Blood Safety Threatened

JEFFREY SAUGER / MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

Kathy Gerus-Darbison has had HIV since 1985 and AIDS since 1993. HIV-tainted blood products infected and killed her first husband, a hemophiliac, who unknowingly also infected her. She's holding a portrait of herself from 1992 at her home in Macomb, Mich.

With the public focused on the calamity of the Gulf oil spill, another disaster that could affect millions of lives is in the making. The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is holding meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban on gay blood. Cliff Kincaid, president of the public policy group, America's Survival, Inc. (ASI), is scheduled to testify in favor of the ban.

If the ban is lifted, Kincaid argues, the five million Americans a year who receive blood transfusions could be exposed to the AIDS virus or other infections in the diseased blood of sexually active homosexuals. Kincaid's testimony, available at www.usasurvival.org, consists of the expert views of Dale O'Leary, a writer who has followed the AIDS epidemic since the beginning and written extensively on the subject of sexually transmitted diseases.

Gay activists, who are expected to dominate the proceedings and intimidate federal policy makers, insist that the ban is discriminatory and homophobic and are demanding the "right" to donate blood.

Kincaid asks, "Do you or your loved ones want to die in order to advance the gay rights agenda?"

In advance of the Thursday and Friday meetings on blood safety, a federal notice has reiterated that male homosexuals "have an increased incidence and prevalence of several currently recognized transfusion-transmitted diseases" -- Hepatitis B virus, HIV, syphilis, and cytomegalovirus.

It also says, "There is a theoretical concern that MSM [men who have sex with men] populations may also be at increased risk for other unrecognized transfusion-transmitted agents." That means another infectious agent could be lurking in the blood that the homosexuals want to have the "right" to donate to the nation's blood supply.

The move to lift the ban is being spearheaded by the militant homosexual "rights" organizations and gay lobbies which contribute to the campaigns of liberal Congressional candidates. These organizations, working with liberal members of Congress, have pressured the federal government to hold the June 10 and 11 meetings to consider lifting the ban on gay blood.

Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with jurisdiction over the blood supply, is a political appointee of the Obama Administration.

The pressure campaign has already forced the American Red Cross and two other blood groups to previously argue for lifting the ban. But the FDA, after reviewing the policy in 2006, reiterated the prohibition, which has been in effect since 1983 and applies to MSM since 1977, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.

Kincaid commented, "Once again, as we have seen in the gays in the military debate, the gays are constantly screaming about their rights, oblivious to the point of madness about the rights of others. In this case, it's our right to be free of infected blood when our loved ones get a blood transfusion. But unless the public quickly offers its comments and raises an outcry with the federal authorities coming under the influence and intimidation of the gay rights lobby, the 'right' to donate blood could soon be extended to a politically-connected special interest group that has a demonstrated propensity to acquire life-threatening and deadly diseases."

Obama Makes Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Marriage Benefits for Homosexual Couples

Obama secures his base - gay, federal employees.

From LifeSiteNews
By James Tillman

In a memorandum issued Wednesday, President Obama ordered executive departments and agencies to extend to same-sex partners the same benefits enjoyed by married couples, to the maximum extent permitted by the law.

President Obama said the memorandum "paves the way for long-overdue progress in our nation's pursuit of equality."

The new memorandum is the result of a review Obama ordered the Office of Personnel Management to conduct in order to determine what benefits could be extended to homosexual federal employees under existing law.

As the openly-homosexual John Berry, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, wrote in a directive detailing implementation of the President’s memorandum, these new benefits include: access to fitness facilities, adoption counseling, childcare services, medical treatment, lodging, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and dental insurance, among many others.

In June of 2009, President Obama had extended a few federal benefits to same-sex partners; however, the new directive goes well beyond that measure.

Obama's order ensures that "all agencies that provide new benefits to the spouses of Federal employees and their children should, to the extent permitted by law, also provide them to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees and those same-sex domestic partners’ children."

Such measures did not satisfy President Obama, however, who said he would support the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act - which he called "crucial legislation" to guarantee "the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples" to same-sex partners.

Furthermore, President Obama again vowed to work with congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which he called discriminatory and an interference with states’ rights.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 by a veto-proof majority, and says that no state will be forced to consider a relationship between two persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is so considered in another state. It also says that the federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

After the President's memorandum was announced, the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign (HRC) crowed that some of the benefits announced were part of the HRC's "Blueprint for Positive Change," a document outlining a homosexualist agenda.

HRC President Joe Solmonese, however, agreed with Obama that the benefits' limitations are "a glaring reminder that the Defense of Marriage Act ultimately stands in the way of providing true equality to LGBT Americans."

The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins called the move "a gratuitous swipe at the Defense of Marriage Act, carving out a position that's well outside the mainstream of most Americans (72%) who define marriage as the union of a man and woman."

Contrary to Obama's claim to have worked within the law, Perkins said the "special perks already violate U.S. marriage law and 31 state marriage amendments."

"Interestingly enough, the benefits don't apply to unmarried heterosexuals, meaning that this White House is promoting the same kind of 'discrimination' it's supposedly working to end!" he added.

McDonald's Ad Promotes Teenage Homosexuality

From LifeSiteNews
By James Tillman and John-Henry Westen

A new McDonald's ad in France, part of their large "come as you are" ad campaign, features a homosexual teen speaking sweetly to his male paramour before he is forced to closet his emotions before a presumably insensitive father.

"We see McDonald's decision to backhand hundreds of millions of traditional family values people," Bill Johnson, President of the American Decency Association, told LifeSiteNews, "and align themselves with promoting the godless behavior of a few."

In the add, a boy sitting in McDonald's receives a call from his lover while his father orders a meal. He tells his lover that he was thinking about him, and that he misses him, before he hangs up because his father is coming.

After his father sits down next to him, his father tells him that it is a shame that he is in an all-male class, because otherwise he would be able to get all the girls.

This is not McDonald's first homosexualist activism. In 2008, McDonalds paid $20,000 dollars to become an official "organizational ally and corporate partner" of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

In the same year, McDonald's also helped sponsor the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade; Richard Ellis, vice president of communications for McDonald's USA, was also appointed to the board of directors of the NGLCC.

Yet because of a boycott started by the American Family Association on July 3rd of that year, Richard Ellis left the board of the NGLCC and McDonald's said that it did not plan to renew its membership with the NGLCC.

Bill Johnson called the new television spot "one of the most bewildering kinds of advertisements when you consider the fact that so many Americans across this country have done business with McDonald's."

He said that they were "testing, testing once again the marketplace, by running obvious[ly] pro-gay ads," despite their previous conflict with pro-family activists.

Contact info for McDonald's:

Andrew J. McKenna, President
McDonald's Corporation USA
McDonald's Plaza
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: 1-800-244-6227
or: 630-623-3000
Fax: 630-623-5004
Website email

McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited
McDonald's Place
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M3C 3L4
Ph: (416) 443-3932
Fax: (416) 446-3443

Caught on Tape: The Tyranny of the 'Tolerant' - School Bus Driver Brings Girl to Tears for Opposing Gay 'Marriage'

School won't reprimand driver who called student "Stupid Little Bigot"

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

An Indiana family has filed a civil lawsuit against a local school bus driver caught on tape harassing their daughter to the point of tears and calling her a "stupid little bigot" based on her pro-family views.

Several news stations reported the story with video from a school bus camera capturing Carmel School Bus Driver Betty Campbell's tirades, sparked after the girl said she would not have voted for President Obama based on his pro-abortion and pro-same-sex "marriage" agenda. The exchange took place in November 2008, one day after Obama was elected to the presidency.

On the video, Campbell can be heard addressing a black student with reference to the pro-family student saying: "If she says anything racial to you, I want to know about it 'cause I'm going to eat her alive. I mean it." After the student said he did not listen to the girl, Campbell replied, "Well, you're a smart guy, and Rachael is a stupid little bigot."

"That's not someone looking out for someone. That's someone out to get somebody," remarked Dr. Ed Zimmer, the girl's father.

Campbell is heard in another portion of the footage telling students: "If you can't believe in tolerance toward one another, you don't belong here. You belong in a parochial church school."

In addition, the parents note that after dropping off the students along with their daughter and her sister, Campbell summoned the two girls back onto the bus, without their parents' consent. There, the bus driver lectured the girl on reasons to support same-sex "marriage" as the student can be seen on the school bus camera footage crying.

"I don't want to hear one more word about anyone going to hell if they are gay or if they're Buddhist or whatever, 'cause it's none of your damn business," Campbell can be heard saying in a separate portion of the video. However, Zimmer said during a deposition that Campbell admitted under oath she had never heard the girl actually say those words, according to a CBS report.

Carmel Clay Schools refused to fire Campbell, reportedly denying some of the parents' claims; Zimmer told news outlets that the school told him Campbell was "working within the scope of her employment."

The girl's parents sued the school district in August 2009, alleging emotional distress was inflicted upon their daughter, and seeking to make the district pay damages and court costs. The trial is scheduled to begin in December.

Attempts by LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) to reach Dr. Zimmer were unanswered as of press time. Dana Kendall, assistant to the superintendent at Carmel Clay Schools, declined to comment to LSN on Zimmer's statements or on whether Campbell had been disciplined because of the pending litigation.

Memorial Day Massacre Of Our Military

From The Traditional Values Coalition

On the eve of the weekend that we honor members of the military who have served and those who have fallen to protect our nation, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to use our military for social engineering to benefit the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) political agenda.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi only gave Members of Congress a total of 10 minutes to debate the overturning of a 1993 law that bans homosexuals from openly serving in the military. Congress spends more debate time naming Post Offices than they gave to this historic policy shift in how our military functions.

This will fundamentally change our military – yet Pelosi thought it was so unimportant that she only gave five minutes for supporters of the ban and five minutes to the opponents of the ban to debate this issue. This is an outrage of immense proportions! Now the Senate will attempt to ram the repeal through when they return in two weeks.

The liberal controlled House of Representatives added an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that overturns the 1993 ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Isn’t our military worth more than 10 minutes of debate? Not to liberals.

The failure to permit an honest debate on this amendment is an affront to every soldier, sailor and marine who has ever fought and died to protect this nation from foreign and domestic threats.

The rush to pass this measure is evidence that liberals know their time is short to impose LGBT social engineering upon our military before the mid-term election. The overturning of the 1993 ban is simply Obama’s way of paying back his LGBT supporters who helped get him elected. It has nothing to do with concern for military readiness, morale or unit cohesion.

The men and women we honor this weekend didn’t give their lives so that a zero tolerance program could be instituted in the Armed Forces to silence criticism of homosexual conduct – or to force our military into sensitivity training sessions to affirm gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender sexual behaviors. Yet, this is apparently what our leftist “Representatives” think.

Federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law banning homosexuals in the military. The 1993 law states “there is no constitutional right to serve,” and the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” In living conditions offering little or no privacy, homosexuality presents an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion—qualities essential for combat readiness.

Legalizing homosexual conduct in the military will inevitably lead to the destruction of our all-volunteer forces and potentially bring back the draft. Why? Because heterosexual warriors and patriots know instinctively that homosexual sex is abnormal and threatens to create all sorts of problems within the Armed Forces.

In 2008, the Military Times reported the results of a poll regarding lifting the ban on gays in the military. It showed that 10% of our military will not re-enlist or extend their service if the ban is overturned; another 14% said they would consider not re-enlisting or extending their service. In essence, this could result in a loss of up to 323,000 men and women from the service.

This loss of hundreds of thousands of patriotic soldiers will threaten our national security, yet liberals don’t care.

This Memorial Day let’s remember our fallen soldiers, but also remember that our current soldiers face a domestic enemy in our Congress and among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activist groups who seek to exploit the military for their political gain.

We must put an end to the liberal-gay dominance of our Congress this November. The future of our national security depends on it. Remember this: Our soldiers can’t defend themselves in the political realm. We must do it for them. They’re willing to die for you; are you willing to protect them from social engineering by LGBT zealots?

Obama to Pick Pro-Abort Elena Kagan for Supreme Court: Report

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

Top White House aides expect President Obama to select Solicitor General Elena Kagan on Monday as the Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, reports Mike Allen of Politico Friday.

"Kagan's relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post. And President Obama considers her to be a persuasive, fearless advocate who would serve as an intellectual counterweight to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, and could lure swing Justice Kennedy into some coalitions," reports Allen.

Both former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) urged Obama last month to select someone who has not served as a judge. Kagan, who was appointed to her current position in March 2009 after nearly six years as the Dean of Harvard Law school, is the only member of the relatively short list of names considered for the position to have no judicial experience.

Kagan is known for strongly favoring taxpayer funded abortion, and is a critic of the 1991 Supreme Court decision Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld federal regulations prohibiting Title X family planning fund recipients from counseling on or referring for abortion.

Americans United for Life also reports that Kagan once suggested that faith-based groups operating pregnancy care centers should not counsel pregnant youths, for fear that they would include their religious beliefs in the counseling process.

In April, the White House reacted with fury when Ben Domenech, writing in a blog post for CBS News, declared that Kagan would be the "first openly gay justice" on the U.S. Supreme Court. Under increasing pressure from the Obama administration, CBS eventually pulled the post and Domenech apologized for "a Harvard rumor" - but not before posting an addendum stating: "I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted - odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles."

Archbishop Warns of “Civil Unrest” in Wake of UK Court Ruling against Christian Counselor

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

The clash between Christians and the state has intensified, with a UK court now having upheld the dismissal of a Christian psychologist who refused to give advice on sexual intimacy to homosexual couples - a decision the former Canterbury Archbishop Lord Carey has denounced as a prelude to “civil unrest” between Christians and the secular government.

Gary McFarlane, 48, a Bristol solicitor, father of two, and evangelical Christian, had worked part-time as a psychological counselor with Relate for five years, during which time he even gave advice to homosexual couples working out basic relationship problems. However, he was sacked from his job in 2008 when he qualified as a psychosexual counselor, because he said he could not give advice in homosexual intimacy as this violated his conscience and beliefs.

McFarlane tried without success to challenge Relate’s decision to fire him at an employment tribunal, arguing that they should have accommodated his religious views. He then appealed to the UK Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the tribunal’s ruling.

However, Lord Justice John Laws denied McFarlane’s request in a strident ruling that argued the law had no responsibility to protect the individual’s expression of conscience or religious belief.

Laws made clear that the court did not view legislation protecting individual conscience as justifiable, calling it an irrational position that “is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary."

"The conferment of any legal protection of preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however long its culture, is deeply unprincipled," said Laws in his ruling.

"In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content," ruled the Lord Justice. Laws said that if the law created special exemptions for adherents of one belief, then it would lead to a disenfranchisement of the rest of the members in society, and would lead to “theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments,” wrote Laws. “The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself."

Gary McFarlane lamented the ruling saying, "I have the ability to provide counseling services to same-sex couples.

"There should be allowances taken into account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles."

Lord Carey struck out at Law, saying the fact that leaders of the Church of England and other faiths have felt compelled to intervene in court cases involving discrimination against Christians and their viewpoints is “illuminative of future civil unrest” coming to the United Kingdom.

"It is, of course, but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a religious bar to any employment by Christians," said Carey.

Carey denounced the judgment, saying it "continues a trend on the part of the courts to downgrade the right of religious believers to manifest their faith in what has become a deeply unedifying collision of human rights."

"The description of religious faith in relation to sexual ethics as 'discriminatory' is crude and illuminates a lack of sensitivity to religious belief,” he continued.

"The comparison of a Christian, in effect, with a 'bigot' (i.e., a person with an irrational dislike to homosexuals) begs further questions. It is further evidence of a disparaging attitude to the Christian faith and its values."

Yet the archbishop also said that Laws’ ruling suppressed British pluralism rather than encouraged it, because the state was enforcing secular values rather than embracing a neutral stance that would allow all individuals of all faiths to live out their beliefs freely.

"It heralded a 'secular' state rather than a 'neutral' one. And while with one hand the ruling seeks to protect the right of religious believers to hold and express their faith, with the other it takes away those same rights. It says that the sacking of religious believers in recent cases was not a denial of their rights even though religious belief cannot be divided from its expression in every area of the believer's life.

"Oddly the judge doesn't address the argument that rights have to be held in balance and he is apparently indifferent to the fact that religious believers are adversely affected by this judgment and others."

The disenfranchisement of Christians in the United Kingdom continues apace under the anti-discrimination laws introduced by Labour. In the past several years numerous reports of Christians losing their jobs or even being arrested simply for expressing their Christian moral views have surfaced – events that appear shocking in light of the 70th anniversary this year of Winston Churchill’s famous “Finest Hour” speech from the Second World War.

The famed British Prime Minister had rallied the British people on the eve of the Battle of Britain in June 1940 saying, “upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.” He warned that if they failed, “all that we have known and cared for will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

‘I Stand By My Statement Absolutely’: Scottish Candidate Sacked by Conservatives for Opposing Gay Agenda

It is a sad portent for the future of Britain when, even within the Conservative Party, Christians of principle and character cannot seek public office. At the national level, Britons are offered little choice and less hope.

From LifeSiteNews
By Hilary White

Being sacked by the UK’s Conservative party as their candidate for the Ayshire and Arran riding in Scotland has not led Philip Lardner to back away from his stand supporting traditional Christian moral values, nor has it stopped him from running in the riding as an independent, even though he says it may cost him his job.

Lardner told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today that since being dropped by the party yesterday for defending traditional Christian views on homosexuality he has been threatened by homosexualist activists and placed on “cautionary suspension” by his employers.

But even in the face of possible loss of his livelihood, Lardner remains adamant. “Absolutely I stand by my statement absolutely,” he told LSN.

Lardner, a primary school teacher who has also expressed his skepticism about the “climate change” political craze, fell foul of the party just days before the May 6th general election after writing on his campaign website of his support for the rights of parents and teachers not to be forced to teach children that homosexuality is normal and acceptable.

“The vast majority of my local membership of the Tory party have been resolute on support for my opinion,” he said. “And you might be interested to know, this includes a member whose own daughter is a lesbian.”

Conservative party leader David Cameron has said about the decision to axe Lardner, “I couldn’t have acted quicker – decisive action in minutes of finding out about this.” A Tory spokesman said Lardner’s views were “deeply offensive and unacceptable.”

But Lardner told LSN, “I’m definitely still running. My name is on the ballot.”

All this, he said “shows what happens when you stand up for free speech,” against the “politically correct bullies” in and out of the Conservative party.

His sacking, he told LSN, is an indication of deep problems in the UK’s Conservative party. Lardner noted Cameron’s habit of presenting himself as a Christian “when it suits him,” but said, “If I’m unsuitable as a candidate for holding [traditional Christian] views, then what of the majority of the membership who are Christians?”

“I think David Cameron must make clear whether or not he wants Christians to vote for the Conservative party. By suspending me, he has effectively said there is no place for Christians in the party. Does he or does he not want the vote of Christians who share my views?”

Lardner’s comments have been removed from the Tory party campaign website, but they have been retrieved by the homosexualist news website PinkNews.

Lardner had written: “I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common-sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it.”

He went on to question the government’s attempts to force churches to accept homosexuals as ministers, an example of the same “equalities” ideology that has also created legal conflicts for Christian teachers, nurses, policemen and schools. “Why should Christian churches be forced by the Government to employ homosexuals as ‘ministers’ against all that the Bible teaches? They are being forced by the Government to betray their mission,” Lardner wrote.

“Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between ‘unfortunate’ and simply ‘wrong’ and they should not be penalised for politely saying so — good manners count too, of course. The current ‘law’ is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values.”

Lardner indicated little surprise at the response to these comments, saying, “I thought there would be a reaction, but I did it to inform of my local constituents of my opinion.” The point of making the comments was “openness and transparency,” he said.

Nevertheless, running as an independent is going to be difficult, Lardner said, although he added that he is confident that he has the support of constituents.

“Ideally if I had the funding I’d put out a letter explaining what has happened.” At the moment he says is hoping that those who “believe in the same values I’ve expressed” will come forward with offers of financial help. “I’m confident that the people of Arran will back me,” he added.

Lardner, a member of the Tories since the mid-1980s, said that with its “modernizing” program and recently acquired dedication to the homosexualist agenda, the Tory party has cut itself off from the majority of its own membership and from the general voting public.

“It’s my party,” Lardner said, “and my local members’ party as much as it’s David Cameron’s party. The Conservative party is one of the most important social institutions of the United Kingdom. It has contributed hugely to the success and development of the United Kingdom. One or two people shouldn’t be allowed to highjack that from the party’s roots.”

The problem the Conservative party is facing, he said, is that it “does not respect the public and the public’s views.”

With even the homosexualist movement admitting that the homosexual population constitutes only between 3 and 10 per cent of the voting public, Lardner is not the only one questioning the emphasis the Conservative Party has placed on the movement’s ideologies.

James Delingpole, a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, wrote recently, “But gays aren’t normal. Some of my best friends are gay and I don’t think any of them would describe their sexual preferences as ‘normal’.”

Delingpole wrote that the sacking of Lardner by the Tories is a bad sign for the party.

“Conservatism is a broad and tolerant church – and that ought to include toleration of the mild intolerance of free citizens like Lardner…. [W]hen the Conservative party starts playing the game of ‘offence-taking’, ‘victimhood,’ ‘minority grievance’ and so on, it is doing so on terms entirely dictated by the false values of the liberal-Left.”

Tim Montgomerie of the blog Conservative Home said, “I see no evidence for hatefulness in Mr. Lardner’s remarks, even though I disagree with his choice of words.

“Although he’s probably wrong to say ‘most of the population’ share his views, they are shared by many conservative Christians and people of other faiths. His suspension by the Scottish Conservative Party seems a disproportionate response.”

To contact the Conservative Party
Scottish Conservative Central Office
83 Princes Street
Edinburgh EH2 2ER
info@scottishconservatives.com
Phone: 0131 247 6890
Fax: 0131 247 6891

To contact Philip Lardner:
philiplardner@aol.com

Read related LSN coverage:
British Party Leaders Bash Pope Benedict in Televised Debate
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042704.html

UK Tories Publish “Rainbow List” of Gay Candidates
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031002.html

Only Hope for a More Conservative Britain is a Tory Loss: Conservative Insider
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032901.html

British Tories will Institute Gay ‘Marriage’ and Adoption: Gay Frontbencher
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10021908.html

Eastern Michigan University: Change Your Christian Beliefs or Leave Program

Legislators Question Expulsion of Christian Students

Lawmakers in Michigan are preparing to call on the carpet leaders of taxpayer-supported universities across the state after top officials at Eastern Michigan University expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Obama Insists He's as Radical as any Homosexualist Radical

. . . A curse on both their houses; although we do enjoy these clashes between the Democrat Stalinists and Trotskyites!


From Yahoo News

President Obama is used to hearing his name yelled angrily at conservative Tea Party protests. On Monday night, however, he faced hecklers at a more unlikely venue: a Democratic fundraiser in Los Angeles for California Sen. Barbara Boxer.

And yes, the hecklers were attacking the president from the left. "Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'!" the protesters yelled, referring to the 1993 military policy that bans gays and lesbians from openly serving. Obama responded, "We are going to do that; hey, hold on a second, hold on a second."

The rest of the crowd then began chanting Obama's signature campaign chant: "Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!" You can watch the outburst — and Obama's replies — here:

During the 2008 campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged to kill the controversial policy, and in January's State of the Union address, he reiterated that vow. But progress has been slow. The administration claims that's because a full repeal would require a separate bill in Congress repudiating the congressionally approved 1993 law — and it's been hard to work such a bill into an already overcrowded Capitol Hill agenda. In March, the Pentagon announced it was relaxing enforcement of the ban, to clear the path for eventual repeal.

Obama returned to the issue of repeal in his Monday speech. "When you've got an ally like Barbara Boxer and you've got an ally like me who are standing for the same thing, then you don't know exactly why you've got to holler, because we already hear you, all right," Obama remarked to applause. "I mean, it would have made more sense to holler that at the people who oppose it."

But the hollering didn't let up. "It's time for equality for all Americans," shouted one. Obama again stressed his opposition to the ban, and again said, "I don't know why you're hollering." The group broke into another "Yes we can!" chant.

Obama then sought to return to the event's main theme: Boxer's re-election. Sen. Boxer "didn't even vote for 'don't ask, don't tell' in the first place," the president noted. "So you know she's going to be in favor of repealing 'don't ask, don't tell.' "

— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

Obama Orders Hospital Visitation Rights for Gays, Lesbians

We expect all the Executive Orders and laws in the world won't provide one South Carolina homosexualist hate blogger any company during his death throes. Even his own mother doesn't want anything to do with him.

President Obama has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a rule that would prevent hospitals from denying visitation privileges to gay and lesbian partners.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Judicial Activism 'At Absolute Worst' in Texas

From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts

Courts in two major Texas cities, Austin and Dallas, have granted two lesbian couples divorces -- in direct defiance of voters who amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Kelly Shackelford, president of Liberty Institute, tells OneNewsNow that The Lone Star is experiencing what has already been happening in other states. "What we're seeing is judicial activism at its absolute worst," he comments. "This is something that was put to a vote of all the people in Texas. The vote was overwhelming – 76 percent of the state said very clearly that they wanted marriage to be a man and a woman, period."

Attorney General Greg Abbott requested both judges to reconsider, but that appeal has been declined. So the question is whether the cases might result in a constitutional challenge between the attorney general and the judges -- and Shackelford believes that they will.

"What the judge in Dallas did is just unbelievable," he contends. "Nobody even asked this judge to overturn the state constitution, but she held that the constitution is unconstitutional, and then went to a fundraiser, bragging about what she had done."

The Liberty Institute president concludes that that is pure judicial activism. He plans to take the case to the state Court of Appeals later this month.

Pediatricians Warn Educators: 'Pro-Gay' Attitude toward Gender Confusion Damages Children

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

The American College of Pediatricians has cautioned educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion, saying that a pro-homosexuality attitude could disrupt a natural uncertainty in youth for the worse.

“As pediatricians, our primary interest is in the health and well-being of children and youth,” Dr. Den Trumbull, Vice President of the College explains. “We are increasingly concerned that in too many instances, misinformation or incorrect assumptions are guiding well-intentioned educators to adopt policies that are actually harmful to those youth dealing with sexual confusion.”

These concerns are outlined in a letter and fact sheet sent by College president Thomas Benton, MD, to all 14,800 school district superintendents in the U.S.

Dr. Benton also alerts them to a new web resource, FactsAboutYouth.com, which was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.

The College reminded school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation, and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, the doctors warned that schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion.

Such premature labeling, they said, can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

Because there is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered, the College noted, schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

Family Watch International, a pro-family advocacy group, backed the pediatricians' letter and urged parents to spread the crucial information.

"While the ACP can lay out the facts to educators, it is up to parents and other concerned individuals to now follow up with them," wrote FWI president Sharon Slater in an email to constituents. "We must make sure schools do not simply ignore the facts for such reasons of personal bias or political correctness."

Arthur Goldberg, a board certified counselor and expert on assisting individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that, "Unfortunately prior to the American College of Pediatricians' (ACOP) effort to develop the new web site http://www.factsaboutyouth.com/ and the factual material they sent to school district superintendents, hundreds of false and misleading books, pamphlets, films, and other materials were absorbed - with our taxpayer dollars - into America's public school systems."

Goldberg cited as one example a pamphlet distributed in 2008 by the National Education Association and the American Psychological Association entitled "Just the Facts," which he says was "issued for the distinct purpose of radically impacting how schools dealt with the sexual consciousness and behavior of school age children." The booklet discourages discussion of therapy to change same-sex attraction, and upholds homosexuality as a "normal expression of human sexuality."

Contrary to the booklet's claims that homosexuality is unchangeable, said Goldberg, "there is clear and convincing evidence that many factors can lead an adolescent into homosexual behavior - including curiosity, a feeling of not fitting in, the experience of earlier molestation, and a desire for attention or a sense of belonging. Teen years often serve as a transitional phase when affectional, emotional and identification needs can be too easily sexualized."

"Because the premature gay self-labeling that is encouraged by 'Just the Facts' and other such material presents major public health risks, ACOP, as a medical organization dedicating to best practices in child-rearing, has performed a major public service by making their material available to school administrators, students and their parents," he said.

Census used as 'Gay Gimmick'

Traditional marriage proponents are warning that homosexual activists and the Obama administration are once again working in concert to "manipulate" federal law.

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Brown and Charlie Butts

The Associated Press reports that the Census Bureau plans to count same-sex couples who say they are married, regardless of whether they have a marriage license (see AP article). Even though only five states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex "marriages," the Census Bureau says same-sex couples should feel free to check the "husband" or "wife" boxes on the census form, rather than "unmarried partner."

Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, argues that the Bureau is clearly violating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriages.

"What they're obviously trying to do is magnify the numbers of homosexuals in the society," he suspects. "This dates way back in the gay movement. There was a time when homosexual activists just lied and said that ten percent of the public was gay -- that was a bald-faced lie. It took decades to finally disprove that lie, but here again we see them calling themselves married because they want to be called married. Well, that's not what the law says."

LaBarbera believes homosexual activists are using the census as their latest "gimmick" to seek affirmation of their lifestyle, and he challenges Congress to "step up" and prevent the Obama administration from promoting the "gay" agenda by dictate.

Marriage by opinion is not marriage by law

Similarly, Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, believes the source for the Bureau's instructions can perhaps be traced as far as the White House. (Listen to audio report)

"It's a shame that the Census Bureau, in tangent with radical homosexual activists, are choosing to use the census, which is supposed to provide objective, quantifiable information relative to varying demographics around the country, that they're using this as a tool for political activism," Barber laments.

He notes that just because a homosexual couple might call their relationship a marriage, that does not make it so. "It is directly contrary to probably the letter, at least the spirit, of the Defense of Marriage Act," he adds.

The federal law recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the cultural affairs director believes the purpose in the census campaign is to "create an impression in the minds of the American people" that the movement for legalizing homosexual marriage has more steam behind it than it actually does.

Protest Erupts as Gallaudet University Plans Offensive Homosexual 'Jesus' Play with Federal Tax Dollars

Thousands of students and concerned parents are calling for the cancellation of a blasphemous play at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. The offensive production Corpus Christi by Terrence McNally portrays Christ and the twelve Apostles as homosexuals.

The lewd production was recently canceled at Tarleton State University in Texas due to peaceful protest. And now Gallaudet University is facing a similar protest for its decision to host the play on April 8-10.

Among those calling for the cancellation of the play is a Catholic group called The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property -- TFP. Its student members launched an online petition last week inviting people to send protest emails to the university. Thousands have already done so at www.tfpstudentaction.org.

"Blasphemy does not qualify as free speech," said TFP Student Action director John Ritchie. "Just as everyone is entitled to their own good reputation, Gallaudet University has no right to harm and slander the spotless reputation of the God-Man with blasphemy, then run to academic freedom for cover."

"Does Gallaudet University want to stamp out the sacred reputation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and replace it with scorn, mockery and blasphemy?" asked Ritchie. "When it comes to Our Lord, I find nothing but Christophobia here."

"In fact, federal funds comprise 70% of Gallaudet's revenue. And it just adds insult to injury when those federal tax dollars are being used to promote blasphemy. That's simply unacceptable," he said. "Our peaceful message to Dr. T. Alan Hurwitz, president of Gallaudet University, is simple: cancel the play."

When the play staged in Cincinnati in 2003, Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk stated: "Corpus Christi seems to go out of its way to present Jesus and His story in the crudest and ugliest of ways." He further added, "I believe that this play will offend the sensibilities of most people who reverence the Lord Jesus in any way."

Those who wish to sign the petition may click here.

Pope Benedict's Critics Don't Care About Kids

From The Washington Times
By George Neumayr

Since when have secularists and dissenting Catholics been experts on the protection of children?

These self-appointed reformers of the Catholic Church preside over a debased culture that abuses, aborts and corrupts children. That a reckless and depraved liberal elite would set itself up as moral tutor to Pope Benedict XVI is beyond satire.

Here we had on display during Holy Week the spectacle of the Vicar of Christ receiving moral instruction from Barabbas. Who turns orphans over to homosexual couples at adoption agencies? Who sends Planned Parenthood propagandists into schools? Who clears the streets of major cities for "gay-pride" parades with the North American Man/Boy Love Association in tow? It is the liberal elite who champion these child-corrupting practices. And wasn't it just last year that these enlightened protectors of children assembled at the golden coffin of Michael Jackson to pay their last respects? Where was the outrage about child corruption then?

The National Catholic Reporter, the flagship publication of dissenting Catholicism, which has joined the secularist posse hunting down Benedict, calls for a stern and unsparing investigation of him. This is the same publication that publishes the homilies of Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, one of which stated in 2002, at the height of the abuse scandal in America, that the "zero-tolerance" policy shouldn't apply to priests attracted to children above the age of puberty. "I do not support the 'zero tolerance' approach in every instance," he sniffed.

Another NCR article from 2002 stated: "Zero tolerance is a blunt object of punishment. All abuse is an offense against human dignity, but just as the severity of sins differs in traditional Catholic teaching, and the severity of punishment in civil law varies according to many factors, not all abuses are the same. In our overheated atmosphere, this is difficult for many to admit. A priest who briefly exposed himself to a teenager has not committed the same act as a priest who raped a minor."

Let's cut through the nonsense: The assault on Benedict last week had nothing to do with the protection of children and everything to do with the liberal elite's hatred for his orthodoxy. The three stooges - Maureen Dowd, Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan - are casting lots for his robe, not because they toss and turn at night worrying about a permissive priesthood, but because they hate the conservative teachings of the Catholic Church that Benedict embodies. They are still upset that the church elected a Catholic to the papacy rather than a modern liberal. Miss Dowd is using the abuse scandal to push her feminism, Mr. Hitchens his atheism and Mr. Sullivan his homosexual activism.

The truth is that Pope Benedict has done more to address the abuse scandal in the church than his predecessor, whose tenure never excited anywhere near this level of calls for resignation. The Associated Press even acknowledged as much: "Benedict took a much harder stance on sex abuse than John Paul II when he assumed the papacy five years ago, disciplining a senior cleric [the Rev. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ] championed by the Polish pontiff and defrocking others under a new policy of zero tolerance."

According to Reuters news agency on March 28, "Vienna's Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, in defense of the pope, told ORF Austrian television on Sunday that Benedict wanted a full probe when former Vienna Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer was removed in 1995 for claimed sexual abuse of a boy. But other Curia officials persuaded then Pope John Paul that the media had exaggerated the case and an inquiry would only create more bad publicity. 'He told me, "the other side won," ' Schoenborn said."

So why is Benedict held to a higher standard than John Paul II? Is it because he's seen as more conservative by the liberal elite? Perhaps. Their unstated and perversely ironic objection to Benedict in the wake of the abuse scandal is not that he has pursued too few reforms but too many. Recall that the New York Times and other liberal newspapers roundly denounced him for one of his first major reforms as pope: a directive issued to bishops that banned the ordination of homosexuals. That is not the liberal elite's idea of reform, even though most of the abuse cases involve homosexual pederasty. Hence, they blame Benedict for a lax and dysfunctional priesthood while at the same time hectoring him for not letting homosexuals into it. They blame "celibacy" for the scandal (which rests on, among other inane assumptions, the idea the abusers were celibate in the first place) rather than acknowledge the role in it of the very low and aberrant seminary admission standards that they clamored for the church to embrace in the relativistic 1960s.

For all the opportunistic laments about "leniency" in recent days, their real hope for the church is not that it returns to her morally rigorous traditions but that it abolishes them. And it is precisely because Benedict stands in the way of this goal that they now go in for the kill.

George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report.

American Street Preacher Arrested in Britain for Declaring Homosexual Behavior a Sin

From LifeSiteNews
By Hilary White

An American street preacher has been arrested and fined £1000 in Glasgow for telling passersby, in answer to a direct question, that homosexual activity is a sin. Shawn Holes was kept in jail overnight on March 18, and in the morning pled guilty to charges that he had made “homophobic remarks…aggravated by religious prejudice.”

Holes, a 47 year-old former wedding photographer from Lake Placid, New York, was in Glasgow as part of a preaching tour of Britain with a group of British and American colleagues. He said, “I was talking generally about Christianity and sin.”

“I only talked about these other issues because I was specifically asked. There were homosexuals listening – around six or eight – who were kissing each other and cuddling, and asking ‘What do you think of this?’” A group of homosexuals approached police with a complaint. Holes later said that the situation seemed like a “set-up by gay campaigners.”

“When asked directly about homosexuality, I told them homosexuals risked the wrath of God unless they accepted Christ.”

The charge, under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, has angered freedom of speech advocates in Britain and has even been criticized by homosexualist campaigner Peter Tatchell who called the £1,000 “totally disproportionate.” Local Christians supporting the preaching ministry took up a collection and paid the fine.

Tatchell told the Daily Mail, “The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticize religion, people of faith should have the right to criticize homosexuality. Only incitements to violence should be illegal.”

Holes relates that at the same time he had been asked for his views on Islam and had said he believed there is only one true Christian God and that the Prophet Mohammed is a “sinner like the rest of us.”

He said that two men who were listening spoke to police officers who approached him and said, “These people say you said homos are going to Hell.”

“I told them I would never say that, because I don't use the term homo. But I was arrested.”

Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Glasgow told the Scotsman, “We supported [hate crime] legislation but it is very difficult to see how this man can be charged for expressing a religious conviction.

“The facts of this case show his statement was clearly his religious belief. Yes, it is strong language he has used, but it is obviously a religious conviction and not a form of discrimination.”

Gordon Macdonald, of Christian Action Research and Education for Scotland, said, “This is a concerning case. I will be writing to Chief Constable Stephen House of Strathclyde Police for clarification of the guidance given to police officers in these situations.”

In related news, a district judge has thrown out the case against another street preacher, Paul Shaw, who was arrested on February 19 in Colchester over comments he made about homosexual activity. Shaw, who did not plead guilty, said, “I’ve preached regularly for about three or four years without incident.

“In four years, I’ve only dealt with homosexuality about twice.” Shaw told the judge that he was obliged to act according to his conscience and that homosexuality was a significant issue in Britain today. The case was dismissed through lack of evidence and written testimony from complainants.

Shaw said, “My reasons were twofold. Firstly, there is a consequence for the country and society if society does not appreciate the difference between right and wrong, particularly noticeable by homosexuality.

“As a nation, we are coming under God’s judgment not very far away in the future and there will be terrible consequences for this if it is not made unlawful again. Secondly, on a personal level, as with all other sins, it needs to be repented of in order to enter the Kingdom of God.”

District Judge David Cooper told Shaw, “There are other sorts of ‘sins’. Do you think you could concentrate on those for a bit?”

Meanwhile, a new study conducted on behalf of religious think-tank Theos has shown that nearly 1/3 of British people think that Christians are being marginalized and religious freedom has been restricted. The report’s author Professor Roger Trigg, wrote, “A free society should never be in the business of muzzling religious voices, let alone in the name of democracy or feigned neutrality.”

“We also betray our heritage and make our present position precarious if we value freedom, but think that the Christian principles which have inspired the commitment of many to democratic ideals are somehow dispensable,” Professor Trigg said.

New Hampshire Rallies for Chance to Vote on Marriage

Every single ballot initiative on same-sex "marriage" has upheld the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Despite all the noise, hate, anti-Christian bigotry, threats and disordered rage that will emanate from homosexualists and their anti-Christian hate bloggers over yet another referendum, at the end of the day the people of New Hampshire, like those in 30 other states, will affirm God's natural law.

From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts

Many New Hampshire towns have sent a message to the legislature, voicing the desire to vote on the issue of same-sex "marriage."

The state legislature recently legalized homosexual marriage after balking at giving voters a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the traditional way of being between one man and one woman. State Representative David Bates notes the issue was on the agenda in recent town hall meetings throughout the state, and 38 towns have already passed the measure.

"The results of the vote statewide showed over 60 percent of the public is in favor of having the opportunity to vote on the constitutional amendment," he reports.

The state representative considers the results to be compelling, and he suggests they demonstrate what his premise was to begin with.

"The people of New Hampshire are not happy with the change of the law to redefine marriage, and they want the opportunity to vote on this constitutional amendment as 30 other states have done," he contends.

What impact that has on the legislature remains to be seen, but Representative Bates says he is so encouraged by the vote that he will resubmit legislation to take the issue to the voters. He says success depends entirely on New Hampshire residents pressuring lawmakers to vote yes.

Federal Judge's Ruling Boomerangs on California Homosexualist Groups

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

Opponents of California’s constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage” have just found out that their success in gaining access to the campaign memos of the pro-family groups defending Prop. 8 has gone further than they intended.

The federal judge hearing the landmark Perry v. Schwarzenegger case has now ruled that lawyers defending Prop. 8 will also have their turn to examine their opponents’ campaign memos, and use them as evidence to support their arguments for the constitutionality of the state marriage amendment approved by voters in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker affirmed the ruling by Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, which said that Equality California and the American Civil Liberties Union, both opponents of the ban, must surrender tens of thousands of campaign emails exchanged among No on Prop. 8 groups, so that the legal team defending the California same-sex “marriage” ban can see if they contain any evidence that would bolster their case.

The ruling is a major twist of irony, since the ACLU and Equality California would not be facing scrutiny over their campaign memos had they not demanded the federal court order the release of “Yes on 8”’s campaign documents. The groups fighting the marriage amendment said they needed the opposing side’s documents in order to help them demonstrate that an anti-homosexual “animus” motivated the ban on same-sex “marriage,” making the ban unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Equality California and the ACLU appealed the original ruling to Walker – potentially considering him sympathetic as a homosexual judge – before whom they argued that their internal communications were irrelevant to the case. Attorneys defending Prop. 8 argued that the ACLU and Equality California memos would help demonstrate why a ban on same-sex “marriage” was necessary, and would prove that political power of homosexuals makes them anything but a powerless group.

But the homosexualist groups also protested that their campaign memos were protected by the First Amendment, and resorted to arguments that the Yes on 8 campaign had used to justify the protection of their own campaign documents and internal communications.

However, Walker explained that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals “determined that campaign documents may lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” He also added that the circuit court’s decision was not limited to “the side that succeeded in persuading voters.”

Walker also further explained that the standard applied by the court only went so far as to protect the internal memos shared by a “core group of individuals” within a group - anything else was fair game. “The standard does not protect campaign communications that are not private and internal," the judge ruled.

The ACLU and Equality California have appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court. If Walker’s decision stands, the groups will have to comply with the magistrate’s order that they hand over non-privileged documents by March 31.

Walker said pro-family attorneys defending Prop. 8 will have until April 12 to submit evidence, before he schedules closing arguments.

Read full ruling here (via Courthouse News

Episcopal Church USA Approves Lesbian Bishop

The Episcopal Church has approved the election of a lesbian assistant bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles, making her the second openly homosexual bishop in the global Anglican Communion.

Episcopal conservatives said the approval of the Rev. Mary Glasspool was "grieving the heart of God."

Read the rest of this entry >>