Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Is the Bush Secretive Presidential Directive a Prelude to Dictatorship? Why is the Left Remaining Silent?

Jerome Corsi, coauthor of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," said today on the Michael Savage Show that the left is remaining silent while only conservatives are warning about the secretive presidential directive that appears to be an unconstitutional power grab. Savage said the presidential directive appears to be a possible prelude to “dictatorship.”

In the World Net Daily, Corsi wrote:

“President Bush had signed May 9 a little-reported National Security and Homeland Security Directive (NSPD-51 and NSPD-20) that granted extraordinary powers to the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.”

What concerned Corsi and Savage was Bush’s recent harsh attack on conservatives over immigration and the total silence by the leftist media and bloggers even as they are making excuses for the recent destruction of free speech in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez.

Bush's detention facilities
Posted: May 30, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Houston-based KBR, formerly the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co., has a contingency contract in place with the Department of Homeland Security to construct detention facilities in the event of a national emergency.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, spokeswoman Jamie Zuieback confirmed yesterday in a telephone interview that the KBR contract for $385 million was awarded initially in January 2006 for a one-year base period with four one-year options. It has been extended into 2007. KBR held a previous emergency detention contract with ICE from 2000 to 2005.
Zuieback told this writer the primary intent of the KBR contract was to build temporary detention facilities that could be used in the event of a mass migration across the border that required ICE to respond on a quick basis to an illegal-immigration crisis.
(Column continues below)
"The idea of the KBR contract is to support the Army Corp of Engineers," Zuieback explained, "in case we experienced a sudden mass immigration and we had to respond quickly. We would need immediate detention facilities in the form of temporary housing that would enable us to determine if the large numbers of illegal immigrants were political or economically motivated, or if they were criminals or terrorists."
Zuieback confirmed that the KBR contract for detention facilities could apply to national emergencies, including natural disasters.
Several times, Zuieback insisted in the telephone interview that the KBR contract was a "contingency contract," specifying that detention facilities were to be built only when an immigration emergency or a national emergency, including a natural disaster, had been declared.
Heather Browne, spokeswoman for KBR, also sent me an e-mail yesterday confirming KBR built a temporary facility in New Orleans that provided cantonment for up to 500 federal detention officers who were tasked with maintaining law and order during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Last week, WND reported President Bush had signed May 9 a little-reported National Security and Homeland Security Directive (NSPD-51 and NSPD-20) that granted extraordinary powers to the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
NSPD-51/HSPD-20, published on the White House website, rescinds Presidential Decision Directive 67 signed by Bill Clinton Oct. 21, 1998, and establishes a new White House office of the National Continuity Coordinator, a position now occupied by Frances Fragos Townsend, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Terrorism.
The new directive concentrates an unprecedented amount of emergency authority in the office of the president, specifying that the president now has the authority to direct "National Essential Functions" of all federal state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
The KBR contingency contract appears to give ICE the ability to have detention facilities constructed under the president's direction in response to a national emergency as declared under NSPD-51/HSPD-20.
The initial White House press release announcing the presidential directive included no background explanation of the directive or statement by the president. The press release merely posted NSPD-51/HSPD-20 on the White House website.
Sections 23 and 24 of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 specify that Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes are incorporated into the directive, even though they remain secret and are not available for examination as part of the published document.
Still, Zuieback said she was not familiar with NSPD-51/HSPD-20. At her request, this writer e-mailed to her the White House website link to the directive posting.
The White House declined comment on the initial WND story and has not yet responded to the story or to my previous column on the subject.
Related story:
Emergency detention plan: 'This way to the camps!'

Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." Corsi's most recent book was authored with Michael Evans: "Showdown with Nuclear Iran." Dr. Corsi's other recent books include "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran."


Sunday, May 27, 2007

Might Gay Rights Crusaders Cheney and Giuliani Join the Clintons in the Democrat Party?

Voting for Giuliani is the same as voting for Bill Clinton or Hillary. Dick Cheney, gay rights crusader,and junior gay rights crusader Giuliani need to join the Democrat party. In April Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. I'm starting think that's not a bad idea.


Cheney, gay rights crusader?
Conservative groups beat up GOP veep nominee, Lazio blasts Clinton campaign for following his wife and Sharpton hits Lazio for following Giuliani's example.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Alicia Montgomery

October 10, 2000 | Dick Cheney's debate performance was praised by friends and foes alike. However, his remarks on gay marriage rubbed some conservatives the wrong way. The New York Times reports that "family values" groups are blasting Cheney's opinions on gay rights, including his assertion at the veep debate that "people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into" and that legally recognized same-sex marriage is up to individual states. That's not what the Republican Party platform says. It declares instead: "We support the traditional definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman."

The American Family Association wants Cheney to follow the platform's lead. "Live and let live is fine as a policy for people's private lives, but Secretary Cheney should have been much stronger in saying that same-sex marriages are wrong," Tim Wildmon, president of the association, said in a statement on his group's Web site. But Cheney won't say any such thing. Though he has pledged to follow the policy set by George W. Bush -- who stands solidly against same-sex marriage -- the Republican veep wannabe insists, "My position's unchanged." Cheney refused to talk about what effect having an openly gay daughter, Mary Cheney, has had on his position. "I have consistently refused to get into the business of talking about Mary," he said. "She's entitled to her privacy."

Rudy in Drag--is Rudy a crossdressing tranvestite?

There`s something a little odd about Rudy Giuliani. He likes to get
dressed up as a woman. Repeatedly. In really, really outrageous and
revealing outfits (check out the crotch shot in the chorus line

Now, New York has a lot of homosexual voters. And homosexuals do vote,
when they`re not having homosexual sex. This could be seen as a
measure to appeal to the gay vote? except? Rudy has done it so many
times. He really seems to enjoy it. While he was dressed in a flowing
pink gown as a woman Giuliani took the name `Rudia` and, said, in a
gay voice, that he was a `Republican pretending to be a Democrat
pretending to be a Republican` Could Rudy be gay? Obviously, he has
had three wives, so he`s doing something with women? unless they`re
beards. A `beard` is a term for a hollywood actor who is gay, but to
hide the fact that he is gay, takes a girlfriend or wife, ala Tom
Cruise and Katie Holmes, or Ed Koch and Bess Myerson. Could Judith
Nathan, Rudy`s current wife, be a beard? That might explain why
Giuliani`s previous marriages broke up. Maybe wife #2 Donna Hanover
got tired of being a beard. After they separated she appeared in the
Vagina Monologues, a play where she talked at length about her vagina.
Did she feel a need to shower so much attention on it because Rudy
wouldn`t pay any attention to hers?

And after Rudy Giuliani broke up with Donna Hanover, he moved out of
Gracie Mansion and moved in with A PAIR OF GAY MEN WHO WERE COUPLING
WITH EACH OTHER. That`s kind of an odd place for a straight guy to
move to, isn`t it? Also, Rudy was made a knight by the Queen of
England--and everyone knows she only makes gay people like Elton John
knights nowadays--is this more evidence? If Rudy is gay, he`s probably
bisexual. And if he is bisexual, he could be blackmailed if he became
president. Imagine if the President of Iran found out President
Guiliani was homosexual and blackmailed him. Rudy would be forced to
give him nuclear weapons. Even if Rudy isn`t bisexual as many people
think, it`s still unfitting to have a President who dressed as a woman
in tight crotch outfits. During a state dinner he might dress like the
first lady. We`re electing a president, not a porno star


Rudy Giuliani and Alan Placa: "Mayor Morality" and the PEDOPHILE PRIESTS


With the above references you can read in depth about priestly pedophilia
and its ties to a rather hypocritical Presidential candidate. Giuliani's
close association with and promotion of criminal cop Kerik is a better known
issue, as are his adultery and family estrangements, but these are less
deeply indicative of Giuliani's moral bankruptcy than his relatively unknown
Placa connection.

Alan Placa and Rudy Giuliani were high school buddies, and they remained
close friends through College. Post-college, Placa went to the Seminary, and
Giuliani to law school. After he was ordained, Placa attended law school
too. Eventually he became a Monsignor in the Diocese of Rockville Center on
Long Island, and Giuliani went to Washington in Reagan's Department of
Justice. When Giuliani wanted an annulment of his first marriage - to a 2nd
cousin, a union normally frowned upon by the Catholic Church, Placa did the
job - after being best man at their wedding!

Monsignor Placa got into considerable trouble in the late 1990s when accused
of sexually abusing two minors that could not sue him or the Diocese because
the five-year statute of limitations was long past. When the story broke
Monsignor Placa came up in several parts of it. While serving on Long Island
he had developed a legal strategy for dealing with sex abuse complaints.
This involved having an "intervention team" meet with family members and the
abused, without revealing that Placa was indeed the Diocese lawyer on such
matters. Placa took great pride that in cases that if litigated might cost
the Diocese millions, he could frequently manipulate the situation and get
them off for a few thousand. Of course the Monsignor was flying a false
flag - he was not a spiritual counsel, he was the Bishop's lawyer. He
traveled the country teaching Bishops this evasion technique, with about 200
successful cases outside his own Diocese.

In the 1980s, the preferred method of dealing with Priestly Pedophilia was
to send the black-collared child molesters off for "therapy." There were
several institutions available, one being a huge fraud called the House of
Affirmation run by a Father Thomas A. Kane. Kane lied about his degrees in
psychology, but that was only found out later. In the meantime he acquired
lots of high-grade real estate, and when he was about to go under, he
transferred to Placa titles for property in Massachusetts and Florida, among
other assets. The transfers were not discovered for years.

When this story was all over the papers in 2002, Suffolk County Long Island
had a Grand Jury review the situation with the Rockville Center Diocese, and
while they could not charge Placa because of the statute of limitations,
they issued a report about his "intervention team" manipulating victims and
their families, and the allegations of his abuse of two teens. As a result
Monsignor Placa was suspended from the priesthood and essentially defrocked.
He was allowed to say one public Mass however - at Giuliani's Mother's
funeral, causing the event to be picketed by sex abuse victims! When the
Grand Jury was trying to serve Placa with a subpoena, Giuliani hid him until
the term was out - a probable obstruction of justice by former U.S. Attorney

Placa is today an extremely close Giuliani friend and associate, despite
being credibly accused of sexual molestation and, perhaps worse, using the
system to cover up his and other abuse cases. The story goes back to a 2002
Newsday article about a January 1975 day when a teenager, Richard Tollner,
volunteered to help make banners for the annual Right to Life march in
Washington. According to the story, the student claims Monsignor Placa
pulled out some posters in the deserted administrative area as if to show
him something, and then began fondling him - all the while making
conversation about the posters.

Tollner said the incidents were repeated every month or so for the next year
and a half. "It was always groping," he said. "He'd draw his hand
deliberately to the inside of my thigh, and over my penis. It would go on
for four or five minutes, sometimes as long as ten."

Placa denies any wrongdoing and has never been formally charged with a
crime. But it is also true that the Diocese of Rockville Center has removed
him from wearing the collar and performing official duties.

It should also be noted that a Grand Jury report paints a devastating
picture of sexual deviancy and criminality in his Rockville Center Diocese.
According to the National Catholic Reporter:

"The report documents allegations of the rape of cheerleaders and altar
boys, of acts of molestation and seductions in churches, rectories, on
camping trips, and in the homes of the minors who were abused. It tells of
instances in which priests provided minors with pornography and alcohol, and
of cases in which the Diocese received allegations but didn't report them to
the police, but instead transferred the accused priests to other parishes."

In the Suffolk County Supreme Court Grand Jury report, Placa, by his own
admission, is referred to as "Priest F," a priest who engaged in pedophilia.
Even after the grand jury testimony, Giuliani stood by him. In another 2003
New York Times article, Placa described the zero-tolerance sex abuse policy
on priests as "immoral and unchristian." Apparently, in Placa's mind, Christ
condoned such perversions. Judging by his loyalty and support, Presidential
candidate Giuliani, proven transvestite and adulterer, does likewise.

Additionally, the 2002 Newsday story included a quote from Kevin Waldron, a
fellow high school friend who corroborates sex abuse victim Tollner's story,
saying Tollner told him of the events after they happened. The Newsday story
goes on to report:

"A second former student, who asked that his name be withheld, said he
described to Suffolk prosecutors what he called 'the newspaper drill.' 'He
(Placa) always had a New York Times in his office. And he'd sit down next to
you on the couch and open it wide and, inevitably, his hand would brush your
crotch.' 'He did it over and over again, I can't tell you how many times.'
That man said he felt so violated that he wrote Placa an unsigned letter 20
years later, blaming him for his loss of interest in pursuing the

Despite all these allegations, Giuliani hired Placa right after all this
went down, and based on news reports and a call to the Giuliani Partners
office, he remains with him today. And as the New York Times reported in
2002, even amid these strong allegations Giuliani jumped to Placa's defense
saying: "He's one of the people I admire most in the world, and if most
people did half the good that Alan's done, the world would be a wonderful
place." Yes, in Giuliani's world, and in America under his Presidency, child
molesters would run free to prey upon minors, they would protect each other
through religious organizations, and criminals would head police departments
and the Department of Homeland Security. And thus, under Giuliani's rule,
"the world would be a wonderful place."

Every bit of this has been reported over the years in Newsday, the NY Times,
and in books by Jason Berry. You can find the articles, as well as the Grand
Jury report, archived at The Times
front-paged it when Giuliani hired Placa for his consulting firm.

So why did Giuliani defend and hire the unsavory Alan Placa? Is this his
version of Affirmative Action? We know he recommended his buddy, criminal
cop Kerik, to George W. Bush for heading up Homeland Security. And two-faced
Giuliani, the closet neo-con, is now flip-flopping on the abortion issue,
among others. He tries to curry favor with pro-choice advocates but as
President would probably sabotage women's rights through judicial appointees
that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. If Giuliani is elected we could well see
pedophile priest-lawyers that oppose abortion on "moral grounds" sitting on
the Supreme Court!

And why the lack of media attention to all this today? Suppose John Edwards,
Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton had given a cozy sinecure to a defrocked
priest credibly accused of pedophilia. What would occur? I'll tell you
what - every newspaper reader, every radio listener, and every television
news watcher in America would be discussing the matter the very next day.
But I'll bet you're learning for the first time right here about Giuliani's
de facto defense of child abuse and staunch support of his probable
pedophile priestly pal.

Aside from his moral issues, do we want a President of the United States
whose definition of freedom is:


- Mayor Giuliani, quoted in the New York Times, March 17, 1994.


Dobson Rips Giuliani's 'Moral Positions'
Focus On The Family Leader Critical Of Giuliani, McCain

POSTED: 10:11 am EDT May 18, 2007
UPDATED: 10:25 am EDT May 18, 2007

Email This Story | Print This Story

WASHINGTON -- A prominent conservative Christian leader said Thursday that "my conscience and my moral convictions" prevent him from voting for Rudy Giuliani should he win the Republican nomination.

Related: More Campaign Coverage | Survey

In a blistering online column, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson wrote that, should the former New York mayor become the nominee, "I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst -- not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life."

"Many liberal Americans will agree with the social positions espoused by Giuliani. However, I don't believe conservative voters whose support he seeks will be impressed," Dobson said on WorldNetDaily, a conservative news Web site.

A conservative Christian evangelical based in Colorado Springs, Colo., Dobson said he was speaking as a private citizen. However, his words carry considerable weight with the some 7 million listeners of his conservative radio show.

Earlier this year, Dobson said he won't back John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Dobson has given no public indication on how he feels about the other top-tier candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The two, however, have met privately.

Dobson called Giuliani an "unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand" and criticized him for signing a bill in 1997 creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City.

He said there were other "moral concerns" with Giuliani, including that he's on his third marriage to "his mistress" from his second marriage and "appears not to have remorse for cheating on his wife."

Last week in a speech in Houston, Giuliani urged Republican voters to look beyond the differences they have with him on social issues and said it was important to respect those with whom one disagrees.

"From the beginning Mayor Giuliani has been straightforward with the American people about where he stands on the issues," said Maria Comella, a Giuliani spokeswoman. "It is a sign of leadership to speak honestly about your beliefs even when it is not politically expedient."
Samuel David Cheney's Two Mommies
Contact: Peter LaBarbera, president, Americans For Truth, 630-546-4439, 630-717-7631

OPINION, May 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth, submits the following and is available for comment on the birth of Samuel David Cheney, who will be raised by the Vice President's daughter, Mary Cheney, and her lesbian partner, Heather Poe:

Samuel David Cheney's Two Mommies

By Peter LaBarbera

Today's USA Today reported the birth yesterday of Samuel David Cheney, with the following caption under a White House photo.

"U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and wife Lynne Cheney hold their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, born Wednesday in Washington. His parents are the Cheneys' daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe."

There should be no touch of sadness when a healthy baby boy is born to two parents, but in this case, we're afraid, there is.

While we celebrate life, we cannot celebrate homosexual parenting -- which involves intentionally denying a child either a mom or a dad. In this case, young Samuel David -- who, as a Cheney, will surely enjoy privileges and comforts greater than most children born in 2007 -- will be missing an irreplaceable one: a father, to have as a guide, male authority, friend and role model as he grows from boy into man.

The pro-"gay" media have an odd way of reporting stories like this, as if both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe were involved in the baby's conception. To do otherwise, I suppose, would call unwanted attention to the unnaturalness of the enterprise known as "gay parenting." And yet, the truth remains: two homosexuals cannot create a baby. Heterosexuality -- the people that radicals in the early days of "gay liberation" derided as "breeders" -- must be involved.

The USA Today reports that Vice President Dick Cheney has "bristled at questions on the topic." But he and Mrs. Cheney, an ardent foe of political correctness, and a conservative, should know that there is nothing wrong with asking critical questions about something so patently wrong -- and against Nature, common sense, and God's wonderful design of the family itself -- as parenting that is fatherless or motherless by design.

We will keep on asking those tough questions, all the while praying for this boy, and that both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe will join Charlene Cothran and the many women who have come out of homosexuality, which surely is not God's plan for their lives.

Peter LaBarbera is the president of Americans For Truth, an organization devoted solely to confronting the homosexual, bisexual and transgender activist agendas.

Dick Cheney's Gay Daughter Now Mother
Mary Cheney Drew Scrutiny From Dobson

POSTED: 6:12 pm EDT May 23, 2007
UPDATED: 6:35 pm EDT May 23, 2007

Email This Story | Print This Story

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary delivered an 8-pound, 6-ounce baby boy on Wednesday, the first child for her and her female partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

Survey: Daughter For Mary Cheney?

Samuel David Cheney was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, the vice president's office announced. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne, paid a visit to their new -- and sixth -- grandchild a few hours later.

Mary Cheney announced in December that she and Poe had decided to start a family. Her decision to become pregnant and raise a child with Poe was criticized in some conservative circles.

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, asserted that children need to be reared by heterosexual married couples, for instance.

"With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father," he wrote in Time magazine.

"That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy -- any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."

The vice president bristled at questions on the topic, even though President George W. Bush and Republican candidates asserted their opposition to gay marriage in recent election cycles.

Campaign rhetoric aside, the president said he believed Mary Cheney and her partner would make loving parents.

Mary Cheney was an aide to her father during the 2004 campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL.

Will Giuliani replace Cheney in ’04?

By Jeannette Walls with Ashley Pearson
Updated: 11:56 p.m. PT Jan 26, 2004
Will there be a Bush/Giuliani ticket in '04?

A well-placed source says that the president will “most likely” drop Dick Cheney from his re-election ticket and his first choice for a replacement is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“The issue of Cheney’s health will probably be given as the reason,” says the insider. “There’s a short list of possible replacements, and Rudy is at the top of the list.”

The source adds that the selection of the former New York mayor may be overridden by Bush advisors from the far right. “Giuliani has been pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and is pretty liberal on some other social issues, but the thinking is that he might broaden Bush’s appeal.”

If, however, Giuliani gets bumped from the ticket, says the source, “expect him to get a prime assignment in Washington as an consolation prize.”

Bush’s rep didn’t return calls, and a spokeswoman for Giuliani said, “Rudy Giuliani has been out in Iowa and New Hampshire talking about the incredible accomplishments of Vice President Dick Cheney with George Bush and working very hard to get them both re-elected.”

Kucinich’s Impeachment Proposal Takes Antiwar Stand to New Lengths
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Published: April 24, 2007
Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich on Tuesday introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney for “high crimes and misdemeanors” related to his participation in the buildup for the war in Iraq — and what the longshot Democratic presidential contender said was belligerent rhetoric toward Iran.

Skip to next paragraph

News and analysis on Daily E-mail
CQ Midday Update from Capitol Hill
Congressional Quarterly Free Newsletters
In an 18-page draft resolution, Kucinich outlined three charges against Cheney: that he “manipulated the intelligence process . . . by fabricating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” to justify the war in Iraq; that he deceived citizens and Congress “about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” to justify the war; and that he has “openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States’ proven capability to carry out such threats.”

“In all this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president, and subversive to constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States . . . [and] by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office,” the resolution concluded.

Kucinich introduced the articles at a news conference held at 5 p.m. Tuesday on Capitol Hill, which was delayed for several hours. The event was originally planned for noon, but Kucinich initially postponed it based on news reports Cheney was undergoing emergency medical treatment for a chronic blood clot condition in his leg. When subsequent news reports indicated the tests were more routine, Kucinich rescheduled the event.

Kucinich — who opposed military intervention in Iraq from the start and voiced strong criticism of the Bush administration’s policy during a quixotic run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination — again has made his antiwar stance a main issue of his bid for the White House.

Democratic leaders, who have stated repeatedly they have no intentions of pursuing the impeachment of either President Bush or Cheney, do not support the impeachment effort. Kucinich said Tuesday that he did not have any co-sponsors for the resolution. But he proclaimed that he had the support of “millions of Americans.”

Speaking at the news conference, Kucinich said he was pursuing impeachment of Cheney, and not Bush, for practical reasons. “It’s significant and responsible to start in this way, because if the same charges would relate to the president as relate to the vice president, you would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively,” he said.

Kucinich posted his proposed articles of impeachment on his congressional Web site.

© 2006 Congressional Quarterly

Dennis J. Kucinich: "Privatizing Iraq's Oil is Theft!" ??
Rep. Kucinich explained how the proposed Bill, now pending before the U.S. Congress, via its benchmarks, will provide for the privatization of Iraqi oil. It requires the regime in Iraq to pass a law called, "The Hydrocarbon Act." If they refuse to do so over a billion dollars in reconstruction funds will be blocked by the Bush-Cheney administration, he claimed. - Unless the scheme is stopped, Rep. Kucinich predicted, we will be looking at an Iraqi War "going on forever!"

Friday, May 25, 2007

Priests Actually Felt No Shame

Denial of Sin

By James K. Fitzpatrick

(This article originally appeared in the Catholic weekly The Wanderer. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)

In a column on the clerical sex abuse scandals rocking the Church, I speculated about how the priests involved in these acts could justify their behavior to themselves in their private moments. One possibility I raised was that they may have bought so totally into premises of the homosexual revolution that they actually felt no shame for what they had done.

Fred Martinez, staff religion editor of the Conservative Monitor and a regular contributor to the San Francisco Faith, a northern California newspaper, forwarded a column of his that appeared on on April 18th. In it, he speculates that the problem may be even more deep seated.

Martinez holds that we are witnessing the impact of the successful infiltration of Catholic “publishers, seminaries, even convents and monasteries” by a “scientific paganism” that calls for an “inversion of worship and the Judeo-Christian worldview.” He says that we are looking at an outright “denial of original sin and personal sin” by clerics who reject the “basic Christian assumption that there is a need for forgiveness from God. Instead, they believe there is no sin, only selves needing to reach the fullness of themselves”; that this is what lies “behind the headlines of the Boston catastrophe and other dioceses.”

Martinez holds that these views were introduced into our seminaries and workshops for priests, brothers and nuns through the “human potential movement” and humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. The goal of Maslow and Rogers was to promote an approach to education that would be “values-free,” one that would stress that there is no right and wrong, no objective truth when discussing religious or moral issues.

Thus, says Martinez, the Christian understanding of a “fallen and sinful world with persons needing God the Father to forgive them so they can return to be His sons and daughters” was replaced with a “therapeutic starting point,” where what “is needed are not God and His forgiveness, but a therapist assisting a self to reach the fullness of self.” The ideas of Nietzsche, Freud and Jung supplanted in our schools and seminaries the teachings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Newman.

Martinez makes sense to me. Anyone who has sat through a “values clarification” exercise in one of our public schools knows that the purpose of these exercises is promote a “non-judgmental” view of life, an “I’m okay, you’re okay” relativism, a “different strokes for different folks” attitude that purportedly will encourage a spirit of tolerance in our multicultural world. If these views have become part of the training of our priests and religious, it would not be hard to picture how active homosexuals could reconcile their behavior with their priesthood. They are being true to themselves.

We must remember that even though these priests accused of sex abuse are often older men, they are likely to have gone through the seminary at the height of the counterculture influences of the late 1960s and 1970s. The rise of the counterculture was over 30 years ago.

I remember those years. I was teaching at a Catholic high school in the Bronx in the late 1960s. One of the things that struck me was how the nature of retreats changed during those years. During the time when I was a student at a Catholic high school, in the late 1950s, the purpose of a retreat was to encourage a personal rejection of sin and a willingness to submit to the word of God as expressed in the Gospels and the teachings of the Church.

By the late 1960s, things had changed dramatically. The goal seemed to be to remove a sense of guilt and anxiety about sin and promote a sense of psychological well being instead – to make the students “feel good about themselves,” no matter where they “were coming from”. Stress was placed upon the “good news” of the Gospels and God’s love for us and upon our duty to love our neighbor as ourselves for the love God.

In some ways, this change was for the good. Love and redemption are at the heart of Christ’s message. But Christ’s message is more. The men about to stone the women taken in sin are warned that only those without sin should cast the first stone. And the woman was forgiven for her sins. But Jesus also told the woman to “Go and sin no more.” Forgiveness requires repentance and conversion.

If that part of the equation is forgotten, we end up with people who are convinced that their behavior is acceptable if it is in accordance with their personal and unique search for meaning in life. We get relativists, existentialists, multiculturalists – and maybe even priests who can engage in sex with youthful parishioners without feeling guilty about it in the morning.

James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at

Time Warner and the U S Postal Service vs. Democracy

I learned about this from a conservative Catholic weekly called The Wanderer. Please pray and do something to help.To learn what you can do to help, go to


Disseminate Information, Protect Democracy
Teresa Stack

The following is a shortened version of a letter drafted by Nation president Teresa Stack and signed by her and her counterparts at more than a dozen independent journals, including National Review, The American Spectator and Mother Jones. To learn what you can do to help, go to

BLETTERS (3) Write to the Magazine

Here's a list of academics who have sent a letter to James C. Miller III, chairman of the Postal Board of Governors, protesting the change.

James C. Miller III
Chairman, Postal Board of Governors

We write to you today on a matter of great urgency. The recent decision of the Postal Service Board of Governors (BOG) to accept the startling periodical rate recommendations of the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) undermines the historic foundation of our national mail system. These new rates will have grave consequences for disseminating the very type of information our Founding Fathers strove to protect and foster when they established the public postal service.

As the publishers of small national magazines that focus primarily on politics and culture, we share a common mission of providing the information essential to a flourishing democracy. We struggle to inform the national dialogue in a way the Founders believed essential to the health of this country. As journals of opinion and ideas, we do not do it for the money; we do it because, like the Founders, we believe it to be a public good.

As you know, in May 2006 the United States Postal Service proposed a rate increase for periodicals of about 11.7 percent, an increase that would have affected all periodicals more or less equally. Instead, in February the PRC recommended a version of the rate proposal put forward by Time Warner, which had previously been rejected by the PRC and strongly opposed by the USPS. This proposal would have a disproportionately adverse effect on small national publications while easing the burden on the largest magazines.

The decision was followed by an industry "comment period" of only eight working days, an impossibly short time for small publications to digest changes so complex that to this day there is no definitive computer model to fully assess them. Nonetheless, the new rates are scheduled to take effect July 15.

We now know that small titles will be devastated. According to an analysis by McGraw-Hill (but not, inexplicably, done by the PRC or BOG), about 5,700 small-circulation publications will incur rate increases exceeding 20 percent; another 1,260 publications will see increases above 25 percent; and hundreds more, increases above 30 percent. Some small magazines will no doubt go out of business. Meanwhile, the largest magazines will enjoy the benefit of much smaller increases and in some cases, decreases. To make matters even worse, editorial content charges will now be based on distance. The system of charging one price however far editorial content travels, which has existed since our country's founding, seems to have been summarily dismissed by the PRC, and then by the governors, with little thought of its future impact.

These increased postal rates will also raise barriers for prospective new publishers, thus destroying competition in the periodicals market and locking in the privileged positions of the largest firms. While it is understandable that Time Warner would relish the idea of making it more difficult for new competitors, there is no reason to think that it is in the interest of the American people or the market economy.

Since its inception, the US Postal Service has recognized small magazines like ours as serving a vital function in the American political system. And while the realities of the marketplace no doubt require some adjustments to postal costs, the PRC's new rates turn the ideals of Jefferson and Madison on their head. These ideals have been eloquently defended in all previous rate cases. Instead, we will now have an entirely cost-based system.

Even if the argument can be made that such a system trumps all other interests, the USPS remains in effect a government monopoly. We are small businesses, and to raise costs so dramatically without our input and with no recourse is devastating. Comments were heard only from companies that could afford to provide them, via expert testimony and top-notch legal advice. No one considered how a small business would accommodate a 30 percent increase in one of the most expensive items in its budget.

The PRC has managed to take a historically preferred class of mail and turn it into the most complex, cost-based and bureaucratically burdened of all mail classes in the span of a single rate case. Periodical rates ought to be the least cost-based, because that class exists for content.

In accepting the Time Warner rate plan, the PRC and the governors have allowed the cost-based proposal of one of the country's largest mailers to prevail over public and small business concerns. Small magazines that have historically contributed to the diversity of voices and opinions and have an outsized effect on our public discourse are now potentially silenced so that the likes of Time Warner can mail People more cheaply.

We appreciate that costs increase and mail technologies change. However, the mail system is a public system, and the dissemination of small magazines remains a public good. Accordingly, any changes should be implemented gradually and on a cost-averaged basis so as not to threaten the very existence of small magazines. We ask that:

1. the Board of Governors move quickly to delay the implementation of these new rates, allowing an additional period of public comment;

2. a full assessment and justification of the new rates and their impact on the public good be completed, and if the new rates cannot be adequately assessed and justified, that the decision of the BOG be revised and the new rates revoked;

3. whether the Postal Service exercises its right to file for another rate increase under the old postal reform law or moves directly to the new law's provisions, during the next rate case the Postal Service will shift some of the added burden away from the small-circulation publications that have survived until then.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

"The shocking hate mail we received shows...

Outrageous Homosexual Bill Passes California Senate

SB 777 a serious assault on religious freedom in schools
SACRAMENTO, May 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- The California State Senate voted today (23-13) to pass SB 777 (Kuehl), legislation that will ban textbooks and teachers from any instruction that "reflects or promotes bias against" homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues. SB 777 is similar to last session's highly controversial SB 1437, which passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens."

Earlier this month homosexual advocacy group Equality California attacked CRI's opposition to the bill. A board member for the radical group sent an e- mail and video to CRI declaring that they would "bury" CRI if we "continued our efforts" in opposing this outrageous legislation. CRI also received hate mail from the so-called "tolerant" supporters of Equality California and the homosexual "tolerance" agenda.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," stated England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

SB 777 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities. School- sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom. Under SB 777 school districts could potentially be prohibited from having a "prom king and queen" because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.

"Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented the policies in this bill," said Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "In that district, boys who perceive themselves as girls may enter the girls' locker room and restroom. Teachers and school officials are required to hide the gender identity of a transgender student if the parents are unaware of what's taking place at school. This astonishing policy will be expanded to every school in the state if SB 777 becomes law."

Christian Newswire

Monday, May 21, 2007

Differing Views on the Senate immigration bill

Newt Gingrich: "a sellout of every conservative principle." "I can't imagine anybody running for president being nominated if they support this bill,"

Mitt Romney: "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate," "It's the wrong approach."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "He's(Ted Kennedy) awesome,"

Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy: "the deal was true to America's 'humanity and our tradition of a nation of immigrants'."

Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar: "an important start"

Republican Representative Tom Tancredo: "a slap in the face" to working Americans
"I was listening to President Bush speak on the border, and I'm thinking to myself, 'I'm listening to Bill Clinton reworking every word, reworking every definition.'?"

Gilberto Escalante, a 41-year-old fisherman from Topolobampo in Sinaloa state: "We don't want the house or the latest car in the U.S. We want to go and work so that our families can have a good life in Mexico." So much for wanting to become an American and assimilating.

Victor Aviles, a spokesman for Mexico's Foreign Relations Department: "cautiously welcomed the initiative"

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "This is a success for the American people. It is a success for people who hope to one day participate in the American Dream,"

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa: "This legislation I think is well outside of what I would consider responsible reform. It's misfocused. It puts the cart before the horse," "This bill is dangerous precedent and sends a chilling message about our national integrity: America has lost the will to enforce her laws, and her sovereignty is for sale currently, for around $2,000."

Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz: "I think there is strong sentiment in the House that passing a bad bill, a bill that sets policies that will hurt America, a bill that has not been fully thought through that Americans aren't aware of would be worse than passing no bill at all."

Sen. Jeff Sessions: "The vast majority of the 11 million or so people here will be given every benefit this nation can bestow as a product of their illegality. I don't think that's a good principle," "This bill prioritizes low-skilled and chain migration over skill-based immigration, an approach we should reject."

Sen. John Ensign: "I'm hopeful that the House will save us from this bill,"

Mexican President Vicente Fox: "a historic step"

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson: urged Congress to "scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway."

Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant group: "The ones who think this is just amnesty ... we're not terribly concerned about those guys. We weren't expecting their votes,"

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): "serious concerns"

Caroline Espinosa , spokesman for Numbers USA, an immigration law reform group: "This has definitely hit a nerve. There's no question in our minds that this is amnesty,"

Sen. John McCain: "Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up and send them back to the countries they came from. I don't know how you do that. And I don't know why you would want to."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.): "a bad bill" that "puts more emphasis on amnesty than on border security."

Sen Jim DeMint: "The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Isakson that would have prohibited the implementation of any guest worker program that grants legal status to those who have entered the country illegally until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and to the Congress that the border security provisions in the immigration legislation are fully funded and operational."

Sen Charles Grassley: "Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people. The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country."

Ira Mehlman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform: the government would be "allowing everybody who applies for amnesty the right of judicial review, so if anybody is rejected, they are entitled to their day in court." And in addition to the amnesty, he notes, "they're talking about a huge guest-worker program, probably 400,000 unskilled workers coming to this country every year with their dependent relatives. The enforcement mechanisms are an absolute joke."

Sen Johnny Isakson; GA: “I’m very disappointed that the Senate has refused to put border security first. The Senate is sending the message to the American people that we should continue to give a wink and a nod to those who would cross our borders illegally, and that is a terrible message to send,”

David Vitter, R-La: “This is amnesty,”

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla: “I’m going to celebrate here.”

Timothy D. Sparapani,ACLU: "The Senate’s bill is filled with provisions that would have serious unintended consequences that would undermine due process and invite invasions of personal privacy,"

Michael Savage: Our "Culture [is] being destroyed by greed, greed, greed." "Bush is the chief culprit. He's wanted this from day one. In fact, we played a sound bite yesterday of him gleefully looking forward to the Democrat-controlled New Congress last Fall! At last he could push through his ultra-internationalist agenda."

Rush Limbaugh: "the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act, today, and the Republicans are too idiotic to figure out that that's what this is" "This is the big lie in the bill, where they tell us all the measures an illegal has to take to become a citizen, have to pay $5,000, have to go home, come back and so forth. They become legal immediately. All of that is just window dressing to make you think there's going to have to be some sort of effort made on these people's part for this to happen, but it's not. Once they become legal, citizenship or no citizenship, then it's over. They are legally entitled to the welfare state. They are legally entitled to whatever any other citizen is entitled to, even though they're not citizens. Ted Kennedy knows this."

Sen.Craig Thomas: "Unfortunately, the Senate bill includes far too many bad ideas – I can’t support a bill that offers amnesty and benefits as a reward for illegal activity,”

Sen Mike Enzi: “This bill would increase border security and make English our national language, but it also would give illegal immigrants amnesty and put them in line ahead of those who have been following the rules to gain citizenship legally. I could not vote for this bill that rewards people for breaking the rules,”

Rich Lowry, National Review: "The Senate immigration bill is dishonest, unworkable, and radical."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr: Allowing illegals to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal work, for instance, is "outrageous,"

Posted by scotbrit at 8:22 AM

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Gay Mafia Takes Over of U.S. Bishops & Media

-Updated October 1, 2017-

As the history below shows, in the early part of this century, the gay mafia took over the U.S. media.

Now, they appear to be taking over the U.S Bishops in many dioceses.

On March 31, in a article called "Numerous 'gay' affirming parishes unopposed by bishops in major U.S. dioceses," it was confirmed that the gay mafia is taking over many dioceses.

The report showed that many American bishops were allowing parishes to have homosexual groups that opposed defined Church teaching.

The article said that leftist bishops and conservative bishops ranging from "McElroy of San Diego and Chaput of Philidelphia have expressed concern about the use of 'intrinsically disordered" which is the defined Church teaching of homosexuality.

Both bishops are also defending gay activist Fr. James Martin who on YouTube said "chasity is not required of homosexuals on September 20.

Chaput, McElroy as well as many other bishops and the media are helping Martin build a bridge to hell by abetting his efforts to help these persons to live in unconfessed moral sin.

These U.S. Bishops are joining the media in a project that began early this century. (It is hoped that truly Catholic Bishops will oppose these bishops.)

The following is a history of the gay mafia take over of the media.

Back in 2007, Michael Savage was right when he said there is a “homosexualization of the media, the homosexual mafia ...controls virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear.”

There is also a of homosexualization of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). According to psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, the APA had its own "lavender mafia" when it voted to "normalize homosexuality" in the early 1970s.

The non-scientific as well as non-democratic Marxist and Nazi strategy used by the "lavender mafia" for its successful coup of the APA was explained by Satinover. The tactics used against the APA in the "normalization of homosexuality" are presented in his book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." The Congressional Record of May 1996 called it the "best book on homosexuality written in our times."

Satinover said, "[T]he leadership of a homosexual faction within the APA planned a 'systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.' They defended this method of 'influence' on the grounds that the APA represented 'psychiatry as a social institution' rather than a scientific body or professional guild."

As all can see, the "News Mafia" and the "lavender mafia" (the gay movement) are not respecters of freedom of speech or scientific bodies. They have created their own Iron Curtain, which is suppression of free speech.

The Berlin Wall was the symbol of Marxist ideology. Goldberg in "Bias" called ABC, NBC and CBS the three big "News Mafia" families. These "Big Three" are a large basis of the gay movement's power. The "News Mafia" is the New Berlin Wall that is even now starting to crumble, as did the Berlin Wall and the "evil empire" which built that wall.

Goldberg's "Bias" is like Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago," the beginning of the end for the new "evil empire." If talk radio and news sources like NewsMax continue to courageously fight the bias and lies of the "Big Three," then they will crumble as more and more viewers leave them.

But even the "Big Three" are only stooges of the New York Times and Washington Post. Goldberg said, "The problem is that so many TV journalists simply don’t know how to think about certain issues until the New York Times and the Washington Post tell them what to think. Those big, important newspapers set the agenda that network news people follow."

In the case of the newspaper of record, the gay movement appears to hold in bondage the New York Times in more ways than one. NewsMax ran an article about Accuracy in Media's Reed Irvine's inquiry into the Times' bias. (See: New York Times on Defensive.) Irvine said Richard Berke, a national political correspondent for the Times, spoke at a gathering of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.

Irvine says that Berke assured the homosexual group that the Times would remain very receptive to the gay agenda because "three-fourths of those who regularly attend the daily meetings that determine what will be on the front page of the Times the next morning are 'not-so-closeted' homosexuals."

Goldberg unwittingly in analogy showed a similar situation at CBS when he said, "If CBS News were a prison instead of a journalistic enterprise, three-quarters of the producers and 100 percent of the vice presidents would be Dan's [Rather's] bitches."

Norman Mailer explains why the totalitarian relationship Dan Rather had with his CBS News producers and vice presidents, as well as his denial of natural objective truths, can lead to a Nietzschean will-to-power situation. In his book "Prisoner of Sex," Mailer showed why this moving away from natural objective truths such as heterosexual sex can lead to the homosexual prison totalitarian will to power:

"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years. ... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no damnable spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."

This is the end result when universal truths and responsibility toward those truths are denied. The only "currency" left to the left is stealing of power, because they are insecure in any truth including their own objective masculinity.

Unsure of their own objective masculinity – or any objective truth, for that matter – they will not tolerate truth, calling it intolerance. They will not tolerate the truth of the purpose of sex, which is married love, with the creation of a secure family for the children of that love.

This totalitarian will to power and denial of natural objective truths may be the reason why Goldberg considered the media's anti-conservative bias against the great "social" issues such as abortion and homosexuality to be even greater than against the "Democrat-versus-Republican sort" of issues.

He said, "Why were we doing PR for the AIDS lobby by spreading an epidemic of fear, telling our viewers about how AIDS was about to break out into mainstream heterosexual America, which simply was not true?”

But even in this, there is a political dimension. Former Gov. Pete du Pont pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article after the Bush-Gore 2000 presidential race that, when he compared maps, the adult video rental map and the map of the counties that went for Gore were the same.

E. Michael Jones, the editor of Culture War magazine, said, "If they want to survive as a party, the Republicans have to understand first of all, how sexual liberation is a form of political control, and secondly, how the Democrats increase their political power by mobilizing sexual deviance ... things like pornography and its scholastic variant, sex education, in addition to abortion and homosexuality. ... Those who are stupid enough to identify themselves with their sexual vices can always look to the Democratic Party and the dominant media culture as sympathetic to ... guarantee his bondage."

Savage on the link between "the homosexualization of the media" and our descent "to a level below that of the apes"

1. On the January 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Michael Savage declared that the "homosexual dance of death" and the "homosexualization of the West" are the "seminal issue[s] of our time," and later added that the "homosexual mafia" is responsible for "control[ing] virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear, [and] everything that you wear."

As Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, and here), Savage has repeatedly referred to gays as part of the "the homosexual mafia," and even compared gays to "drug addicts."

Savage began his remarks on the topic by noting remarks by Pope Benedict XVI, who said that by "relativiz[ing] marriage" through same-sex unions, "man, in seeking to emancipate himself from his body [from the 'biological sphere'], ends up by destroying himself," adding, "Against those who say that 'the Church should not involve herself in these matters,' we can only respond: does man not concern us too?" This was quoted in a December 30 article by the right-wing news website WorldNetDaily, which purported to interpret the pope's comments as meaning that "homosexuals end up destroying themselves so the Church has a duty to speak out on moral issues that affect the very spiritual and physical lives of man." Savage quoted the WorldNetDaily paraphrase rather than the pope's own language and said: "If you have a problem with what I'm reading to you, why don't you send it to the Vatican, not to me." Savage also referred to "homosexual marriage" as an "abomination" and a "death service."

Savage concluded by saying: "I'll let you figure out how we have descended to a level below that of the apes, lower than the chimpanzee, my friend -- all as a result of the demons who rule the media, and have ruled the media to the point of extinction."

From the January 2 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: The pope said last week that homosexuals are destroying themselves. And I want to read to you what the pope said, and if you have a problem with what I'm reading to you, why don't you send it to the Vatican, not to me. Pope Benedict XVI said homosexuals end up destroying themselves, so the church has a duty to speak out on moral issues that affect the very spiritual and physical lives of man.
Now, most Americans know this, which is why any time they're allowed to vote against homosexual marriage, which they know to be an abomination and a death service, not a life-giving service, they say "no" to the death service called homosexual marriage. Now, he didn't write that; I did.

SAVAGE: God bless Pope Benedict XVI for speaking out on the seminal issue of our time, which is the homosexual dance of death, and the homosexualization of the West. There is a direct correlation between the homosexualization of the media, the homosexual mafia that controls virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear, everything that you wear, and the behavior of our boys and girls and the fact that they will not have children, and they simply want to party until 3 a.m., and spend their money on designer items so they look good, and they have good abs, and good butts, and good lats, and good delts. After all, isn't a good ab better than a good son? Isn't a good butt better than a good daughter? I'll let you figure out how we have descended to a level below that of the apes, lower than the chimpanzee, my friend -- all a result of the demons who rule the media, and have ruled the media to the point of extinction.



Friday, May 11, 2007

Gay Mafia Threaten Bishops In Italy and Colombia

Are We Entering Into An Anti-Christian Gay Totalitarianism?

Gay activists threatened Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco with a “bullet in an envelope” in Italy and threatened to arrest Colombian Archbishop Fabio Betancourt Tirado for opposing the sin of homosexuality.

Are we entering into an anti-Christian Gay Totalitarianism? The AP report below said “[Vatican Radio]quoted a Genoa newspaper as saying the [bullet]envelope also contained a photo of the archbishop with a swastika cut into it.”


Italian Bishop Threatened With Bullet
Italian Bishop Against Same-Sex Unions Receives Bullet At His Office

VATICAN CITY, Apr. 29, 2007

(AP) The archbishop of the Italian city of Genoa received a bullet in an envelope at his office _ the latest threatening message for the prelate, who is leading a campaign against same-sex unions, Vatican Radio said Sunday.

The bullet arrived Friday at the office of Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who was recently elected to head the politically influential Italian Bishops Conference, the radio report said. It quoted a Genoa newspaper as saying the envelope also contained a photo of the archbishop with a swastika cut into it.

Bodyguards stood a few yards from the altar in Genoa's cathedral Sunday as Bagnasco celebrated Mass. They were assigned to protect the archbishop a few weeks ago after graffiti was scrawled on buildings threatening him.

Vatican Radio quoted the archdiocese's spokesman, Carlo Arcolao, as calling the recent threats the work of "very small and psychologically weak fringes."

Encouraged by the Vatican, the Italian bishops have been campaigning against a proposed Italian law that would grant certain rights to same-sex couples, but stop short of legalizing gay marriage.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed []

Arrest Suspended for Colombian Catholic Archbishop over Dismissal of Homosexual Seminarian
By Gudrun Schultz

MANIZALES, Colombia, April 27, 2007 ( - An arrest order against Archbishop Fabio Betancourt Tirado has been temporarily suspended for ten days by a Columbian court in Manizales--the order was issued after the archbishop refused to comply with a lawsuit over his decision to dismiss a seminarian for robbery and homosexual activity, according to a Catholic News Agency report April 26.

The former seminarian accused Archbishop Betancourt of discriminating against him over his homosexual activity while he was in seminary--he is now enrolled in a Protestant seminary. The archbishop declined to explain to the court why he dismissed the seminarian.

Archbishop Betancourt said he has received support from Catholics in France, Germany, the United States, Ecuador, Costa Rica and other countries. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos and Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo each communicated support through phone calls.

Archbishop Betancourt thanked God for the suspension of his arrest order and said the decision was the "fruit of a prayer crusade" in the archdiocese.

"This decision is proof that God is not sleeping or dead. It is the fruit of a prayer crusade in Manizales, which has resulted in the Church coming out victorious and the country great," he said in a Colombian radio interview.

The Manizales court must decide within ten days whether or not to revoke the arrest order.

Colombia was thrust into the forefront of the push to establish pro-homosexual legislation in Latin American countries with the Colombian Supreme Court decision in February to permit same-sex couples the same inheritance rights as married couples.

The country remains strongly Catholic, however, despite 1991 constitutional reforms that dropped Catholicism as the official religion. Support for homosexuality remains low among the general population. []

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Mass Citizens for Life circling like vultures to attack anyone who dares to point out Romney bought them for 15 thousand

I received the email below from Carol McKinley who is one of the top Catholic and pro-life leaders in Massachusetts.


Mass Citizens for Life circling like vultures to attack anyone who dares to point out Romney bought them for 15 thousand
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:06:49 -0400
From: View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Dear Prolife Friends and Members of the Press:

Mass Citizens for Life is at it again.

According to Romney, his wife Ann is now "one of the heads" of Mass Citizen for Life - which explains why Catholic Hospitals are giving out emergency abortifacients under Romney's illegal edict.

I don't know about you-but I intend to find out what position she holds, and the date and time the vote was taken by the Board of Directors.

"I know there are some campaigns that want to keep reminding people of that," said Romney. "It's really hard for me to gauge what people will do."

"Her contributions are for her and not for me," Romney said before a campaign appearance in Iowa. "Her positions are not terrible relevant to my campaign." Romney volunteered that wife, Ann, is now one of the heads of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a leading anti-abortion group.

I also wanted to point out to you that Joe Reilly attempted to discredit Larry Cirignano by sending out an email blasting him for pointing out that some of not most of grassroots prolifers now find Mass Citizens for Life unreliable and untrustworthy. (Joe's email is posted below)

Folks, this is absolutely unnacceptable. Larry accomplished more in his few years here than Mass Citizens for Life ever has. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find anything effective that Mass Citizens for Life has done in the last 10 years. They worse than useless - as they pander to the enemies.

Attached Message
Subject: ***MCFL Alert***
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 1:16 PM

On May 7 at 5:37 PM, Larry Cirignano ( sent out a broadcast email disparaging MCFL’s inviting former Governor Mitt Romney to speak at its Pioneer Valley Dinner. It encouraged people to challenge Romney and protest, at the dinner and outside.

At the end, Kay Mullins’ name was listed with her phone number. Then followed information on ordering tickets, etc. At the bottom of the email was Larry’s usual signoff when he forwards other people’s articles and emails.

The effect was to make it look as though Kay Mullins had authored the email. Kay does not even have a computer, and had nothing to do with the email.

Larry was asked repeatedly to issue a clarification that he had authored the email, not Kay. So far he has not done so. It is intellectually dishonest to deliberately or even inadvertently implicate an innocent party, then refuse to issue a retraction or correction.

This email is to clearly state that neither Kay Mullins nor MCFL had anything to do with Larry’s email. It expresses his opinion only, and certainly not that of MCFL.

Joe Reilly
Dear Prolife Friends,

This is a very brief email to let you know that according to the Globe, Ann Romney was placed as co-chair to MCFL's capital campaign - which essentially means she is in charge of fundraising. In other words, the sudden honors, platforms, pulpits and endorsements coming out of MCFL for the Romney candidacy and sudden retroactive "prolife" view Romney's tenure here in Massachusetts - appears to coincide with a new billionare in charge of their fundraising.

Have the Romney's set up campaign headquarters at MCFL?

Carol McKinley
Prolife Mitt Romney Watch
Front Page New York Times story on Romney's vote buying strategies.
Wallet opens to the right
Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups. Its 2006 contributions will become public with its tax filings later this year.
Doesn't influence? Then how would one explain this:
In January, K-Lo posted the quote from Marie Sturgis after Romney gave them fifteen thousand dollars - - -
It’s a view echoed by Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who says, “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State.”
- - - Subsequently, Marie and MCFL quotes about Romney prior to the fifteen thousand dollar contribution circulated the Internet, including the following:
From the Globe July of 2005
Similarly, a leading antiabortion group is puzzled: ''We honestly don't know where he stands on this issue," said Marie Sturgis, executive director and legislative director for Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
Sturgis, of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said Romney does not have regular contacts with her group. ''If we could, we would," Sturgis said. When he ran for governor in 2002, she said, her group considered him an abortion rights supporter; Romney declined to complete the Citizens for Life questionnaire
A quote from 2002:
The Executive Director for MCFL Marie Sturgis said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is “not pro-life and does not meet their requirements,” Sturgis said.
From March of 2005
Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life said that she has not seen any change in Romney's position on abortion and considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, according to the Globe.
> What happened in the 18 months since March of 2005 that suddenly made Marie Sturgis and MCFL retroactively feel Romney has been a huge pro-life supporter during his entire term? Among other things, Romney forced emergency contraception on Catholic hospitals in late 2005 with no conscience exemption, even though his own Public Health Department said the previous statute provided an exemption. Romney also came out in favor of embryonic stem cell research. Fifteen thousand dollars went into MCFL's coffers.

After Marie's pre-contribution quotes circulated the internet - The Romney people, afraid it would look like they bought MCFL, asked Sturgis to remove her name from this endorsement.
I had knowledge that Sturgis had signed the endorsement - and the rumor circulated that Romney asked that Sturgis' name be removed. When the endorsement came out without Sturgis' name, I called and asked her to confirm the chain of events. Her response? "I don't want to open up that can of worms".

Sturgis claims in the NYT piece today - that Romney's embryonic stem cell position is "prolife"
Yet, in the New York Times in February of 2005,
Mr. Romney said in an interview this week and again on Thursday that he supported allowing scientists to use embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization at fertility clinics, a position that goes beyond what President Bush supports. Fertility clinic embryos are likely "going to be destroyed or discarded" anyway, the governor said, so using them for research "does make sense."
But the governor, whose wife, Ann, has multiple sclerosis, a disease that might be helped by stem cell research, said he opposed creating embryos specifically to be used in research, a process known as therapeutic cloning.

From Huffington Post:
Orwell's interest was the language of government, how it's used to manipulate, distort, and mislead - for instance, like Mitt Romney did with this announcement.
Romney's ban is nothing but political posturing. The current debate is not even about the CREATION of stem cells; it is about the use of EXISTING stem cells, of which there is an abundance. Bush has banned the use of all but a few of these existing stem cells, claiming he wouldn't "promote science which destroys life in order to save life." But every year, in fact, thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded. Nobody thought much about these discarded embryos until scientists recognized the promise they offered for research. Instead of throwing them out, it was asked, why not find a practical application for them that could perhaps aid human progress?
Again, nobody in the established scientific community is talking about creating embryos right now. Mr. Romney is the only one bringing the issue up. In making his announcement, Mr. Romney muddies the waters of the current debate, clouding the issue and slowing progress - all for his own political gain. It's crass and it's lame.
Instead of fearing an Orwellian future, Mr. Romney should feel right at home in our Orwellian present, after all, his party has led in the creation of this eerily familiar dystopia; an era of unending war, eroding civil liberties, and an authoritarian leadership that holds onto power through the endless promotion of fear. Our government's guiding principles in 2006 seem little different than "1984's: "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
From a Boston Globe Article in 2005

Romney has described himself as a supporter of embryonic stem-cell research since he ran for governor in 2002, and, as recently as last month, he said he would support the Legislature's efforts to promote such research in Massachusetts. But in a letter he sent to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini on Thursday, Romney said that, "respect for human life is a fundamental element of civilized society" and that "lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation and destruction."
Most human embryonic stem cells used today were created from embryos left over from fertility treatments.

Romney said although he supports the use of embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, which might be discarded anyway,

If Romney was attempting to impress social conservatives, his effort fell flat. Massachusetts Citizens for Life and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, which have lobbied heavily against the Legislature's previous efforts to approve stem-cell bills, said they oppose the governor's stance because they believe a human embryo is a human being that should not be destroyed, even if it is left over from in vitro fertilization. The National Right to Life Committee, a prominent Washington-based group, agreed.
"I'm not sure there is a lot of difference. If you are taking the stem cell from the embryo for research, you have to destroy the embryo. He's still in favor of killing the new lives that are in existence right now," said Carol Tobias, the group's political director. "If that embryo, that human life, is being destroyed for the research, that is not proper. That is not ethical."

Monday, May 07, 2007

Things to Worry About if You Convert to Islam

Things to Worry About if You Convert to Islam

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross’ “My Year Inside Radical Islam” overviews how he converted to moderate Islam. But wanting to deepen his faith and learning the details of the Koran and other “holy” books of Islam, he found out that he had to:
-“[W]orry about whether people should really be killed for leaving Islam...
-Eating: right hand only.
-Pants: below the knees but above the ankles.
-Touching: not okay for dogs or women...
-Music: forbidden.
-Paying interest: forbidden.
-The beard: required.”
(Page 162)

Are Schizophrenics Role Models for Freud and Anthropologists?

Are Schizophrenics Role Models for Freud and Anthropologists?

English professor Louis Markos on page 44 of his book "Lewis Agonistes" thinks that most modern anthropologists and Freud's models for normal human behavior are schizophrenics. I agree.

“Modern anthropologists would have us believe that there are no absolute ethical standards that are true for all human cultures. Indeed, they have been so successful in convincing us of this "fact” that most now take for granted that morality is relative, and that it shifts radically from culture to culture. This is most emphatically untrue...No one in his right mind would define normal human behavior on the basis of a handful of schizophrenics (though one could argue this is exactly what Freud did!).”

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 (