Thursday, May 03, 2007

Democrats Pass Anti-Christian “Thought Police Bill”

The Democrats passed the “Thought Police Bill,” but Bush said he will veto it. If the bill ever passes then in effect we will enter a new Roman anti-Christian era. We need to pray for the Democrats and some "Catholics."

One well known Catholic writer I know so hates the Iraq war that he said in so many words that he was praying for the passage of a bill that will destroy First Amendment rights by shutting down conservative talk radio.

We need to pray that the Iraq war end or the Democrats may come into power with the help of anti-war Christian voters. In my opinion that is why the Democrats took over congress. Much prayer and sacrifice are needed because many are confused. May the peace of Jesus Christ be on you.

News Advisory: May 2, 2007

Contact: Regina Griggs, Director, Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)


Hate Crimes Bill is Dangerous to Free Speech for Ex-Gays,

Says Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays

PFOX Joins African-American Leaders at Capitol Press Conference To Denounce HR 1592

WASHINGTON DC – Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) has joined Bishop Harry Jackson of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and other African-American leaders and former homosexuals to publicly oppose what they call a “thought police bill” – the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007” (H.R. 1592 and S. 1002).

According to PFOX, the bill threatens free speech and classifies certain people worthy of extra protection under the law based on sexual orientation (which fails to specifically include ex-gays) and gender identity (which includes transsexualism and transvestism, both defined as mental disorders by the American Psychiatric Association). PFOX families love all of their children equally, whether homosexual or heterosexual. But this bill divides families by elevating the status of one child over another.

Introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the bill provides for additional sentencing penalties for any criminal act that is motivated by bias against a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, among other factors.

PFOX and the High Impact Leadership Coalition spoke out last week at a press conference on Capitol Hill. PFOX president Paul Rondeau said, “This bill adds a whole new class of crime to federal statute – what the person may have been thinking when he committed the crime.” Rondeau and Jackson pointed out that in countries where similar hate-crime legislation has passed – specifically Australia, Canada and Sweden – religious leaders have been criminally charged and sentenced to jail time for preaching against homosexual behavior, along with heterosexual immorality, from the pulpit.

PFOX executive director Regina Griggs said PFOX is particularly concerned about protecting the free-speech rights of former homosexuals to speak out publicly about their experience in changing from gay to straight. Griggs said, “Gay activists actively work to suppress information that ex-gays exist and change is possible. They also claim homosexuality is in every way equivalent to heterosexuality and that people who disagree are ‘bigots’ equivalent to racists.”

Griggs said ex-gays and their supporters are subject to a hostile environment where they are labeled as perpetrators of hate against homosexuals simply because they advocate for or live out a different view of homosexuality.

“This bill seeks to punish intolerance, but instead legislates hatred against ex-gays and provides gay activists the legal means for justification of intolerance against the ex-gay community and their friends,” Griggs said. “The bill serves to protect non-heterosexuals over heterosexuals while ignoring former transgenders who have undergone reversal surgery and former homosexuals.”

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays is a non-profit support, education and outreach organization that encourages unconditional love within families that are touched by homosexuality, and that works to advance societal understanding and acceptance of the reality of sexual orientation change and those who have experienced it.


For information on hate against ex-gays, read:

For the personal story of a former transgender, read:

This news advisory is available online at:

P-FOX mailing list

Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 16:07:39 -0400
To: Columbia Christians for Life
From: Columbia Christians for Life
Subject: 25 Republicans and 212 Democrats pass Hate Crimes bill in US House

25 Republicans and 212 Democrats pass Hate Crimes bill in US House

H R 1592 YEA-AND-NAY 3-May-2007 1:46 PM

QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes
to prosecute hate crimes.

Yeas Nays PRES NV

Democratic 212 14 6
Republican 25 166 10

TOTALS 237 180 16

See the text of the Hate Crimes bill, which includes protected classes for "sexual orientation,"
and "gender identity" at - HR 1592


Bible believing Christians and Constitutionalists should not rest with passage
only of state constitutional amendments that protect the institution of marriage.
As good as those are, they are only defensive measures, and are insufficient to
protect us from Hate Crimes legislation.

What is needed is a restoration of the right of the States to criminalize the
commission of acts of sodomy. The 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas US supreme
court decision was the "Roe" of the sodomy issue, undermining the law of the
State of Texas, however there is a constitutional remedy to restore the right of
the States to re-criminalize the immoral acts of sodomy.

Such as remedy can be found in HR 300, the "We the People Act of 2007,"
introduced by Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), to use the Constitution's
Article III., Section 2. authority granted to the US Congress, to limit the appellate
jurisdiction of the US supreme Court (so the US supreme Court cannot overturn
State anti-sodomy laws).

See HR 300 at Congressman Ron Paul is also a GOP
candidate for US President and is reportedly going to participate in the
Republican presidential candidate debate scehduled for today, Thursday,
May 3, 2007 in California.

See also:

US House limits jurisdiction of Federal Courts regarding the Pledge of Allegiance
Employs Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit
the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court:
This same Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit
the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court can be further applied to protect
the God-ordained institution of marriage, to protect state-level laws banning acts of
sodomy, to protect federal and state laws banning abortion, and to protect the freedom
of religious expression that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution,
vis-a-vis public displays of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer in the Name of Jesus.

Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
May 3, 2007

Call your US Senator to oppose the Hate Crimes bills (H.1592 and S.1105).

Call the Washington DC switchboard toll free at: 1-866-340-9281

To unsubscribe, send "Unsubscribe" to:
Columbia Christians for Life

CWA Thanks President Bush for 'Hate Crimes' Veto Pledge
WASHINGTON, May 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- "We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America. The Executive Office of the President has issued a statement promising to veto "hate crimes" bill H.R. 1592 should it be approved in Congress today. The statement follows:

"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State's own hate crimes law.

"H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.

"Moreover, the bill's proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249 (a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592."

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

Christian Newswire

Issue Date: - May 1-7, 2007, Posted On: 5/1/2007

Kuhner: Liberal totalitarianism
Commentary by Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Billionaire philanthropist George Soros. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-e, File)

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech. Like the communists in the former Soviet Union, America’s liberals seek to crush dissent by consolidating control over the media—especially talk radio, which has emerged as the dominant medium for conservative opinion.

Allies close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are promoting legislation, which if passed, will take off the air prominent conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—along with thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters. The bill, entitled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a leftist Democrat from New York. The legislation aims to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” of the 1940’s: “all views” are to be given equal time on radio. In particular, the Federal Communications Commission would have the power to oversee and change radio and television content. The goal is to tilt the ideological balance of power away from the right on the nation’s air waves.

The real force behind the effort to censor conservative talk radio is the progressive–philanthropist, George Soros. The radical leftist billionaire has made no secret of his hatred for conservatives. He says President Bush has transformed America into a militaristic, “fascist” empire. Moreover, Soros champions many of liberalism’s chic causes: abortion on demand, legalization of drugs, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, unlimited Third World immigration, open borders, and one-world government anchored in the United Nations. He advocates all the issues that are anathema to popular radio talk-show hosts like Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity. Hence, he wants these commentators to be exiled to the political wilderness.

At a recent National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based group heavily subsidized by Soros, Hinchey laid bare his plan to silence conservative voices on television and radio. The anti-war McGovernite attacked Savage, Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, saying they were “responsible” for leading the U.S. into the Iraq war, as well as for preparing the ground for future military invasions of Iran and Syria. According to Hinchey, these men pose a “threat” to American national security. Hence, under his bill, they would be fired.

"All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said.

In the Senate, the legislation is being supported by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. A self-styled “social democrat,” Sanders is forming a media caucus with the explicit goal of ending conservative hegemony on talk radio.

"Now is the time to begin asking that if networks provide their listeners with 99 percent of talk shows being with right-wing extremists, whether that really is what public trust is about," Sanders said in an address in January. "Now is the time to open the question of the Fairness Doctrine again."

However, this begs the question of why do radio networks have most of their shows hosted by conservatives? The answer is a simple one: They’re popular with listeners. Talk radio is overwhelmingly right-leaning because it satisfies the public’s growing appetite for alternative news and commentary to the liberal media establishment. If the Democrats don’t like the opinions of Savage, Limbaugh or Hannity, then all they need to do is go to CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times or The Washington Post. There are countless outlets peddling the anti-war, anti-Bush mantras of the left.

The liberal media and political class have tried to marginalize conservative talk radio for years—first by ignoring it, then by demonizing it, and finally by attempting to compete with it. Air America, with hosts such as Al Franken, was supposed to be the great liberal alternative to conservative talk radio. But, in spite of all the puff stories in The Times, The Post and CNN, Air America failed dismally to attract a large audience. When Hinchey, Sanders, Soros and their liberal Democratic allies complain about the need to “give equal time” to left-leaning views on radio, they forget one important fact: The radio audience is not interested. Now, after the failure of Air America, the Democrats are attempting to implement the final solution to their conservative problem: censorship.

Eastern European conservatives have faced similar oppression for the last 15 years. From Georgia to Croatia, Serbia to Slovakia, Soros’ media empire has relentlessly sought to marginalize patriotic and conservative journalists. In many countries in the former communist bloc, there are hardly any conservative voices left in the mainstream media. In fact, the billionaire activist openly brags that the former Soviet empire has become “the Soros empire.” He is now bent on destroying his ideological enemies in the belly of the beast—America.

What Soros understands—like all ambitious leftists before him, such as Lenin, Trotsky, FDR—is that attaining cultural power is the necessary precondition to achieving political power. The brilliant Italian Leninist revolutionary, Antonio Gramsci, outlined this strategy in his theory of cultural hegemony. Gramsci argued that once the left captures the commanding organs of culture and the media, the “state will simply fall into our hands.” He understood that, by dominating culture and stifling all voices of opposition, the left would be free to manipulate and mold public opinion, thereby paving the way to permanent political dominance. This is why Soros and his Democratic allies are determined to smash talk radio, the main bastion of cultural/media resistance to the liberal regime.

The attempt to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” represents a direct assault on freedom of speech. It is a concession by liberals that they are losing the battle in the marketplace of ideas. Unable to compete with conservatives in the arena of rhetoric, facts and reasoned argument, Democrats are resorting to the Stalinist method of stifling all dissenting points of view. Unable to out-argue and out-debate Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity, liberals are hoping to silence them—once and for all.

More importantly, the war on talk radio reveals the totalitarian impulse at the heart of modern liberalism. Above all, liberalism is an ideology based on radical social engineering. Its ultimate goal is to transform America into a society characterized by economic collectivism, personal—and especially, sexual—liberation and multilateral globalism. To accomplish these goals, the left must fundamentally restructure the economy, the family unit, traditional bourgeois values, and even the nation itself.

This is why liberals ultimately rely on coercion to pass much of their agenda. They must raise taxes and propose new entitlement programs (like universal health care) to keep expanding the power of the state; they must push for homosexual marriage and abortion to keep undermining the nuclear family; they must expunge religion and the Ten Commandments from the public square to keep rolling back traditional morality; and they must insist on amnesty for illegal immigrants and subordinating foreign policy to the United Nations to keep subverting America’s national sovereignty and distinct cultural identity. Their favorite tools of coercion are usually judicial activism and bureaucratic decrees. Now, however, riding high after the November midterm elections, they are going for the jugular—the outright silencing of their ideological opponents.

Conservatives must form a united front to prevent this blatant power grab by the Soros Democrats. If not, the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” will not only be a great victory for the forces of censorship, but a watershed moment in the continuing march of liberalism against everything that is good, decent and virtuous in America.

- Jeffrey T. Kuhner is the editor of Insight (

No comments: