homosexuals. And men who’ve contracted AIDS through homosexual behavior often develop a previously rare form of cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma.

Some homosexual males engage in coprophilia and rub highly infectious fecal material on one other. Such practice exposes the participants to all of the risks of anal-oral contact and many of the risks of anal genital contact.

And some male homosexuals practice “fisting,” which is the insertion of a hand or forearm into the rectum. This practice can cause tearing and incompetence of the anal sphincter, which can lead to infections, inflammation, and a greater risk of STDs. Twenty-two percent of homosexuals in one survey admitted to having participated in fisting.

Dutch researchers have found that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders including depression, drug abuse and suicide. The Dutch have been more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries, so a high rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the disorders cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The report didn’t mention whether homosexual behavior is the cause of psychiatric disorders, or whether the practice is the result of psychiatric disorders.


This 13:15 youtube video was taken from The Millstone Report web cast, a two-hour show that aired Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

The TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2 on the Resistance Radio Network.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube.

Part of a physician’s duty is to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, they should recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, they should discourage it.

The consequences of homosexual activity are distinct from the consequences of heterosexual activity. People engaged in homosexual activity increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders, and a shortened life span.

One major difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships is promiscuity. A 1978 study of homosexual men found that 75 percent of self-identified, white, homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.

A more recent study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported an upswing in promiscuity among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.

A 2001 study also found that males associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in six months as those who were not associated with the homosexual community. In other words, the homosexual community creates more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

Excessive sexual promiscuity is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly homosexual disease in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among homosexuals.

A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old homosexual males had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55. As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.

Syphilis is also more common among homosexual men. The San Francisco Public Health Department reported that syphilis among the city’s homosexual and bisexual males was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”

A Baltimore study reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexual males contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.

Promiscuity among lesbians, although less extreme, is higher than among heterosexual women. Lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women and 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.

Another major difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships is physical health. The medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy.

Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women because of the nature of sex among men. Anal intercourse is essential sex for many homosexual men, and although it may be practiced by heterosexuals at times, homosexual men engage in it to a far greater extent.

Also, mouth-anal contact, a common practice among homosexual men, is the reason for the high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals.

Human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate anal intercourse. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penis penetration. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm.

In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.


This 13:24 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The two-hour show aired Tuesday, March 4, 2014. TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube.

(H-T Ruth)

non sequiter

 

See http://pushpull.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/in-memoriam-non-sequiter-by-wiley/.

For at least a thousand years, western civilization has recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and for over two hundred years the United States has defined marriage as the union of two people of opposite sex who are not close blood relatives.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow for the definition to expand beyond recognition. If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions.

How could you justify excluding a person from marrying a close blood relative or more than one person when exclusion would mean the denial of that person’s civil rights or sexuality? How could you exclude close blood relatives from marrying each other, or bisexuals who want to marry more than one person?

If two men can marry, why does it matter if they are close blood relatives, or why limit the number to just two? After all, there’s no risk of genetic deformity in the case of homosexual incest.

If homosexual marriage is permitted, why not permit incestuous and polygamous marriages? The only reason not to permit them is that people find them morally repugnant.

Western societies have forbidden incest and polygamy on the grounds of public morality. Homosexuals who want to marry are not being denied their civil rights. They can get married; they just can’t marry someone of the same sex, a close blood relative, or more than one person.

What Same-sex marriage proponents want to do is move the moral line that has been fixed in western culture for over a millennium. They call me a bigot because I am unwilling to move the line, but what they want to do is re-draw the line based their sense of morality and limit marriage to only heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Same-sex marriage proponents claim homosexuals are being denied their civil rights when they are denied the right to marry, but if that’s true, aren’t close blood relatives and bisexuals also being denied their civil rights to marry? So why isn’t it bigotry to deny close blood relatives and bisexuals who profess love for each other their right to get married?

Obviously same-sex marriage proponents don’t recognize the love that close blood relatives and bisexuals profess to have for each other as legitimate, which is why they aren’t demanding that such marriages be sanctioned by the state.

When the only basis for marriage is love or the desire of the parties to get married, it logically follows that close blood relatives and bisexuals will soon demand the right to marry, also.

Same-sex marriage proponents are extraordinarily naïve to believe that redefining marriage will have no serious repercussions or lasting effects on the social fabric. Depravity knows no bounds, and the depraved are waiting in line to prove the point.


This 9:06 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The two-hour show aired Friday, Nov. 8, 2013. TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube. To see a rebroadcast of the last show, visit the Ought to be Headlines web page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.