6 ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion

Anyone who is concerned about the influence of the homosexual agenda on reshaping traditional values must become intimately familiar with the major tactics that homophiles commonly employ in order to anticipate them and respond in charity and truth. Homophile strategists are adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half‑truths:

    Exploit the “victim” status;
    Use the sympathetic media;
    Confuse and neutralize the churches;
    Slander and stereotype Christians;
    Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
    Intimidation.

One reason these tactics have worked so well is that homophile activists have succeeded in marketing a harmless and friendly image of their movement. They have lulled people into thinking that the wider society will not be adversely affected by their radical social agenda. Homosexual strategists have, in many cases, toned down their extreme rhetoric and have cloaked their agenda in soothing language. Over time, however, many have begun to think of themselves and others as “homophobes” or “haters” if they oppose any aspect of the homosexual rights agenda — or, incredibly, even if they question it in their own minds.

Generals and attorneys often wish that their opponents would write a book. Interestingly, leaders of the “homosexual rights” movement did exactly that. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen clearly laid out this agenda in the marching orders of the movement, After the Ball:  How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s. This volume is a treasure chest of information for those pro-family stalwarts who are actively engaged against the homosexual rights agenda.

By far the most popular homophile tactic is the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square. Kirk and Madsen summarize the potent effectiveness of the victim status:

    In any campaign to win over the public, gays (sic)  must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights (sic) will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. … The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status. … the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. … gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. There is rejection of the evidence that homosexual behavior can be cured.

Does this sound familiar? It does if one pays attention to any mainstream media coverage of these controversial issues as they play out in law and society. But the victim status requires a story to back it up. Thus, perhaps the most common lament of the garden-variety homophile revolves around the alleged “tidal wave of anti-gay” hate crimes.

An analysis of FBI statistics on hate crimes committed against homosexuals during the time period 2000-2008  (eight years) shows that the probability of any individual homosexual being the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is slightly more than one percent. In fact, “gays” are more likely to commit hate crimes against “straights” than “straights” are to commit hate crimes against “gays.”

Violence against homosexuals by others gets all the press, but it is interesting to note that the great majority of anti-”gay” violence is committed by other “gays.”


This confusion is now pervasive in society, and questioning the agenda is simply not to be tolerated – especially among America’s youth.

For example, the classical notion that universities should be “arenas for the free exchange of ideas” has been completely discarded in the United States. More than three-fourths of U.S. colleges and universities now possess codes of conduct that ban behavior and speech based upon, including many other things, “homophobia.”


No one should attempt to deny homosexuals their basic human rights; which are the same basic rights that we all have as being sons and daughters of God. But it has gotten to the point where we have to fight to preserve our own basic rights — the rights to free speech, religion, assembly, and teaching our own children our values – in order to protect our own families and institutions.

Those who promote homosexuality are forcibly tearing away more and more of the rights of Christians, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Who could have possibly imagined just a few years ago that companies would start firing people for writing pro-family articles on their own time, or business owners would be sued for refusing to participate in homosexual union ceremonies?

Now is the time to draw the line, to stand and defend our families and our rights without apology in the public square.

IN 2004 HE SAID HE WAS BORN IN KENYA

I thought you might be interested in the 2004 newspaper article posted here.

The law doesn't give a damn about fathers

Some years ago, I was outside a pizza restaurant when a young woman turned up, pushing a stroller. She was preceded by a small boy who must have been about four years old. He stopped at the door, whereupon she said: ‘Well, open the f***ing door, you little s**t.’

I think my disillusionment with the idea that there was something sacred, sublime and beautiful about mothers and motherhood began on that day.

Shortly after, I spent some years working in a truancy center, where we tried to give a little general education to children who had missed years at school. In many cases, it was clear that the reason for these absences had been mothers who kept them at home either because the women were lonely or because they needed the children as babysitters.

Equal pressures: While there are many good mothers in the world, there are also many bad ones. However, family law continues to elevate them above fathers.

The point is that while there are many good mothers in the world, there are plenty of bad and often abusive mothers, too, yet we still have a Family Justice system that prizes mothers and motherhood, but devalues fathers.

It is not unusual to read opinion articles that are attacking absent fathers. However, the fact is that a very high proportion of fathers are absent because they are forced to be so by vindictive and possessive mothers, and the family (in)justice system that backs them up. Ever man who has young children, and he ought to consider what it might be like, if, God forbid, his marriage ever ended, to find that the courts are against him — and that any orders they made giving him access to his children were unenforceable.

He might win the right to have them for half the time, but if Samantha withheld access to the children, there would be absolutely nothing he could do about it, except apply for another order she could ignore.

EVOLUTION OF PHONY RIGHTS IN SOCIETY

Stages in which a phony "right" evolves in today's politically-correct American society:

Morally Repugnant Behavior
Morally Repugnant, but private behavior.
Morally Questionable, but private behavior.
Private Behavior, not spoken about in public.
Private Behavior, sometimes mentioned in public.
Private Behavior, mentioned frequently in public.
Public Behavior, but somewhat disrespected.
Public Behavior, demanding of respect.
Public Behavior, those who criticize are morally repugnant.
Public Behavior, a moral good.
Moral Good, must be recognized in law.
Moral Good, must not be restricted.
Moral Good, those who find it morally repugnant must be ostracized.
Moral Right.
Moral Right, must be subsidized by all.
Moral Right, must criminalize objection.
Moral Right, trumps other lesser rights (now just moral goods.)
A Right.

DO NOT GIVE IN TO UNJUST PRESSURE

Gay “marriage” is all about the legal justification for the crushing and suppression of Christian conscience. That’s what it exists for. It is a tool in the growing arsenal of tools by which radical and intolerantly militant homosexual hope to extirpate Christian conscience from the public square.

Resist.

An Iowa baker who politely declined to provide a wedding cake for two lesbians based on her Christian values may face legal action from the couple.

Same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Iowa in 2009 by the state Supreme Court, and a 2007 state civil rights act disallows discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in matters of employment, education, housing, and public accommodation.

Victoria Childress

On Tuesday KCCI 8 Des Moines interviewed Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers, who said they were “shocked” when a local wedding cake business owner declined to provide the confection for their ceremony.

“It was degrading, you know, it was like she chastised us for wanting to do business with her,” said Vodraska.

Join a Facebook page to defend marriage here.

Victoria Childress, who runs the business from her home, said she told the couple that she was unable to give them a cake based on her Christian convictions. Both she and the couple say the conversation was cordial.

“I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner. It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them,” said Childress.

“It’s not so much to do with them, as it’s to do with me, and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for,” she added.

“They thanked me for being honest with them. They were very pleasant. I did not belittle them, I did not speak rudely to them. There were no condescending remarks made, nothing.”

The news station reports that the couple is unsure whether to file a civil rights complaint with the state. However, the couple has since reportedly released a statement calling Childress a “bigot,” and the baker says she has been deluged with hate mail that she has stopped reading.

“It’s really hard to read things like that,” she told FOX News. “I’m a pretty quiet, soft-spoken person. But when I stand up for my convictions against things, I’m very strong when it comes to that.”

Christian businesses in America, including reception site owners and photographers declining to service homosexual couples, have routinely been targeted for lawsuits and harassment in states that have legalized same-sex “marriage” or civil unions. Often the complaints spread through media, particularly gay blogs, where gay rights supporters are encouraged to keep up pressure on the offenders.

PORNOGRAPHY AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Captured caches of terrorist material often include pornography. Could pornography pose a risk to national security?

 A federal grand jury recently indicted Army soldier Naser Jason Abdo, age 21, on three charges related to a plot to attack soldiers near Fort Hood, Texas. When authorities arrested him, they found in his possession bomb-making materials, a gun, ammunition, and the article ”Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” from a recent issue of al-Qaeda’s English online journal Inspire. Initial questioning of Abdo indicates that his intended targets were U.S. military personnel.

Much of the attention on this case so far has focused on Abdo’s religion—Islam—and his refusal to deploy to Afghanistan. As Rep. John Carter, whose 31st District in Texas includes Fort Hood, announced, “We may well have averted a repeat of the tragic 2009 radical Islamic terror attack.”

Any effort to make sense of this troubled young man will need to include understanding how he chose to approach and interpret his religion, and perhaps most importantly, why he adopted the interpretation he did. Any effort to understand Abdo without considering this question would be profoundly incomplete.

Yet tucked away, often near the closing paragraph of the articles about this case, is mention of an issue that I believe warrants more attention than it has received in the past decade of terrorism studies: namely, pornography. And in Abdo’s case, child pornography.

In May, the Army charged Abdo with possession of child pornography found on a computer he used. Due to this charge, when Abdo was found to be “absent without leave” (AWOL) from his unit in Kentucky earlier this month, the Army was preparing an Article 32 hearing against him, which can lead to a general court martial.

Pornography is not a necessary cause of terrorism. The abolition of pornography would not lead to the cessation of terrorism in the world. Terrorism existed well before graphic pornography and its mass spread via the internet.

Likewise, pornography is not a sufficient cause for terrorism. There are pornography users, even addicts, who do not become terrorists. Given how widespread the viewing of pornography is today, if the direct result of each individual’s pornography use were terrorist violence, one could conceivably argue that pornography proliferation would pose a more widespread threat to human existence than nuclear proliferation.

Yet pornography now appears frequently in the possession of violent terrorists and their supporters, including Osama bin Laden. Regarding “smut” found on captured media, in 2010, a Department of Defense al-Qaeda analyst was quoted in The Atlantic: “We have terabytes of this stuff.” Terabytes. That’s a lot of “smut.”

I wonder whether the pornography of today—now ubiquitous and increasingly grotesque—is one of the influences warping the mentality of those who aspire to or who actually go on to engage in ever more grotesque public violence.

SOROS MONEY AGAIN

The so-called leaderless Occupy movement was caught red-handed operating a nerve center staffed by professional agitators deeply tied to groups funded by billionaire activist George Soros.

The groups, most prominent among them being the Tides Center, was involved with Occupy since the anti-Wall Street movement's inception.

The radical connections were largely missed by the general public. CNN, the only news media outlet to receive exclusive access to Occupy's alleged headquarters, did not fully identify the activists found running them.