POWr Social Feed

Jun 27, 2011

Cory Spruill, Ex-Edward Little High School Homosexual Football Player Sends Christians "Gay" Porn on Facebook

The Young Conservatives of America (YCA) are not new to internet harrassment. In fact, the organizations positions on such issues as right to life, traditional family values, a free-market economy and a strong national defense lead members to expect some degree of harrassment by some members of their opposition.

This week however YCA experienced a new low when the organizations National Chairman sat down to check his Facebook messages.

Cory Spruill, a nineteen year old homosexual man and recent graduate of Edward Little High School who plans to attend the University of Maine had send harrassing messages, including nude and pornographic images of "acts to crude for print" in an effort to harrass the Chairman.

YCA has a zero tolerance for this type of harrasment and is currently looking into taking legal action against Mr. Spruill for internet cyber-harrasment. The photo was too graphic to post but a screen shot of his comments can be seen below.

Jun 17, 2011

Kathlene O'Loughlin: Neo-Pagan, Anti-Christian Activist Cusses Out Conservatives, Makes False Accusations

Radical neo-pagan and anti-Christian activist Kathleen O'Loughlin seems to think it's o.k. to cuss people out on the internet simply because she disagrees with them about political matters.

Don't believe she's pagan?
  • Marriage was not ordained by God. Marriage was a pagan ritual that Christians stole along with everything else (hello Easter anyone?) Native Americans performed two-spirit (lgbt) marriages before Columbus ever set foot here.

    She went on to cuss-out a woman named Carmella, who simply disagreed with her pagan sex practices. She referred to her as a "waspy rug" and a "bigot."

    In one post she almost went off on Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg:

    • Kathlene O'Loughlin I CAN'T WITH YOU PEOPLE. And I can't with facebook either for that matter, screw you zuckerberg.
      13 minutes ago · · 1 person

Apparently, Mark Zuckerberg got angry and banned her from commenting:

Maggie, Carmella deleted my link, I waited a few seconds and posted it again and got a popup from fb saying I'm blocked because of spam. Because Carmella is a coward and censored me.
17 minutes ago · ·

In fact, not only will she cuss you out, but if she disagrees with you, she will falsely accuse you of committing crimes. Yup! That's right folks. Argue with Kathleen about politics, and you'll be accused of committing a crime!

Folks there are very few rules on the internet. People like Kathlene O'Loughlin however stand to ruin things for the rest of us. It is time that people called out people like Kathlene for their lack of respect and blatant lies.

May 9, 2011

Should “Gays” Be a Part of the Conservative Movement Part III: Why David Swindle Should Resign from NewsReal

By Ryan Sorba

Note: This is Part III of a three-part debate on whether homosexuality is compatible with conservatism.
Part I can be read here and Part II here.

In my first two rounds of debate at NewsReal with editor David Swindle on the subject of “gays” and conservatism, he called me a “totalitarian,” a “neo-communist,” a “radical Islamist,” and more.

Welcome to David Horowitz’s NewsReal!

David’s cuss-out session continued undisturbed in intensity throughout the debate. He slandered conservatives who refuse to agree that the “gay” agenda is a conservative one as “stupid,” “bigots,” “liars,” “cheaters,” and “theocrats.”

Before David’s meltdown was over he referred to the natural law upon which the United States is built as “malarkey,” declared that he was “banning” me from NewsReal and urged others to do the same.

David’s inclination to censure political opponents rather than debate them remind me of the time Francois A. Houle censured Ann Coulter. Ann explains:
Francois A. Houle, the Provost of the University of Ottawa wrote me in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

Upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle –French, for Frank A. Hole.
One need not feel badly for Ann or me. David and A. Houle are the real victims. Both men are cowards. It must be awful to live in such terror of the truth that a man feels his only way out is to slam the door on open debate –to choose to live in darkness.

So much for David Horowitz’s, “Students for Academic Freedom!”

One might think David would exercise more restraint before “banning” people from NewsReal. After all Horowitz has been banned from speaking at St. Louis University by Scott Smith, the Dean of Student Life, twice! In the 1990’s his anti-reparation ads were banned from newspapers across America.

What would compel David to reduce himself to the status of St. Louis University’s Scott Smith –an American “A. Houle?”

David’s ostensible reasons for banning me are based in his own accusations, not reality. David claims I, “lied three times,” “cheated in a card game" and, “took a dump on the table in front of him after lunch” –the last accusation arises from his own anally-fixated mind. None of them are true.

Let’s take a closer look at each of his claims.

First, I have never played cards with David or gone to lunch with him. Sound like a ridiculous way to respond? David’s case that I lied is based on the same level of inanity.

He claims I lied about the dollar amount the federal government spends to treat HIV/AIDS infected men who have sex with men.

I indicated that two-thirds of persons infected HIV/AIDS in the United States are men who have sex with men and that total federal spending on HIV/AIDS treatment is $20.5 billion.

David specifies that the $20.5 billion includes housing allowances, research, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, a Federal Employee’s Health Benefit Plan, and prevention. He highlights that $14.1 billion is allocated for “care/treatment” specifically.

Talk about missing the forest for a tree! Is playing silly semantics games the best David can do?

David purposely refused to respond to the point of the paragraph, which is simply that men who lead the promiscuous and irresponsible homosexual lifestyle actually do affect others economically, because our tax dollars go to pay for the various effects of their STDs.

David couldn’t refute the point, so he attempted to take his reader’s eye off the ball by accusing me of “lying” for using the word “treatment” broadly. How pathetic.

The mere fact that he attempts this equivocation is a sure sign he has nothing of actual significance to attack in my argument.

David’s second allegation is more offensive. He claims I “lied” about conservative icon Ronald Reagan’s position on the so-called “gay” movement. I never lied. In fact, he did.

David cited the fact that Ronald Reagan was opposed to the Briggs Initiative as evidence Reagan believed the homosexual lifestyle is compatible with conservatism.

Reagan actually opposed teaching children about the dangerous homosexual lifestyle in schools, and therefore supported the general spirit of the Briggs Initiative:

I don’t approve of teaching a so-called ‘gay’ lifestyle in our schools…
Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative because he considered it redundant. Reagan believed the legal machinery was already in place to deal with adults who expose school children to sexual perversion:

…there is already adequate legal machinery to deal with such problems if and when they arise.
David claimed the Briggs Initiative was not about “teaching homosexuality in schools.” If it wasn’t then why did Ronald Reagan specify his opposition to the Briggs Initiative within the context of redundancy? Of course the spirit of the Briggs Initiative was about exposing children to the dangerous homosexual lifestyle. The verbiage of the initiative makes that clear in black and white script letters:

For these reasons, the State finds a compelling interest in refusing to employ and in terminating the employment of a school teacher, a teacher’s aid, a school administrator or a counselor…who engages in public homosexual activity and/or public homosexual conduct directed at, or likely to come to the attention of, school children or other school employees. [Emphasis mine]
David took half of Ronald Reagan’s letter in opposition to the Briggs Initiative and presented it to his readers it as if it were the whole thing, conveniently censuring those aspects of Reagan with which he personally disagrees –that is lie #1.

David claims Reagan believed homosexuality was compatible with conservatism. Against David stands Ronald Reagan on the role of government in relation
to homosexuality:

We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.
Ronald Reagan on “gays” and HIV/AIDS:
Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.
Ronald Reagan’s hand-picked Supreme Court appointees Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist upheld anti-sodomy statutes in Bowers v Hardwick.

David claims Reagan would allow practitioners of the unnatural vice to openly represent conservatism, but due to Reagan’s Supreme Court appointees they weren’t permitted to openly represent themselves.

David further claims that conservatism ought to ban God and Religious belief from influencing legal proscription:

As demonstrated by my definition of conservatism, the movement is not grounded in a common religious or moral understanding of personal behavior…That’s why it’s perfectly rational to have…Pagan conservatives.
Ronald Reagan believed the exact opposite of David:

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.
Publicly David claims that the “gay” socio-political construct and the cultural Marxist agenda which gives it context are compatible with conservatism. Privately however, he declares his views on social issues unchanged since his days as a leftist:

My views on so-called ‘social issues’ remain largely unchanged from my college leftist days. I still see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. I wish gay marriage was legal. I think abortions within the first trimester should be legal. Pornography among consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. And all drugs should be decriminalized.
Claiming to be a conservative and then stating that your views remain largely unchanged from your college leftist days is lie # 2, David.

David isn’t only a leftist on social issues. Apparently he is a libertarian too.

As a social libertarian I loathe the idea of government trying to impose the right way to live morally.
That is lie # 3.

David lies as easily as he breathes. He implies that he also represents conservatism on social issues:

So where does this leave conservatives on the question of gay marriage? The same place where gays are…There are gays who support gay marriage, civil unions, and the status quo of no government recognition whatsoever. Therefore, why should there be a “conservative” position on the issue?
After forbidding the conservative movement in general from taking a position on marriage, David presents a position the movement should take up! His position is that conservatives should not take a position, and that is, in fact, a position in itself. He goes on to declare that this “debate is not about gay marriage...” after bringing the issue up himself.

The contradictions of the medieval church or seventeenth century French letters don’t match David’s’ level of hypocrisy.

David also declares himself a libertine:

And for someone as agnostic, libertine, and absurdly open-minded as myself that’s practically impossible.
Your entire political position is impossible, David. That is lie number 4!

This “left-wing, conservative, libertarian, libertine” who contradicts himself more times than the Marquis de Sade is so open minded that his brains have fallen out.

Andrew Breitbart called Ted Kennedy a “duplicitous bastard” for less. I wonder what he might call David? Perhaps a “quadra-plicitous bastard” if it wasn’t so clunky?” No matter, I hereby dub David, “Mr. Swindle” -a fitting name for a liar.

Mr. Swindle accuses me of calling Andrew Breitbart “gay.” Well, I had good reason to believe Andrew Breitbart was going “full gay.” Apparently, so did Philadelphia magazine. In fact, Andrew Breitbart had to trot out his “correction Alpaca” to make clear to the world that he is not a homosexual. What does it matter Breitbart? Are you a "homophobe?" Democratic Party officials have also mistaken Andrew Breitbart for a homosexual.

Why all the fuss about Andrew Breitbart?

For starters Andrew Breitbart joined the Executive Board of an openly homosexual organization. He takes photos like this, which suggest he seeks to French kiss another man, and this, standing behind I sign which reads “Proud Gay…” Andrew Breitbart also organized a “Big Gay Eighties Dance Party” to make a mockery of CPAC. How can Mr. Swindle criticize me for making such an honest mistake?

Further, Andrew Breitbart, Greg Gutfeld, and Tammy Bruce have been accusing opponents of homosexual behavior of engaging in it themselves for months. How can Breitbart act as though he is offended when someone makes an honest mistake about him, especially after he called my Facebook photo sitting with my surfboard a “Blue Boy Test Shot?”

Mr. Swindle accuses me of taking a dump on the table in front of him for making a very honest mistake about Andrew Breitbart on my personal Facebook page. That analogy would better suit Mr. Swindle’s wife’s pornography.

In the end Mr. Swindle lost the debate. His cowardly attempt to win-by-censure backfired leading many of his own readers to declare yours-truly the winner.

Atlas_Collins made his position clear:

David lost the debate when he ‘banned’ Sorba.

BDouglasAF1980 had a message for Mr. Swindle:
Admit you are a libertarian and be happy with it.
Calvin Frieberger reacted thusly to Mr. Swindle's position on GOProud:

You’re going to ignore GOProud's well-established record of anti-conservative antagonism and expect conservatives to tolerate an organization run by one of conservatism's worst possible enemies?
NewsReal contributor Lisa Graas praised my stance on the issue:

I applaud Ryan Sorba for taking his time at CPAC to stand for natural law and submit himself to ridicule by those who purport to be “conservative.”
Not only did Mr. Swindle stick his fingers in his ears and sing “LaLaLaLaLa” when he “banned” me, as Atlas_Collins wrote, but he was also accused of deleting comments critical to his position during almost every round –and he has the nerve to accuse me of cheating in a card game?

In this debate Mr. Swindle falsely accused me of “lying three times.” He cited these three lies specifically as grounds for “banning me from NewsReal.” I have addressed and corrected Mr. Swindle's false accusations for the public record here. It should now be clear to readers that I did not “lie three times.”

Now I would like to know if Mr. Swindle is willing to play by his own rules.

Mr. Swindle made the argument that anyone who lies three times should be banned from NewsReal Blog. In this article I showed that he lied 4 times himself.

Will Mr. Swindle be consistent and ban himself from NewsReal, or will he commit lie # 5 by staying on board as editor? Will he ignore his own inconsistency and further discredit his own objectivity as an editor? Will he prove his pretenses to ban political opponents as ad hoc and whimsical?

Perhaps David can remain at NewsReal Blog without hypocrisy if he offers me an apology for his false and quite literally vile accusations, and then retracts his previous article of lies, but I doubt he is man enough to do the "Right" thing. You know what they say, “Once a cheater always a cheater.”

Good luck to you in your endeavors, “Mr. Swindle,” you are going to need it. Rest assured, you’ve made an enemy outta me. Ya you. You’ve made an enemy outta me.

By Ryan Sorba

May 8, 2011

David Swindle

Apr 15, 2011

Perez Hilton Displays Strong Anti-Christian Bias, Not "Born Gay"

By Ryan Sorba

Reacting to a recent Advocate.com article titled “Conservatives Declare War on the Word ‘Gay’” self-proclaimed “gay” internet sensation Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., better known by his fake name Perez Hilton, launched into vitriolic attacks, calling Christian's “HOrrific.”

He went on to accuse all who adhere to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic of hiding a “dispecable [sic] “homaphobia [sic],” simply for acknowledging the fact that ex-"gays" exist and that studies show change is possible for those who truly seek it.

Lavandeira’s cuss-out session, (or perhaps his sister Barbara Lavandeira’s cuss out session?) continued undisturbed in intensity. He went on to tag his post about Christians who refuse to agree that the “gay” agenda is a moral one as “bull sh--,” “bigots,” “offensive,” and “deplorable.”

Welcome to Holly-weird!

None of this language comes as a surprise. Mario and Barbara Lavandeira built their online empire as cyber-bullies, tearing people down like former Miss California, USA, Carrie Prejean, Hilary Duff, Chris Brown, Vanessa Hudgens, and the list goes on.

In 2010 Mario was accused of shooting and posting a panty-less photo of Miley Cyrus, who was only seventeen years old at the time, to his Twitter account, which included more than two million followers.

Now “Perez Hilton” has the nerve to declare Christians who stand for sexual decency “dipecable” [sic] for refusing to agree with the notion that people are “born gay.”

Why should Christians believe that people are “born gay,” Mario? Self-avowed “gays” don’t even believe that they were “born that way.”

Sorry Lady Gaga!

Homosexual activists openly admit—in numerous magazines, newspaper articles, books, and even national television shows—that people can and do change their so-called “sexual orientation.”

Activists who hold the view that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, (some publicly, some privately) are the same activists held up as heroes by the so-called “gay” community.

Take pro-sodomy activist Lillian Faderman for example. In the September 5, 1995 edition of the Advocate she stated the following:
We continue to demand rights, ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever. The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.
The architects of the pro-sodomy movement Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen urge activists to abandon the truth for practical purposes:
It is time to learn from Madison Avenue and to roll out the big guns. We are talking about propaganda. For all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay –even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.
Self-described “lesbian” Jennie Ruby agrees in a Lambda Book Report article:
I don’t think lesbians are born. I think they are made. The gay rights movement has (for many good, practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics.

John DeCecco, from San Francisco State University, the editor of the Journal of Homosexuality and Paedika: The Journal of Pedophilia agrees:

The whole born gay and immutable characteristic idea is just gay and lesbian politics and aimed at achieving gay rights.
Dr. Vera Whisman is a lecturer for the Queer Studies Department at Ithaca College in New York. In her book, Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity she writes the following:
My conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist [born gay] foundation, do we have a viable politics?
Other well-known leaders of the “gay” political movement have acknowledged and/or observed the fluidity of sexuality in their own lives, as the following list indicates:

  • Camille Paglia

  • Tammy Bruce

  • Greg Louganis

  • Ellen Degeneres

  • Anne Heche

  • Chastity Bono

  • Joanne Loulan

  • Sarah Schulman

  • Rita Mae Brown

  • Rebecca Walker

  • Joan Nestle

  • John Preston

  • Dr. Martin Duberman

  • Dr. Charles Silverstein

  • Donna Minkowitz

  • Dr. Pat Cain

  • Martina Navratilova

  • Janis Ian

  • Melissa Etheridge

  • Wendy Caster

  • Kate Kendall

  • Dr. Dean Hamer

  • Dr. Karla Jay

  • Pat Califia

  • Susie Bright

The list goes on and on. Do Mario Lavandeira (Perez Hilton) and Stefani Jonanne Angelina Germanotta (Lady Gaga) really think the American public is na├»ve enough to believe their “born gay” lies?

Public “born gay” propaganda is a hoax. The things activists say about themselves publicly (and the negative things they say about their opponents) are carefully calculated lies.

Even when Jewish or Christian opponents of “born gay” rhetoric are saying what pro-“gay” activists know to be true, the activists deliberately lie about and demonize their opponents –and their message.

Pro-sodomy activists will even tell vicious lies about inciting violence to try to censor their opponent’s views in various forms of media.

This desire to censor the truth about the fluidity of same-sex attraction from the public is one of the most offensive characteristics of the practically neo-pagan pro-sodomy political movement –which habitually deceives, psychologically manipulates and even physically intimidates the media, public officials, the religious and medical communities, and anyone else they see as a threat to their lies.

One of the reasons activists want to censure opponents on the “born gay” issue is because the public would not support the “gay rights” agenda if the public knew that persons who have developed same-sex attraction are capable of change.

Several prominent “born gay” hoax activists have admitted to knowledge of this fact about the American public.

“Born gay” hoaxter Simon LeVay, who analyzed the hypothalamus in an effort to convince the world people are “born gay” revealed his secret objectives in an interview with The Advocate, June 1, 1993:

The Advocate: Do you really think that grounding homosexuality in biology can help win political equality? LeVay: All the civil rights legislation passed in the 60s is based on the knowledge that there is a genetic and immutable difference between blacks and whites. Of course, blacks are still discriminated against, but the legal advances they’ve made are based on those genetic differences. And I think that is a major stumbling block for our gaining the same protection as other groups.

There is a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.

The founder of the “Lesbian Avengers,” Sarah Schulman admits that lesbianism is a choice. She took note of the same study in her book My American History:
A recent poll in the New York Times showed that more people would be willing to support gay rights if they believed that gay people genetically could not help their orientation.
Pro-sodomy activists know that they are extremely vulnerable on this “born gay” point, which is one important reason why they are so desperate to have their opponents views censored by the media, and when possible, censored by the government.

In the Netherlands, activists have already succeeded in getting such a censorship law passed by the government. A Roman Catholic Bishop has faced prosecution there for making what “born gay” activists consider a negative statement about their behavior in a Roman Catholic seminary. The “Gay Times” reports:
Anti-gay Dutch Catholic Bishop may be prosecuted.

The bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Groningen in the northern Netherlands is under investigation for breaking a Dutch law, reports Rex Wockner.

In a lecture at Rolduc seminary, Bishop Wim Eijk told students that homosexuals suffered from ‘neurotic development disorder’ and said lesbians and gay men are incapable of making the commitment required for marriage.

The bishop’s controversial statements come at a time when the Dutch parliament is considering whether to introduce laws to allow lesbians and gay men to marry.

According to reports, laws banning discrimination against lesbians and gay men take precedence over freedom of religion and speech in the Netherlands.
Pro-“gay” activists are pushing to pass similar fascist laws all over the world. In fact, that’s what the left-wing socio-political construct that is the “gay” identity is all about –subjecting all people who disagree with the dangerous homosexual lifestyle to censorship and prosecution.

Now the health and happiness—even the lives—of many, and the common good of society depend upon the exposition and opposition of these lies and their destructive results.

By Ryan Sorba

Feb 25, 2011

Feb 4, 2011

Boston Globe, New York Times, BBC, NPR owe Scott Lively an apology

By Bryan Fischer

In Uganda, a leading homosexual activist, David Kato, was murdered last Wednesday, beaten with a hammer in his home and dying on his way to the hospital. Scott Lively, author of a well-researched and heavily documented book, The Pink Swastika, has been blamed for his death.

Even while admitting that the murder was "still being investigated," the Boston Globe was quick to lay the blame at Lively's doorstep, who, along with other pro-family experts, visited Uganda in the spring of 2009 to raise awareness of the many social and health pathologies associated with homosexual behavior.

The New York Times, the BBC and NPR all interviewed Lively in recent weeks, trying to blame him for what they believe is a rising tide of homicidal anti-gay fervor in Uganda.

Last Friday, the Globe quoted the leader of one of Uganda's leading homosexual activist groups: "David's death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S. evangelicals in 2009. The Ugandan government and the so-called U.S. evangelicals must take responsibility for David's blood."

And it turns out that the Globe, the New York Times, the BBC and NPR are not alone in fingering Lively as an accomplice. Google "David Kato murder, Scott Lively" this morning, and you will get 17,200 hits. Almost all of this scapegoating was done, mind you, before police had any idea who had swung the hammer.

Well, it turns out that Lively had absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch to do with any part of this gruesome killing.

According to Reuters, a man has now confessed to the killing, and police are saying a "personal disagreement" let to Kato's untimely death. Meaning, of course, the whole thing had nothing to do with Lively or any other pro-family leader in America.

In fact, the police spokesman said quite pointedly that the murder "wasn't a robbery and it wasn't because Kato was an activist." So the whole hate crime meme is out the window, gone, history, in the archives.

The confessed murderer, one Nsubuga Enock, is a "well-known thief," according to police, and had been in prison until January 24. He had been staying with Kato since getting out.

Enock was arrested at his girlfriend's house, and so it appears that he swings both ways. Kato's driver has also been arrested in connection with the murder, and early reports indicated that both money and clothing were missing. And since Enock was in prison for theft, the dots aren't too hard to connect here.

Now the Daily Monitor is reporting that Enock has told police that he killed Kato because Kato had "coerced him into sodomy." Kato had promised to give him a car, a house and money in exchange for sexual favors, but when Kato didn't keep his end of the bargain and continued to attempt to force himself on Enock sexually, he bought a hammer and beat him to death with it.


The following was written by Ryan Sorba:

Below is a photo of left-wing activists Rob Anderson, the Boston Globe reporter guilty of blood libel for blaming homosexual violence on Christian Pastor Scott Lively. Rob Anderson ought to be fired from the Boston Globe for making such serious accusations based on zero evidence. The accusations can be seen here.

Feb 3, 2011

"Progressive" Rallyists Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas

Last weekend at an anti-Charles Koch Rally led by Code Pink in Palm Springs California two Young Conservatives of California members, Christian Hartsock and Alvaro Day, used kid-genius James O'Keefe strategies to uncover "progressives" calling for the "lynching of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas." Incredible.

This is the height of hyposcrisy considering that these are the very liberals who have been calling TEA Partiers "racists."

The video will appear on FOX News' Glenn Beck tonight. Check local listings for showtimes.

Feb 2, 2011

Culture of Vice

By Robert R. Reilly

Robert Reilly notes that a society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But society cannot survive once it adopts the justifications for those moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war.

In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, "men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives." This is also true when revolutionary changes are cultural. What might these "private" reasons be, and why do they become public in the form of revolutionary changes? The answer to these questions lies in the intimate psychology of moral failure.

For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience...

For more click here.


by Pastor Scott Lively J.D., PhD, ThD

Evidence from murder points to personal matters, say the police, and the suspect, Kato’s (“gay?”) housemate, remains at large.

Uganda is being murdered. The nation once called “The Pearl of Africa” by Winston Churchill, a lush and beautiful country as fertile as the Nile Delta.

It is the nation that retained its self-rule through centuries of African colonialism, the society that survived even the atrocities of the cannibal cultist Idi Amin, the culture that has been thriving in Christian revival for over a dozen years.

This great and honorable nation, alone in Africa to have all but conquered the scourge of AIDS through abstinence - and whose First Lady led a holy gathering of thousands of believers on the eve of the millennium, dedicating her homeland “to Jesus Christ for a thousand years” - this Uganda, a shining light in the Dark Continent, is being murdered.

The murderers are the lavender Marxists, the now-global network of sexual revolutionaries bent on remaking the entire world in their own perverted image, whose juggernaut has toppled even once mighty Britain, crushing under their lavender boots after eight centuries the symbol of its Christian power: the Magna Carta, whose first principle had proclaimed “The English church must be free!”

These revolutionists of Sodom, who march triumphantly through all the major cities of the western world to flaunt their defeat of moral law, and who hold both Hollywood and the heart of America’s president in their iron grip: These very same zealots have fixed their malevolent gaze on Christian Uganda.

Uganda is the only country in the world with a national holiday commemorating its rejection of sexual perversion. Every June 3 it honors the 22 young men and boys who were tortured and roasted alive in 1886 by homosexual King Mwanga, because they refused to submit to sodomy. Is it any wonder, then, that Uganda has reacted violently against the army of agitators, led by George Soros, who now seek to re-homosexualize Ugandan culture?

It is as if the militant ranks of “Code Pink” were transported back to 1890s America to agitate for “sexual freedom.” Our great grandparents would not have countenanced this. There would have been violence, as there has now been in Uganda.

That is, of course, the strategy:

Agents provocateur goad unsophisticated natives into over-reacting, while the “gay” media lie in wait to catch the images and spin the propaganda that is even now poisoning the gullible against the Ugandans.

Ugandan homosexual activist David Kato was recently beaten to death with a hammer -a horrific crime. These very media have rushed eagerly to judge this a hate crime and to blame those, like me, who have spoken against homosexuality in Uganda. It is the central (but patently false) narrative of the left that all criticism of homosexuality leads inevitably to violence and murder.

Despite propagandistic tactics evidence from the murder points to "personal matters," say the police, and the suspect, Kato’s (“gay?”) housemate, remains at large.

There is indeed evil in Uganda today, but it is not the reaction of Christian and Moslem citizens to the rape of their culture. It is the pink-gloved hand of western powers that are cutting the throat of Africa’s most God-fearing country, and one of the world‘s most promising Christian democracies.

Here is the final vindication:

“We have taken him to Mukono Magistrate’s Court to record an extrajudicial statement,” the source said. “He told us that he killed Kato after he failed to give him a car, a house and money he promised as rewards for having sex with him,” the source said.

Kato is alleged to have bailed the suspect out of Kawuga Prison on January 24, where he has been remanded on charges of theft of a mobile phone. The suspect told police that he stayed with Kato for two days. He accused the deceased of having sex with him and promising to pay him during the period.

By Scott Lively
President, Defend the Family International

Jan 31, 2011

Ryan Sorba Appears on Glenn Beck for Helping to Take Down ACORN

Ryan Sorba appears on Glenn Beck for participating in the famous 2009 ACORN investigation.

Ryan Sorba on CNN, Right on the Edge

Ryan Sorba appears on Right on the Edge - a CNN Documentary about Young Conservatives Taking on the Mainstream Media

Ryan Sorba on Countdown with Keith Olberman

Ryan Sorba on COUNTDOWN with Keith Olberman, MSNBC

Ryan Sorba on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Pro-family activist Ryan Sorba appears on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Ryan Sorba on CNN, Right on the Edge

Ryan Sorba appears on CNN's Right on the Edge, a documentary about young conservatives taking on the mainstream media.

Ryan Sorba on CNN, Right on the Edge

Ryan Sorba appears in CNN's Right on the Edge -a documentary about young conservatives taking on the mainstream media.

Ryan Sorba on CNN