Dec 29, 2010

RINO Watch List: Jesse Hathaway

Jesse Hathaway is a victim of "the progressive re-education camps of Ohio University and the People’s Republik of Athens." Since he completed his degree, probably in "Queer Theory," this brainwashed former O-H-I-O student has become a bonofied left-wing pro-sodomy activist, who for some reason thinks he's a conservative.

In an article entitled "Teh Ghey" Jesse outs himself on David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog as the moral equivalent of a true-blue dues paying Radical Faerie. In a few decades he'll be found under the big Alex Knepper tent, no doubt.

In case you're interested, aside from long walks on beautiful Myrtle Beach, SC this homosexualist also enjoys "getting curious and poking his nose where it doesn't belong", and long winded fallacies. He especially loves the following appeal-to-ridicule, in response to hearing that seven conservative groups have exercised their God-given libereties to pull out of the David Keene, Grover Norquist and Lisa De Pasquale event that many are now referring to as FudgePAC 2011, (here's why) formerly referred to as the Conservative Political Action Conference:

"...some leading social conservatives were afraid that they would catch the virulent and deadly virus called “Teh Ghey,” if they were seen in public with conservative people who were sexually attracted to members of the same sex."

This quote needs no response, as it is absolutely hilarious. Mr. Hathaway is also fond of thought terminating cliche's:

"I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me, and is legal."

I could go on and on with the fallacies, but hey I'll dive in here, onto this rhetorical question (he wishes) since it looks nice and soft to me. Secret vices have a way of not staying secret, Mr. Hathaway, especially when they result in big public consequences that provide perfectly intelligible reasons for legal proscription, or, short of that, non-legally coercive public efforts to discourage them.

Public Consequence Number 1: $20,500,000,000 per year in government spending on HIV.

Is that expensive enough for you to declare sodomy a public issue Mr. Hathaway? If not then what would be? A trillion dollars? The federal budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes a total of $20.5 billion for domestic HIV and AIDS, a 5% increase from the FY 2010 funding, which totaled $19.4 billion.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association approximately three out of four American AIDS patients have been males who have chosen to participate in the homosexual lifestyle and every single incedent could have been prevented. Talk about one man's personal irresponsibility effecting others. I don't think there is a better example! I haven't even gotten into the devestation they cause their own mothers and family members when they have to come clean and announce that they have contracted a mortal disease like HIV. The heartbreak must be unreal and drawn out over years. I don't even want to think about it, it's so sad.

Domestic federal funding for AIDS programs falls into four basic categories: care and treatment, financial and housing assistance, prevention, and research. Of these four budgets, care spending is by far the largest - just over half of the FY 2010 budget request is for care and treatment programs. The majority of AIDS care funding goes out through the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs for people who do not have adequate private health insurance.

Now, that is just for HIV. Imagine the public costs associated with treating the psychological and other physical diseases associated with the homosexual lifestyle. The health consequences associated with sodomy are rediculous. Here are a few more stats from the Journal of the American Medical Association for you to peruse good sir. Compared to other men, males who engage in same-sex conduct are:

727 percent more likely to have suffered bipolar disorders at some point in their lives, and 502 percent more likely in the last twelve months.

718 percent more likely to have suffered obsessive-compulsive disorder in the last twelve months, and 620 percent more likely at some point in their lives.

632 percent more likely to have suffered agoraphobia (fear of leaving home or being in public) in the last twelve months, and 454 percent more likely at some point in their lives.

421 percent more likely to have suffered panic disorder, and 229 percent more likely to have suffered social phobia at some point in their lives.

375 percent more likely to have suffered simple phobia in the last twelve months, and 361 percent more likely at some point in their lives.

311 percent more likely to have suffered mood disorders at some point in their lives, and 293 percent more likely in the last twelve months.

261 percent more likely to have suffered anxiety disorders in the last twelve months, and 267 percent more likely over the course of their lifetimes.

270 percent more likely to have suffered two or more psychiatric disorders during their lifetime.

235 percent more likely to have suffered major depression at some point in their lives.

Compared to other women, females who engage in same-sex conduct are:

405 percent more likely to have suffered a substance use disorder.

241 percent more likely to have suffered mood disorders during their lifetimes.

209 percent more likely to have suffered two or more mental disorders during their lifetimes.

etc. etc. etc.

The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex include: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lablia, herpes simplex virus, HIV, HPV, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis, Gay Bowel Syndrome and other sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes.
Lesbians are also at increased risk for certain diseases, including HIV, cancer, hepatitis C, and bacteria vaginosis, predominantly because they are “significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user). The average "lesbian" has more male sex partners in her lifetime than does the average straight woman.

With the prevalence of disease—both physical and mental—among those who engage in sodomy, it should come as no surprise that the supposedly inconsequential private vice called sodomy carries with it a long laundry list of very real public consequences, that effect you, me, and our wallets too.

There you have it Jesse. I hope that answers your question about some of the public consequences of private vice. Be sure to tune in tomorrow when I take another liberal posing as a conservative to task.

RINO Watch List: Lisa DePasquale

Recently Lisa De Pasquale, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Director for the American Conservative Union has been lobbying to bring the pro-sodomy advocacy organization "GOProud" to the CPAC, one of several large conservative gatherings that take place in Washington D.C. each year.

Lisa De Pasquale's decision is highly controversial, leaving many questioning whether she should continue at ACU as CPAC Director.

Joe Cox, the Director of Online Relations for the Young Conservatives of California had this to say:

"Homosexuality is not something most Americans are comfortable discussing, let alone promoting. So why is Lisa De Pasquale hijacking the Conservative Political Action Conference in an effort to use its name as a public relations tool for the gay agenda?"

It seems that Mr. Cox is correct. According to recent online polling more Americans than ever support a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This strong public showing of support for traditional marriage and morality stands in sharp contrast to the legal opinions of several activist Judges, including most recently Judge Vaughn Walker, who attempted to subvert California's recent marriage amendment known as Proposition 8.

With such strong general support for marriage and rising support for the sanctity of life in the abortion debate, many are wondering why Lisa De Pasquale is pushing social conservatives away from CPAC. It just doesn't make sense.

Recently seven social/fiscal conservative non-profits pulled out of CPAC in response to Pasquale's controversial decision, including the Family Research Council, which puts on the massive Family Values Voters Summit in Washington each year.

Other organizations that pulled out of CPAC include The Concerned Women for America, The National Organization for Marriage, the American Principles Project, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, and Liberty Council.

On December 29th Brent Bozell, the nephew of Bill Buckley Jr and chairman of the Media Research Center indicated that MRC may not attend the CPAC either this year.

Alberto Arellano, a College Republican from UC Riverside wonders if Lisa De Pasquale is actually doing more harm than good for conservative efforts to restore public support.

"Lisa De Pasquale is trying to foist the homosexual agenda upon the conservative movement and a lot of us don't like it. We conservatives are the ones least likley to tolerate the immoral homosexual lifestyle, let alone promote it. This is rediculous" stated Arellano. "Why is she doing this?" he asks.

Many conservatives, including Arellano and Cox are hoping that Miss De Pasquale will change her mind or else step down as the CPAC Director at the American Conservative Union.

"Miss De Pasquale is not representing the principles of social conservatives, and social conservatives make up a major wing of the conservative movement. So I don't think she should be in charge of a conference that is meant to represent all conservatives, like CPAC does."

By Courtney McCarty

Dec 28, 2010

The “GOProud” Agenda

Andrew Breitbart, GOProud Board Member

Recently a group of radical pro-“gay” activists, Christopher Barron, Jimmy LeSalvia, and Bruce Carroll put together a small card board box organization designed to make headlines and headway. The organization is called GOProud, and its leaders are dedicated to doing whatever it takes to conjure up the illusion that the American right, has gone left, on social issues. The organization’s mission:

"We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people."

The aforementioned tweet was posted at 4:04 p.m. on Aug. 4, by Christopher Barron -the organizations founder. GOProud claims to be “conservative,” but Barron’s primary-venture, CapSouth Consulting provides services almost exclusively to “centrist” organizations such as the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republicans Who Care Individual Fund – a 527 seeking to elect centrist’s to the House and Senate. The GOProud webpage states that the organization is committed to a “traditional conservative agenda,” but the very nature of the group, its questionable ties and short track record strongly suggests otherwise.

Since its inception GOProud has repeatedly attacked conservatives and TEA Party icons like Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and Mike Pence for supporting marriage and apposing their radical “GOProud” agenda. They attacked numerous TEA Party candidates during the 2010 campaign season. They even attacked long-standing conservative not-for-profit organizations like Americans for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property and the conservative youth group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), founded by William F. Buckley Jr., the oldest and most respected group of its kind.

Despite GOProud’s self-avowed conservatism, many are beginning to wonder whether the organization should be considered “conservative” at all, arguing that GOProud has repeatedly put its own radical “gay” agenda first, and economics, party unity and “tradition” second. This some argue, marks a stark difference between GOProud and most other conservative organizations.

Traditionally, conservative not-for-profit organizations consider themselves conservative only when their core principles coincide with that of the general conservative movement. If the primary issue of an organization is at odds with conservatism, it would be odd for that organization to refer to itself as “conservative,” strictly speaking, but this is exactly what is happening with GOProud. Why?

The answer seems obvious. Christopher Barron, Jimmy LeSalvia, and Bruce Carroll are trying to co-opt the conservative movement. They want to use the movement to normalize homosexuality, nothing more. More specifically, they want to use the “free-market” as a vehicle to promote their radical agenda and to divide and conquer their opposition. If these activists do lobby for less taxes, less government, etc. they will do it with one aim in mind: to build support for the homosexual lifestyle among conservatives and disunity between social and fiscal members of the movement. This will be evident by the way they take credit for their work. This principle is implicit in the very name of their organization, which reeks of homosexuality. If they befriend conservatives they will befriend them to reduce right-wing opposition or to build support for the homosexual lifestyle.

Grover Norquist, the crypto-Islamist and founder of “American’s for Tax Reform” used the same tactic to promote radical Islam when he founded the Islamic “Free-Market” Institute. Norquist obtained the funds for his ostensibly conservative “Institute” from Abdurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim radical serving a 22 year Federal Prison sentence for funding terrorists, including Al Qaeda. Interestingly, Grover Norquist recently joined the Board of GOProud.

If GOProud truly was an organization full of nothing-but harmless fiscal conservatives who just happened to participate in the homosexual lifestyle, then why would the organization feel the absolute need to advertise the fact that they lead a homosexual lifestyle in all they do? Homosexuality is not a conservative issue. Check it at the door. Why do these activists define themselves by their sexual acts rather than their fiscal positions? Neither the title nor the track record of GOProud seem “conservative” to me. Russell Kirk, the man who gave the modern American conservative movement its name, referred to men of unprincipled talents such as these as, “sophists and calculators,” even “Jacobins!”

Normalizing the homosexual lifestyle never was or will be a conservative issue. Conservative principles all align against homosexuality. In the words of the founder, “The conservative believes in an enduring moral order, that human nature is fixed, in continuity, and that prescription and prudence are the best methods by which to reconcile permanence and change in a vigorous society.”

These principles all level the notion that there could be a conservative homosexual organization. GOProud is a fiction, a lie, designed to manipulate public sentiment, nothing more. It is the duty of every true conservative to stand up against this heresy here and now, to pinch the wick before this burning energy has time to find the winds of the radical left and together their conflagration becomes the bonfire of true conservatism, Christianity and the natural family.

Are People Born Gay?

Find out now by reading a rough draft edition of The "Born Gay" Hoax!

Ryan Sorba's Book, The Born Gay Hoax

The "Born Gay" Hoax is nearing completion. Until the book is finished however, feel free to browse through my older rough draft edition, free of charge.

The "Born Gay" Hoax

Stephanie Mencimer: Anti-Christian/Pro-Sodomy Activist Welcome at Mother Jones?

Recently I came across a little-read Mother Jones article about my speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Febuary. During my speech I condemned the organizers of CPAC (Re: Lisa De Pasquale and David Keene) for allowing an anti-Christian/pro-sodomy organization called "GOProud" to attend despite the fact that they are not conservative. The organization is led by Grover Norquist of American's for Tax Reform and Jimmy LeSalvia.

The Mother Jones hit piece posing as an article is insolent and cheeky. Written by journo-activist Stephanie Mencimer, the article begins with a misquote:

"He (Ryan Sorba) made some incoherrant comments about how civil rights -is- grounded in natural rights."

Here, Miss Mencimer trades my "are" for an "is" in a feeble attempt to make my statement read as though it were "incoherrant." But Mencimer's typo aside, was my statement "incoherrant?" Really?

First of all, civil rights are grounded in natural rights. If you don't believe me, just ask Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He'll tell it to you in black and white script in his Letter from a Bermingham Jail. Dr. King writes that:

"An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law..."

There you have it, Miss Mencimer. Now, allow me to repeat what I said and set the record straight (no pun intended).

"Civil rights are grounded in natural rights. Natural rights are grounded in human nature. Human nature is a rational substance in relationship. The intelligible (aka rational) end of the reproductive act is reproduction..." The secondary end of the reproductive act is spousal unity in the interest of the twenty year process of education required by the child produced. Together, reproduction and unity in the interest of education comrise the essence of marriage.
Advocates of the GOProud Agenda would have us base the essence of marriage on "mutual affection and commitment." This may sound good at first but basing marriage on affection and commitment would allow anyone to marry! Just think, if grandpa and grandson share affection and commitment they could be married! So could brother and sister. Based on the "gay" version of the essence of marriage one thousand people could be married, provided that they all share mutual affection and commitment to each other and there is no principle in the left-wing version of the essence of marriage that would allow us to reasonably restrict it. This is rediculous on its face. Shame on Mother Jones, GOProud, and the euphemistically titled grandaddy of em all, the "Human 'Rights' Campaign" for promoting such intellectual non-sense. You all get an "F" in logic, as far as I'm concerned.

This, Miss Mencimore, is not "incoherrant." Your article for Mother Jones is third-grade, "incoherrant," and to be honest, offensive. Please refrain from using chicanary and lies in your next piece. It doesn't look good on you. Please also send Mother Jones herself the following personal message for me, will you?

Dear Mother Jones,

Enough with the pop up ads already! Rediculous.

All the best,