On 3 October 1992, Sinead O’Connor sang an a cappella version of Bob Marley’s “War”on Saturday Night Live and shocked the world by ripping up a photo of Pope John Paul II and calling him and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy evil.
Long before the word got out that the Catholic Church had been covering up incidents of child abuse and child rape by its pederast priests, O’Connor blew the whistle on the child-molesting clergy and fingered the Vatican for keeping it under wraps.
Before leaving the stage, O’Connor threw pieces of the pope’s torn photo at the camera and said, “Fight the real enemy!” The studio audience sat in stunned silence; NBC switchboards lit up like Christmas trees, and the network banned O’Connor for life.
Ten years later O’Connor would be asked by Salon if she had the ’92 SNL appearance to do all over again would she do anything differently. O’Connor said, “Hell, no!”
“The baby might be in the woman’s body, but the baby is not the woman’s body. It has its own DNA, its own genetic code, has its own blood type, has its own functioning brain, has its own functioning kidneys, its own functioning lungs, its own dreams.”—Matt Chandler, Lead Teaching Pastor of The Village Church
“If abortion was a good thing, there wouldn’t be so much emotional damage from it. End of story. … The environment is morbid; you can just feel it. You can hear screaming; you can hear crying … If there was a higher gestation and the technicians needed it, there were times when they’d just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there is no way they would know. “—Holly O’Donnell, Ex-procurement Technician, LLC
“Let’s have an investigation of those people who were trying to ensnare Planned Parenthood in a controversy that doesn’t exist.” Nancy Pelosi is Democrat Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives
“For my daugher, for my granddaughter, for people all across Massachusetts and all across this country, I stand with Planned Parenthood, and I hope my collegues will do the same.”—Elizabeth Warren, Democrat Senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
The lines have been drawn in the Republican Party between the establishment RINOs and neocons and the grass roots who uphold the Founders’ vision and the Constitution and believe in the Bill of Rights, particularly. This nation was founded by believers in Christianity, not Muslims, and certainly not Mormons.
In 2010, grass-root Republicans had a chance to get rid of John “Songbird” McCain but Dick Armey and Freedom Works convinced the four major tea parties in Arizona to withhold their endorsements in the Arizona U.S. Senate race. Armey has a libertarian bent and a PhD in economics, yet he supported McCain on fiscal grounds, which strains credulity.
Even though the Arizona Tea Party movement was formed to combat big government and the politicians who trample the constitutional principles of limited government, the four Tea Party groups chose to ignore McCain’s TARP supporting, amnesty pushing, free speech denying, global warming pushing and sit out the primary election, which in effect was backhanded support for McCain’s reelection bid.
Make no mistake, McCain was tea party enemy number one, yet the four major Arizona Tea Parties did nothing to stop the author of the anti free speech McCain-Feingold bill, the global warming McCain-Lieberman bill, and the amnesty for illegal aliens McCain-Kennedy bill.
Then in the 2012 midterm election, the candidacy of a Missouri Republican vying for a seat in the US Senate was derailed by Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin.
Palin and Malkin castigated Todd Akin for his remarks on abortion in the case of rape. In referencing the probability of a woman becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Akin said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Malkin called Akin’s remarks “really, really stupid, ignorant, and garbled nonsense,” while Palin called for a third party challenger in the Missouri senate race. Perhaps Akin shouldn’t have said “legitimate rape,” but he was distinguishing between an actual rape claim verses a bogus rape claim. FBI and DOJ reports show that about one forth of rape allegations are fabricated.
Also, Akin’s claim that women have some defense mechanisms against pregnancy in cases of rape is not without merit. According to some pro-life physicians, the fertilization process is highly dependent on hormonal signals, and stress can disrupt the hormonal milieu and cause miscarriages. And what is more stressful than a forcible rape?
Akin wasn’t making a demeaning comment about “legitimate rape.” He didn’t say that pregnancy can’t result from forcible rape. What he tried to say but didn’t say very well was that “the chance of a pregnancy occurring is quite low.”
That said, a child conceived during a forcible rape doesn’t have less dignity than one conceived during consensual intercourse. The full dignity and sanctity of an unborn child remains regardless of the circumstance of conception.
The opportunity to take the Senate ended with the banshees’ barrage in Missouri. My point is Democrats don’t devour their own in the national media or in public. When a Democrat politician says something racist or stupid, Democrats circle the wagons, go on offense, and accuse the accuser.
The truth is I’m really conflicted when it comes to Sarah Palin. I’m beginning to dislike her almost as much as I like her.
The bottom line is you can’t be stupid or emotional when fighting spiritually wicked Democrats, and unfortunately far too many conservative women engaged in the fight are both.
Liberation Theology is based on Marxist doctrine that interprets Scripture through the plight of the poor. In the 1950s when Marxism was making strides among the poor in South America, Gutierrez taught the gospel of wealth redistribution and social justice in Catholic communities.
In the 1980s Pope John Paul II and the Catholic hierarchy criticized Liberation Theology as a false, humanist doctrine dressed up in theological terms, and they chided the bishops and priests who proselytized it for misinterpreting Jesus’ preference for the poor as a Marxist call for armed rebellion.
Unlike Pope Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who spent much of his tenure at Mueller’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith battling liberation theology and disciplining some of its most famous defenders, the view toward Liberation Theology has changed now with the election of a Jesuit pope.
Pope Francis embraces the theology of Gutierrez and his backers as being perfectly in line with the church’s social teaching about the poor. And for 20 years, Barack Obama was a member of a church headed by his mentor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who preached and taught Black Liberation Theology, which is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in Gutierrez’s Liberation Theology.
Obama and Francis are scheduled to meet next month. Knowing that both share a Liberation Theology background, it’s a safe bet that social justice and global wealth redistribution will be a focal point of the discussion.
Deming, New Mexico, police pulled over David Eckert, 64, January 2, 2013, for running a stop sign. What should have been a routine traffic citation for Eckert turned Kafkaesque when Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office drug-sniffing dog Leo signaled he had drugs.
This isn’t the first time Leo, whose certification allegedly expired in April 2011, has barked up the wrong tree. In October 2012, police stopped Timothy Young for a turn signal violation. Leo alerted Sheriff’s deputies that Young had drugs, but a search of his vehicle and person failed to turn up any.
When police didn’t find any drugs in Eckert’s vehicle, they got a search warrant from a judge authorizing a probe “up to and including [Eckert’s] anal cavity.” They took him to Gila Regional Medical Center where he underwent three enemas, two digital anal probes, two X-ray scans, and a colonoscopy with anesthesia. The warrant’s limits allegedly were exceeded by the colonoscopy.
Not only was the colonoscopy performed without Eckert’s consent, but he also was billed $6,000 by the medical center for the procedure. Eckert refused to pay the bill.
In December 2013 a quiet settlement was reached with Eckert. Deming gave the scrap metal tradesman $950,000 and Hidalgo County forked over another $650,000.
THE MILLSTONE DIARIES 