Gender | Federalist Press | Defending Liberty

Sen. McConnell Brings in FBI to Probe Ashley Judd Spies

April 9, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign has contacted the FBI after a recording of a private strategy meeting was published Tuesday in a liberal publication, claiming the campaign was the victim of “Watergate-style tactics” to bug the office.

Several snippets of the audio from the February strategy sessions were published Tuesday by Mother Jones magazine, along with a lengthy article. The recording, obtained from an unnamed source, included McConnell aides discussing ways to politically damage actress Ashley Judd, who at the time was talked about as a possible McConnell challenger. The aides suggested going after her mental health and views on religion.

McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton said Tuesday that the senator’s office is “working with the FBI” on the issue and has notified the U.S. attorney in Louisville at the FBI’s request.

“We’ve always said the Left would stop at nothing to attack Sen. McConnell, but Watergate-style tactics to bug campaign headquarters are above and beyond,” Benton said in a statement Tuesday. “Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Senator McConnell’s campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished presumably will be the subject of a criminal investigation.”

The campaign, on Twitter, later accused opponents of “illegally wiretapping” the office.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also urged liberal and Democratic groups to denounce the tactics.

“Secret recordings, private conversations leaked, reports of bugs — these Watergate-era tactics have no place in our campaigns,” he said.

The FBI declined to comment.

Judd had been seriously considering a challenge to the Senate Republican leader in Kentucky until she opted against running last month. The McConnell team meeting covered in the Mother Jones article reportedly took place on Feb. 2.

The advisers could be heard discussing possible avenues of attack against Judd, one of which concerned her mental state.

“She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it’s been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she’s suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the ’90s,” one strategist said.

One aide also said Judd is “critical … of traditional Christianity.”

“She sort of views it as sort of a vestige of patriarchy,” the aide continued. “She says Christianity gives a God like a man, presented and discussed exclusively with male imagery, which legitimizes and seals male power, the intention to dominate even if that intention is nowhere visible.”

At the beginning, McConnell could be heard saying: “I assume most of you have played the, the game Whac-A-Mole? This is the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign…when anybody sticks their head up, do them out.”

The meeting was evidently a preliminary session to toss around ideas. The campaign ultimately never had to deploy any of them, as Judd decided not to run.

But the allegation that the meeting was recorded and released without the consent of the campaign could present a significant legal issue.

It is reminiscent of the 1996 scandal in Florida where Democratic activists taped a cellphone conversation with then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich picked up by a police scanner. The conversation was passed to Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who later admitted he leaked it to the media.

McDermott was sued by Rep. John Boehner — now the House speaker — who eventually won a court judgment against McDermott.

Fox News’ Mike Emanuel and Mike Levine contributed to this report.

Federal Judge Orders Abortion Pill Must Be Over-Counter For All Girls

April 5, 2013 By Editor 1 Comment

A federal judge ruled Friday that the morning-after pill known as Plan B must be made available over the counter for women and girls of all ages.

The decision on the controversial subject comes after lengthy legal battles over who should have access to the pill and at what age. The Justice Department did not say whether it would appeal.

The Food and Drug Administration had initially decided to allow the emergency pill to be available for young teens. But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA in late 2011, and the agency limited availability without a prescription to women 17 and older.

The decision Friday by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ordered the FDA to make the pill, commonly referred to as the abortion pill, available for all ages. The decision means that unless the FDA appeals and is granted a stay, by this time next month a teenager 16 or under could walk into a local pharmacy and buy the pill off the shelf.

Korman accused the FDA of “intolerable delays” in reviewing a petition seeking broad access to the drug, likening the process to an “administrative agency filibuster.”

“The plaintiffs should not be forced to endure, nor should the agency’s misconduct be rewarded by, an exercise that permits the FDA to engage in further delays and obstruction,” he wrote.

The FDA declined to comment on the ruling, describing it as an “ongoing legal matter.”

Pill manufacturer Teva said it is “currently reviewing” the decision. “We have no additional comment at this time,” the company said.

The judge ordered the change to be completed in a month. The opinion is sure to rile conservatives and other pro-life groups, who consider the morning-after pill — in some cases — to act as an abortion-inducing drug.

“This ruling places the health of young girls at risk,” said Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council. “There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today’s ruling removes these commonsense protections.”

The case started in 2005, and Korman initially ruled in 2009 that 17 year-olds should have over-the-counter access. The FDA then moved to allow that access to all ages, until Sebelius stepped in.

Korman wrote in his opinion that “the FDA bowed to political pressure emanating from the White House.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed suit against the age restriction, and other groups have argued that contraceptives are being held to a different and non-scientific standard than other drugs and that politics has played a role in decision-making.

“I think this is a landmark decision in terms of providing women and girls in the United States access to a safe and effective form of birth control,” said attorney Andrea Costello with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.

The morning-after pill contains a higher dose of the female progestin hormone that is in regular birth control pills. Taking it within 72 hours of rape, condom failure or just forgetting regular contraception can cut the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. But it works best within the first 24 hours.

If a woman already is pregnant, the pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg. According to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn’t begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. Still, some critics say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, a contention that scientists — and Korman, in his ruling — said has been discredited.

Published April 05, 2013 / FoxNews.com /The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Left Want Ben Carson Replaced as Commencement Speaker After Gay Marriage Remarks

March 30, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Johns Hopkins students are campaigning to have Dr. Ben Carson pulled from this year’s commencement speaker line-up, in response to comments the well-known neurosurgeon, a critic of the Obama administration, made about gay marriage.

Carson has since said he apologizes for having offended anyone and indicated he might withdraw from the commencement role, though he says his words are being misconstrued.

Carson — who rocketed to political fame after criticizing President Obama’s policies during the National Prayer Breakfast, which Obama attended — made the gay marriage comments on Fox News Tuesday night.

Host Sean Hannity asked Carson his opinion on same-sex marriage, given the Supreme Court’s consideration of two gay marriage cases this week.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman,” Carson said. “It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”

Students accused Carson of effectively comparing “gay relationships with pedophilia and bestiality.”

The Health and Human Rights Student Group began circulating a petition, linked out of its Facebook page, challenging Carson’s selection as the 2013 commencement speaker for the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

“At the time of his nomination, Dr. Carson was known to most of us as a world-class neurosurgeon and passionate advocate for education. Many of us had read his books and looked up to him as a role model in our careers,” the group said. “Since then, however, several public events have cast serious doubt on the appropriateness of having Dr. Carson speak at our graduation.”

The group cited his gay marriage comments, but also his comments at the National Prayer Breakfast — Carson was hailed by conservatives, and even landed a speaking role at the Conservative Political Action Conference, for his remarks in February.

The commencement address may be in doubt.

Asked about the students’ objections, Carson on Friday told MSNBC it’s “their day and the last thing I would want to do is rain on their parade.”

Asked whether he’s told the university he would not deliver the address, Carson said he was “waiting for appropriate channels.”

Carson also told the Baltimore Sun that people “have completely taken the wrong meaning out of what I was saying.”

He added: “Now perhaps the examples were not the best choice of words, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone. But the point that I was making was that no group of individuals, whoever they are, whatever their belief systems, gets to change traditional definitions.”

Published March 29, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Italy’s Highest Court Orders New Trial for Amanda Knox

March 26, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

ROME – Italy’s highest criminal court on Tuesday overturned Amanda Knox’s acquittal in the murder of her British roommate and ordered a new trial, prolonging a case that has become a cause celebre in the United States.

Knox called the decision “painful” but said she was confident that she would be exonerated.

Italian law cannot compel Knox to return for the new trial, and her lawyer said she had no plans to do so. The appellate court hearing the new case could declare her in contempt of court but that carries no additional penalties.

Italy’s Court of Cassation ruled that an appeals court in Florence must re-hear the case against the American student and her former Italian boyfriend for the murder of 21-year-old Meredith Kercher. The exact issues that have to be reconsidered won’t be known until the court releases its full ruling within 90 days.

Knox, now a student at the University of Washington, stayed up until 2 a.m. Seattle time to hear her fate and issued a statement through a family spokesman.

“It was painful to receive the news that the Italian Supreme Court decided to send my case back for revision when the prosecution’s theory of my involvement in Meredith’s murder has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair,” she said.

Knox said the matter must now be examined by “an objective investigation and a capable prosecution.”

“No matter what happens, my family and I will face this continuing legal battle as we always have, confident in the truth and with our heads held high in the face of wrongful accusations and unreasonable adversity,” Knox said.

Knox, now 25, and Raffaele Sollecito, who turned 29 on Tuesday, were arrested shortly after Kercher’s body was found in a pool of blood in November 2007 in her bedroom. Kercher, whose throat had been slashed, had shared an apartment with Knox and others in Perugia, an Italian university town where the two women were exchange students.

Prosecutors alleged Kercher was the victim of a drug-fueled sex game gone awry. Knox and Sollecito denied wrongdoing and said they weren’t even in the apartment that night, although they acknowledged they had smoked marijuana and their memories were clouded.

An Ivory Coast man, Rudy Guede, was convicted of the murder in a separate proceeding and is serving a 16-year sentence. Knox and Sollecito were also initially convicted of the murder and given long prison sentences, but were then acquitted on appeal and released in 2011.

The high court’s ruling Tuesday overturned the appeals court acquittals.

“She thought the nightmare was over,” Knox attorney Carlo Dalla Vedova said after the decision was released.

The court on Tuesday also upheld a slander conviction against Knox. During a 14-hour police interrogation, Knox had accused a local Perugia pub owner of carrying out the killing. The man was held for two weeks based on her allegations, but was then released for lack of evidence.

Dalla Vedova said Knox wouldn’t come to Italy “for the moment” but would follow the case from home. He said he didn’t think the new appeals trial would begin before early 2014.

It is unclear what would happen if Knox was convicted in a new appeals trial.

“If the court orders another trial, if she is convicted at that trial and if the conviction is upheld by the highest court, then Italy could seek her extradition,” Dalla Vedova said Monday.

It would then be up to the United States to decide if it honors the request. U.S. and Italian authorities could also come to a deal that would keep Knox in the United States.

The appeals court that acquitted Knox and Sollecito in 2011 criticized virtually the entire case mounted by prosecutors. The appellate court noted that the murder weapon was never found, said that DNA tests were faulty and that prosecutors provided no murder motive.

It’s not clear what part of the appeals sentence was faulted by the high court in ordering a new trial.

Kercher’s family attorney, Francesco Maresca, said after Tuesday’s ruling: “Yes, this is what we wanted.”

Sollecito’s attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, noted that Tuesday’s ruling was not a determination of guilt but merely a need for further study of the appeals court ruling.

“It’s a decision that cancels a verdict and orders a retrial,” she said. “I’m not concerned about a deeper reading of the documentation, because I know the documentation.”

She acknowledged that perhaps the appeals court ruling had been “too generous” in ruling that the pair simply did not commit the crime, but was confident that Sollecito’s innocence would be affirmed.

In her statement, Knox took the Perugia prosecutors to task, saying they “must be made to answer” for the discrepancies in the case. She said “my heart goes out to” Kercher’s family.

After nearly four years behind bars in Italy, Knox returned to her hometown of Seattle after the 2011 acquittal and Sollecito resumed his computer science studies, following the degree he earned while studying in prison.

Italy’s judicial system allows for two levels of appeals, and prosecutors can appeal acquittals.

Although the court on Monday heard gruesome details, including how Kercher choked on her own blood, it wasn’t ruling on the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Its sole task was to decide if the appellate trial was properly conducted.

Dalla Vedova had argued Monday that the slander verdict against Knox should be thrown out because she was questioned without a lawyer even though police essentially treated the student as a suspect in their 14-hour interrogation session.

Because of time she served in prison before the appeals-level acquittals, Knox didn’t have to serve time for the slander conviction.

Published March 26, 2013 / Associated Press

The “Mormon Effect”

February 22, 2013 By Editor 345 Comments

During the 2012 presidential campaign, that awesomely deep well of perpetual wisdom, Alec Baldwin, proclaimed that if Barack Obama were not black, his vote total would have been 20 percent higher.

People of real intelligence realize that the opposite was probably true: if he had been white, his vote total would have been 20 percent lower. The African-American voting bloc combined with enough whites suffering from liberal guilt guaranteed a higher vote total for Obama.

The truth of the matter is, if Mitt Romney had not been a Mormon, his vote total might very well have been significantly higher.
In fact, according to a Gallop poll released in June of last year, while 4 percent of people said they would not vote for a black president, a full 22 percent said they would not vote for a Mormon. In fact, only atheists and gays ranked higher.

So Baldwin probably had it backwards, which he usually does, so that comes as no surprise.

What did come as a surprise to me is why people would have such negative views of Mormons. I have known lots of them in my life, and in most cases they have been hard-working, kind, generous family-oriented people—just the kind of people this country used to value (and maybe that’s the problem right there.)

Mormons have intrigued me ever since Mike Huckabee back in 2007 claimed that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. With the recent election over, I decided to check out Mormons a bit more.

My hope in doing this was to explain to readers who Mormons are and whether or not 22 percent of the people were justified in opposing having a Mormon president.

But instead I’m going to share an intriguing bit of Mormon theology I learned that I think makes them perhaps the most politically wise human beings on the planet. Ironically, this story stems from that Huckabee quote about the relationship between Jesus and the devil, but the lesson to be learned is one that, regardless of our political or religious views, we would all be wise to consider.

So here’s what I learned: Mormons, unlike most other Christian sects, believe that all humans lived a life before mortality. They call this the pre-existence or pre-earth life. At birth a veil is placed over our minds so that we don’t remember it (you’ll see why in a minute).

In this pre-earth life, we were all in the presence of God as His spirit children. Jesus was there—the first-born of God’s spirit children, and a leader in the councils in Heaven. Lucifer was also there, and was another leader among the children of God. He was called a “son of the morning.”

At some point in this existence, the Father called all of His children together to explain how things worked. All of His children would have to leave His presence and come to earth for a period of testing. The goal was to see if we would live a righteous life even when we had to live by faith, as we would no longer be able to remember God or heaven (that’s the reason for the veil).

If we would live a righteous life, we would be given the opportunity to return and live with God forever. Otherwise we would forfeit that chance, because no unclean thing can live in God’s presence. However, God knew that we would all make mistakes, so he would provide a Savior for the world. This Savior would live a sinless life, and because of that, he would qualify to pay for the sins of the world through what would be called the “Atonement.” If people would sincerely repent of their sins, then the Atonement would essentially erase their sins, and they could still return and live with God. The Father called for volunteers to be this savior, and two stepped forward: Jesus and Lucifer.

Lucifer said that he would be the savior and he would force everybody to live righteously, thus guaranteeing that all of God’s spirit children would return to Him in heaven [and he, Lucifer would receive all the credit/glory]. Jesus said that He would follow the Father’s plan and allow God’s children their free agency [and all the glory would go to God]. They could choose for themselves whether to live righteously and take advantage of the Atonement or whether to live in sin and forfeit the opportunity to return and live with God.

God rejected Lucifer’s plan, causing Lucifer to rebel and declare war on God. One-third of God’s spirit children joined Lucifer in this rebellion. In the end, the rebellion failed and Lucifer and his followers were cast out of heaven. They came to earth without bodies and now, continuing the war they started in heaven, they tempt men to do evil to one another and lose out on the chance to return to God. [Luke 10:18; Revelation 12:9; Isaiah 14:12]

PAY ATTENTION HERE; THIS IS THE GOOD PART

Now, any traditional Christians reading this will see similarities to their own belief system. Most traditional Christians believe that Lucifer lived in heaven as an angel, but then declared war on God and was cast out. However, the causes for that war are not necessarily clear in traditional Christian theology.

That is where Mormon theology is so intriguing. For Mormons, the greatest of all battles, the war in heaven, was fought over LIBERTY—or as they call it, “free agency.”Lucifer wanted to take it away, while God demanded that humans have it.

Although a Mormon might balk at my making comparisons between their religious beliefs and modern politics (and as I said earlier, every Mormon I’ve ever known was a very good person, so I apologize to any I offend), I see a direct correlation here. For a Mormon, the battle for liberty is not unique to this life; it is the core battle of the ages. Lucifer lost the war in heaven (he really thought he could beat God?), but the war continues on earth. So seeing the government become more and more tyrannical is not just a political concern; it’s a fundamental, eternal concern.

I’m inspired by this Mormon theological idea: God intended for humans to be free to make our own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. The Founding Fathers of this country said essentially the same thing in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

My study of Mormonism has not only given me newfound respect for this people and their religion; it has also made me evaluate my own attitude towards the liberty that seems to be slipping through all of our fingers. Is this just something that is nice to have, and for which I thank the Founding Fathers? Or is it really something that is endowed by God, and that He expects me to fight for. According to Mormon theology, I already fought for this once. The fact that I’m here says that I was on God’s side in the war in heaven, and fought for liberty.

A Mormon might ask, why should any of us be less willing to fight for it here than we were there?

Reprinted from “SMART MORMONS,” By Mike Jensen, January 22, 2013

Readers of this story also find the following stories interesting:

This Easter Morning, Remember

What ‘NOAH’ Movie Gets Wrong, and Right

Christians: Marked For Extinction?

Harry Reid: Worst Human On Earth

British Court Dismisses Case Against LDS Church President

The Tree of Liberty is Dying—Is Civil War Coming?

Is Obama Targeting LDS Canneries?

Mormons and Progressivism: United Order vs. Socialism

The Spirit of Antichrist Permeates Our Nation

Should GOP Rethink Abortion Policy?

November 29, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Following one of the worst performances for an American president in this nation’s history, Americans awarded Barack Obama a second term. What was the pitch from the far left that got him re-elected following four years of economic upheaval and government socialization of the medical industry?

The winning formula was 1) convincing voters that an honest business genius who had turned around the failing Olympics and the State of Massachusetts in short terms and had served his fellow humans all his life without fanfare or recognition was a greedy and uncaring monster to be avoided at all costs; 2) that the government should be the only source of one’s hope for prosperity and happiness; and 3) that government supplied birth-control and abortion-on-demand are the only rights worth preserving.

There has been much armchair quarterbacking post-election, and we hear of many in the GOP wringing their hands as they contemplate a strategy to again gain the White House and Senate. Proposals such as caving in on tax increases, ala George “Read My Lips” Bush are bandied about. Or winning strategies like “go along to get along” are being trumpeted by the party’s old guard.

The Federalist Press suggests that the GOP consider adopting a democratic party long-term strategy. Indeed, democrats have exercised control of American government for much of the past 100 years by long-term planning—which became necessary following the beating they took in the Civil War and post-war reconstruction, as republicans freed the slaves and passed and enforced the civil rights amendments.

Democrats have had 4 simple strategies for reacquiring power. 1) Class warfare, promulgated by taxing citizens at different rates—taking from some and giving to others. 2) Spending escalation, making the government the provider of goodies. 3) Create dependent underclass by impoverishing minorities and opening borders, making over ½ of voters dependent on government handouts. 4) Re-educating population through leftist takeover of media and education systems, to believe that socialism is the fairest system of government.

It’s that simple. So, can the GOP learn anything from the left? Perhaps, but these tactics are naturally repugnant to those who espouse personal liberty, so it is doubtful.

What is in the abortion issue that could help the GOP, if as polls indicate, it is minorities who are voting in extremely high percentages for Democrats? Let’s revisit the founding of the birth control and abortion movement, and see what is behind it.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, and like-minded racists, like Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf and Lothrop Stoddard, a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Margaret Sanger was an ardent proponent of sterilizing those she considered “unfit,” which would be the “salvation of American civilization.” Who was unfit? Those of African descent.

Margaret Sanger and her followers were the regents of Western Eugenics, the practice of improving the human gene pool by eliminating undesirable DNA. She and her associates admired the Aryan dreams of the Nationalist Socialists (Nazis) in Germany, and like their counterparts, thought that exterminating lower life forms (Jews, Blacks) was a service to God and country. For those who might doubt that the founder of Planned Parenthood held these beliefs, please refer to some of her many articles and speeches on the subject such as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

Indeed, as a direct result of the Sanger movement, even today, American black children suffer death by the millions at the hands of abortionists. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, with 78% of their clinics in minority communities. Although blacks make up only 12% of the population, 35% of all the abortions in America are black babies.

So when it comes to the political parties’ struggle for dominance in America, where should the parties come down on the abortion issue? With Democrats clamoring for dependent minority voters, they should be the ones who immediately outlaw the practice of murdering minority babies. They would have at least 13,000,000 more black voters on the rolls if they had not killed them all.

Where does that leave the GOP on the abortion issue? Should they embrace the practice of killing minority babies to purify the voting gene pool?

That’s right America. This is who we’ve become. Embrace the left.

PUBLIUS

‘Islamization’ of Paris – a Warning to the West

November 1, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.

This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.

It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.

An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of “Maxime Lepante. ”

Lepante’s View

His camera shows that Muslims “are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers.”

“The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization. They do not go to the police headquarters, so it’s completely illegal,” he says.

The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France’s Laicite’, or secularism law.

“It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion,” Lepante explained. “But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on.”

Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.

“They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory,” he said.

France’s Islamic Future?

If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called “The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048,” a bestseller in Russia, not in France.

French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.

“Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can’t say to the poor people, ‘You’re wrong,’ otherwise, you’re a fascist,” Robin explained.

The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.

Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.

But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.

“The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers,” said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. “The problem is one of principles. It’s an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?”

“It doesn’t matter how many there are,” he aded. “The problem is the people who follow Islam; they’re somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state.”

In Denial or Fed Up

From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.

“We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam,” Robin said.

About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said “the veil is in the Koran” and “we only submit to God and nobody else.”

But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.

They’ve started staging pork and wine “aperitifs,” or cocktail parties in the street. They’re patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.

A Warning to the West

The French parliament debated the burqa law in this year. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.

“We cannot accept the development of such practice because it’s not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see,” he said. “And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. ”

For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd’s blog Hurd on the Web.

For more insight on ‘Islamization’ around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror.

Reprinted from CBN.com

By Dale Hurd, CBN News Sr. Reporter

DNC Platform – More Taxes, Abortions and Sodomy

September 4, 2012 By Editor 3 Comments

As the Democratic party faithful gather together in Charlotte, NC, to launch their final appeal for votes in the November general election, their new platform has been shaped to maximize support from the fringes of American society.

Indeed, the Rainbow Coalition that has become the Democrats’ base has wandered ever farther from the center-right mainstream of America.

In an all-out class warfare charge up the final hill of this election cycle the Democrats have focused their efforts on diverting voters’ attention away from President Obama’s abysmal record, especially on the economy.

Indeed, democrats have been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into attack ads attempting to refocus the issues on the GOP challenger’s record, re-written by the Democrats to make Governor Mitt Romney seem like a blood-thirsty capitalist who cares nothing about the average person or women, instead of the successful, hard-working, kind and generous man that thousands who know him personally have testified.

Rather than admitting that their leadership has plunged the nation into the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression, and condemned 23,000,000 Americans to the permanent unemployment roles (most of whom are women, many of whom have descended into poverty) or burger flipping jobs, Obama and his surrogates tell us that all is well, that his policies are working, and that the private sector is doing just fine–although we do need to increase government jobs.

Indeed, rather than propose anything that might put American’s back to work, the Democratic party is offering us higher taxes on job creators, which would gut their ability to create jobs, and the revenue from which would run the government for just 9 days.

They additionally assume that most American’s feel that taxpayer funded birth control and abortions are paramount, and that we need to immediately expand programs that pay for them.

And last, homosexual marriage is being proffered like candy at Halloween. That’s just what working American families need and are clamoring for–government sanctioned sodomy, and just like traditional marriages to be endowed with all of the benefits that are offered to loving couples who enter into a lifetime covenant of fidelity and mutual care, and who take upon themselves the responsibility of rearing children to promulgate society.

The election decision between the traditionally centrist platform of the GOP and the extreme left proposals of the Democrats has never been so clear. This election will truly determine whether America rediscovers its greatness, or continues its slide down that slimy hill into the abyss of every other society that has corrupted itself into oblivion.

PUBLIUS

Ann Romney Delivers Again

August 29, 2012 By Editor 5 Comments

The Republican National Convention saw the beginning of its successful rise to power last night as Ann Romney stood before America and outlined the social and economic philosophies of herself and her husband, the Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney. She began her speech with a theme that permeates their life: Love.

Mrs. Romney was elegant and visually stunning as she addressed the nation, focusing on the important calling of women in American society, especially as an overstressed economy has consistently burdened women in their roles as mothers and wives, and often, breadwinners.

“I love you women!” she exclaimed. “And I hear your voices.”

She shared some intimate details about her immigrant parents, as well as the personal struggles of her young family, beginning with a humble basement apartment, a “pasta and tuna fish” subsistence, and a desk made of an old door propped up on two sawhorses. Mitt Romney was portrayed as a man who worked hard to build his fledgling company into an American success story, putting tens of thousands of people to work and helping to build the retirement portfolios of a like number of hard working people.

Indeed, building on her love theme, Ann Romney described her husband as a generous man, one who gives from his heart, not to be seen and praised for his generosity. “Mitt doesn’t like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point,” in what political observers will instantly recognize as a contrast with those who take credit for everything they can, even when credit isn’t deserved. Indeed, Mitt Romney comes from a far different background and philosophy–one that abhors self-aggrandizement–which makes him an outsider to D.C. politics.

In a resounding testimonial of her husband’s ability and will to tackle the problems that beset our great nation Mrs. Romney assured the country “you can trust Mitt.” “This man will not fail,” and, “This man will not let us down. This man will lift up America.”

In her landmark speech Mrs. Romney entirely debunked the left’s attempts to portray her husband as a greedy tycoon, and her as a spoiled millionaire’s wife. Indeed, they are the all-American family, an American success story. They are exactly what America needs, at this time when our standards and expectations have been lowered to the point of . . . malaise.

PUBLIUS

Liberal Terrorist Attack In DC

August 16, 2012 By Editor 2 Comments

America gets a good look at the face of tolerance. Yesterday a heavily armed liberal terrorist associated with the LGBT movement made his way into the headquarters of the pro-family, pro-life organization, Family Research Council (FRC), and opened fire when challenged by unarmed building operations manager, Leo Johnson.

Floyd Lee Corkins, a 28 year old volunteer affiliated with The DC Center for the LGBT Community, reportedly exclaimed, “I don’t like your politics,” before pulling his semi-automatic weapon from his backpack and shooting Johnson. Although Johnson was hit in the arm, he still attacked the terrorist and wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him before Corkins could gain access to the areas where dozens of FRC employees and volunteers worked. Corkins cried at that point, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

Corkins’ backpack contained 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, accessories that Corkins apparently felt were appropriate to a terrorist attack on innocent, unarmed family people.

Leo Johnson is a hero for disarming the terrorist before he could carry out his mandate, force-feeding bullets and Chick-fil-A sandwiches to those who have the audacity to speak up for traditional morals and pro-family matters in America. Liberal groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center had recently dubbed the Family Research Council a “hate group,” which leftists call anyone who disagrees with their radical views.

Mainstream news outlets are doing their best to bury the story that one of their own has launched a terrorist attack on a peaceful, family centered organization just blocks from the White House. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has similarly had precious little to say about the attack. The FBI has officially indicated the attack a terrorist hate crime.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the only candidate to express appropriate concern:”There is no place for such violence in our society. My prayers go out to the wounded security guard and his family, as well as all the people at the Family Research Council whose sense of security has been shattered by today’s horrific events.”

America will be watching to see if this attack, like many others that have been tolerated by the liberal mainstream media and those who currently but temporarily run our national government, will go unreported and undenounced.

PUBLIUS

Born This Way?

June 13, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

On June 10, we reprinted an article from The Weed that we titled Gay Confession – Loving The Straight Life, in which a happily married father of three explains that in spite of his same sex attraction, he chooses to live a normal life, and finds it entirely satisfying . . . emotionally, spiritually and sexually.

The article is very revealing, and should be used as a primer for every person and organization that reaches out to people with same sex attraction.

The left has adopted gay people as one of their rainbow coalition special interest groups, and everyone from the president to Hollywood types to screaming Occupy anarchists agree that there is only one possible life path for someone who has a natural same sex attraction—engage sexually with those of the same sex.

The editors of the Federalist Press were inundated with a barrage of ugly comments for reprinting the article, most of which merely claimed that the article was a hoax, but many of which claimed that some sort of coercion was brought to bear or that the editors are actually closeted gays with more empathy than sympathy for those who bear this burden.

America’s brainwashing on the subject of homosexuality is complete. The subject has been so shoved down our throats (what can we say?) and the orthodoxy of the lifestyle so thoroughly ingrained in our collected psyche that anyone who dares step out of line and asks a question is immediately shouted down with mean-spirited epithets—a common practice of the pro-free-speech left.

Let us pose a thought . . . one that has not been dictated by the government or disseminated by its media outlets . . . that perhaps those who have natural inclinations toward same sex attraction don’t need to pursue those inclinations. Oh, what hell there will be to pay for such a concept in such modern and tolerant times . . . but just hear me out.

We have many behaviors, which, even in our decaying society, are still considered to be abhorrent. For instance, there are the pedophiles. These are people who have a natural sexual attraction to children. Do we as a society say to them, “Well, because your sexual attraction to children is natural, then go right ahead and have them sexually at your leisure”? In fact, we don’t.

One might say, we don’t allow that because it is wrong to impose an adult’s will over a child’s will, especially in such a critical area (notwithstanding the millions of children who lose out to adults’ “choice” every year and end up getting flushed in a medical waste bag). If that is true, then what about those who have a natural sexual attraction to animals? Yes, bestiality is quite alive and thriving in many quarters. Do we say to those who are different than ourselves in their sexual desires, “No, you may not satisfy your sexual lusts with critters around the yard?” In fact, we do. There are very few places where one can freely engage in sexual activity with animals.

In fact, a viable society puts many restrictions on the sexual behaviors of its members, notwithstanding the many and varied natural inclinations of those members to the contrary. Is this wrong? Perhaps we need to rethink the entire proposition. Perhaps we should follow our heroic president (yes, he had the courage to come out of the closet for gays and collect $ millions from Hollywood, and he gunned down Bin Laden at great personal risk) and broaden the scope of marriage to all of those whose tastes for sex differ from the norm. Marriage between men and boys is at the top of the list for NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) members, and marriage between people and farm animals and house pets would suit thousands.

Yes, rethinking our entire underlying moral and social philosophy is something that an enlightened society like ours must do if we are to follow our president and his social engineers on the left. In fact, all great societies have done so . . . just before collapsing, as we are doing now.

The editors laud all of those who seek to live healthy, fulfilling lives, despite any burden that they may be called upon to bear. Life is not easy, for any of us. We all bear secret burdens that those around us know little or nothing of. An overwhelming desire to bed a favorite movie star? Must society encourage that sexual inclination? Or perhaps an insatiable appetite for Big Gulps, or Big Macs. Of course, the government is there to save us from ourselves when it comes to those choices.

If we were to all follow the 1960s chant of the left, “If it feels good, do it,” we would have already disintegrated into a drug-riddled, immoral, godless, self-absorbed, child-aborting, socialistic . . . oh. Perhaps the president is correct . . . marry anyone or anything, and never go against your natural inclinations. Rising above your natural circumstances and proclivities and becoming a better person is old fashioned.

PUBLIUS

Gay Confession – Loving The Straight Life

June 10, 2012 By Editor 6 Comments

Reprinted from The Weed:

Club Unicorn: In which I come out of the closet on our ten year anniversary

Hi guys.

Lolly and I are sitting by a pool in the blazing sun, tanning our Seattle-white skin. We are having the time of our lives. Our kids are being watched by their Aunt Kati and Uncle Blake while we relax, celebrating ten incredible years of marriage.

And, side by side, we are finishing the final details of this post which we have written together over the course of the last month.

This is a different post than what you’re used to seeing here on The Weed. If you are here to laugh and read something light-hearted and fun, you probably want to skip this one. It’s long. And it’s serious. And I won’t be offended by anyone who decides to wait until things get light-hearted again.

This is the post where I tell you that I, Josh Weed, am homosexual.

I need to clarify a couple of things.

First, I think it’s important to clarify that although The Weed is a humor blog, this post is not a joke. This isn’t satire. This is not aimed to get laughs. I promise. This is completely serious, and it is us being completely real and genuine on a subject that is very personal and very dear to our hearts.

Second, I need to clarify that this post is written from the standpoint of a devout, believing Mormon and addresses topics seen within the Mormon and broader Christian community. Please forgive us if our focus feels unfamiliar, or feels totally incongruent with the rest of the posts on this blog.

I guess the premise of this post is to share that not only am I homosexual, but I’m also a devout and believing Mormon. And that I’m very happily married to a woman, and have been for ten years now.
And for the first time, we’re talking about it publicly.

When we do tell people about this—and we’ve been telling a lot of people lately, so we’ve gotten really practiced at it—they usually have a lot of really good, genuine questions. Here are some of the questions we’re most frequently asked (there really should be an acronym for that—I know! I’ll call it a FAQ!). We hope answering these questions will help you understand how we make sense of this delicate and complicated issue in our lives.

1. Why have you decided to share this information?

We have several reasons for opening up about this part of our lives. First and foremost, my clinical work as a therapist is taking me in the direction of helping clients who struggle to reconcile their sexual orientation with their religious beliefs. I have decided to be open with these clients about my own homosexuality, and in doing so have opened the door to people finding out about this in ways I can’t control. Therefore, we thought it would be wise to be the ones who told those we love about this part of our lives. Posting on the blog was the simplest way to make sure that happened as it would be impossible to sit all of the people we have known and loved in our lives down and share this personally.

The second reason is that the issue of homosexuality is not very well understood. We wanted to add our voice and experience to the dialogue taking place about this very sensitive issue.

Thirdly, I (Josh) feel the desire to be more open regarding this part of my identity. I have found that sharing this part of me allows my relationships with others to be more authentic. It has deepened my friendships and enhanced my interactions, and it has also helped me to feel more accepted by others as it allows others the opportunity to choose to accept me for who I really am.

2. What do you mean when you say you’re “gay”?

When I say I am gay or homosexual or same-sex attracted (and I use these terms interchangeably, which is a personal decision) I refer specifically to sexual orientation. I am sexually attracted to men. I am not sexually attracted to women. It is very simple. I have many, many years of experience which confirm this to be true, but it’s really as simple as what a girl asked me* in junior high—and I’m sorry if this is a little blunt, but I’ve never found a question that cuts to the heart of the matter more effectively— “so, if everyone in this room took off their clothes, would you be turned on by the girls or the guys?” My answer, which I didn’t say out loud, was unquestionably the guys. And it was unquestionably not the girls. And that still is my answer. It’s really not very complicated. Most people just don’t think about their sexual orientation because they don’t have any reason to.

*Why did a girl ask me that question in junior high? Because a bully actively spread a rumor around the entire school that I was a “woman trapped in a man’s body.” This was unbelievably horrific and traumatizing, and I was harassed every single day about it, often by perfect strangers. I was more effeminate, played the violin, didn’t play sports, was never interested in girls and didn’t hang out with guys, and so people glommed onto that rumor and ruthlessly harassed me for the entire year, culminating in a yearbook filled with breathtakingly insensitive taunts. Being the gay kid is really, really hard in junior high. If you know a gay kid in junior high, give them a hug and tell them you love them. I assure you they could use it.

3. When did you know you were gay?

I knew I was gay when I was 11 or 12. That’s the onset of puberty, when humans begin to feel sexual attractions. For a little while I was waiting for the attraction to girls to set in because that’s what everyone said would happen, but then there was a sinking moment of realization—a thought like “oh, this thing for guys is its replacement.” I told my parents shortly thereafter, when it seemed pretty clear that my sexuality wasn’t playing a trick on me, and the girl thing wasn’t going to happen, but the guy thing was totally happening. I was 13 when I told my dad (a member of the Stake Presidency—which is a lay leader in the Mormon church—at the time). My parents were incredibly loving and supportive, which is part of why I believe I’m so well adjusted today. They deserve serious props for being so loving and accepting—I never felt judged or unwanted or that they wished to change anything about me. That’s part of why I have never been ashamed about this part of myself. (I feel plenty of shame about other irrational things, like the fact that I can’t catch a ball or change a tire (as you may have noticed on the blog)—and I’m working on that stuff because toxic shame isn’t a good thing. But I’ve never been shameful about who I am, or about this feature of me as a critical part of my person, which it is in the same way that sexuality is a critical part of any person.)

4. If you’re married to a woman, how can you really be gay?

This is a really good question and I can see how people can be confused about it. Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. Yet my marriage is wonderful, and Lolly and I have an extremely healthy and robust sex life. How can this be?

The truth is, what people are really asking with the above question is “how can you be gay if your primary sex partner is a girl?” I didn’t fully understand the answer to this question until I was doing research on sexuality in grad school even though I had been happily married for almost five years at that point. I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.

5. Did your wife know you were gay when you married her?

Yes. I told Lolly about my homosexuality when I was 16 and we were on a date. In fact, I recently just wrote a humor post about that day. Here it is: vomit—a story of romance. That may have been the most important day (and was definitely the most important date) of my life. Everything I have in life that I cherish—the love of my life, my career, my education, coming home to three beautiful daughters screaming “Daddy, daddy!” with glee—hinged on that fateful day at Pizza Hut, and on a wonderful girl who was compassionate and open-minded and willing to listen to a young gay kid who was lonely and desperate for a soft landing place and to be heard.

Well… I’ve actually published an essay which tells the whole story in an anthology published by Deseret Book. Here the book is, if you’re interested:

The book was compiled by my friend Ty Mansfield, and my essay is called “An Unlikely Gift” under my old pseudonym, Jason Lockhart. For this post, we’ve had Lolly tell our story below.

In fact, let’s do her question next:

6. Why would your wife choose to marry someone who is gay?

Hey guys. I never thought that the first guest post I wrote on “The Weed” would be talking about how I fell in love with gay Weed. But I definitely want to share my part of our story. So, here it goes.

I have known Josh and loved him for a very, very long time. We met when we were very small children. We lived on the same street in Utah and his dad was my Bishop (ecclesiastical lay-leader of an LDS congregation). When we were younger, we were acquaintances. In junior high we started eating lunch together and grew to be friends. I found him amusing and I enjoyed being around him.

After 9th grade, my family moved to Portland, Oregon. I thought of Josh Weed occasionally but never did anything about it until his family moved to the same city in Oregon two years later. We both thought it would be fun to reconnect, so we went on our first date.

And that is when Josh told me that he was gay. I was the first person he told, aside from his own parents. I will never forget the look on his face during the first moments of that conversation. From that look, I knew that he was feeling extremely vulnerable in what he had just shared and that what he was dealing with was very hard and very real for him. Knowing Josh’s beliefs in our church, the first question that came to my mind was “What are you going to do about it?”

We talked at length that night about the reality of being gay in the Mormon Church. He told me that he believed in the doctrine of the Church and that he wanted to do what God wanted him to do. During the course of that conversation, my mind became overwhelmed by the complexities of the issue he was facing. And how alone he felt in facing them.

I was determined to be an ally and friend to him in regards to this issue. I can’t even recall all of the conversations we had, but we spent hours and hours over the course of years hammering out what this issue meant in general and what it meant for him. Why was he gay? What did God expect him to do? Etc.

Josh’s commitment to God was so apparent to me as we discussed the choices ahead of him. My admiration and respect deepened immensely for him. We spent a lot of time together and I loved being with him. Our friendship grew and grew. And I truly loved him. He told me that he wanted to go on a mission for the church and that he would also like to get married and have a family. I believed that those things were possible for him, but I never thought it would be with me.

The possibility of us becoming more than friends would come up every now and then, but I would dismiss it quickly. My parents did an amazing job in teaching their children about the proper role of sexuality. In our home, sex was viewed as sacred, enjoyable, and something to look forward to in marriage. I saw the important role that intimacy played in successful marriages and that was one aspect of marriage that I was greatly anticipating. Therefore, in my mind, marrying someone gay was completely out of the question.

I remember one conversation in particular in which Josh said, “If YOU won’t consider marrying me, then who will?” I responded with, “I’m sure there is someone out there for you. It’s just not me. Maybe you need to find someone who doesn’t care about sex.” He thought that line of thinking was wrong, but I couldn’t think of another solution for him.

Years continued to pass. Josh’s first year at college, he got a girlfriend. Who also happened to be my best friend. I loved both of them very much and was very happy for them. Yet, something unexpected happened. I started to feel jealous. They ended up breaking up shortly after the semester ended, but the feelings of jealousy that I had experienced in regards to their relationship threw me off guard. I started to seriously examine my feelings for Josh.

In a moment of honest reflection, I realized that Josh was everything that I wanted in a husband. (All except for the huge fact that he was gay.) He was dedicated to God above all else and he loved his Savior deeply. He was kind, funny, sincere, honest and so much fun. I connected with him in ways that I did not connect with anyone else. But he was gay. And I did not know if I could handle that in a marriage.

I ended up confessing my feelings to him on a random day on a whim. He admitted that he felt the same feelings for me. That I was everything he wanted in a wife. I had never been more excited or confused. We decided to try it out and to start dating. It was truly an amazing experience for both of us, falling in love with our best friend.

Before he left on his mission, I was still not sure if I could actually marry him. The intimacy factor was so important to me. During the course of dating, we held hands and kissed. It was promising, but I didn’t know if our chemistry would be enough.

One day, we were having a conversation about our relationship. He simply said, “Am I worth it to you?” I wasn’t quite sure what he meant by that question. We then talked about how no one is perfect and how everyone deals with his or her own set of imperfections. When you get married, you are accepting a person as a package deal—the good, the bad, the hard, the amazing and the imperfect. He wanted to know if I loved the rest of him enough that I could deal with the realities that his homosexuality would bring to our marriage. I honestly could not answer him then.

Months passed and I was having a conversation with a good friend of mine. I said to her, “I can find someone else like Josh, right? Someone else to love like I love him?” She said, “You could find someone else to love, sure. But you will never have what you and Josh have with someone else. Because no one else is Josh.” When she said that, and I thought of loving someone else, I knew the answer to his question “Am I worth it?”

I knew that I loved Josh. I loved All of him. I wanted to marry him. I wanted to marry Josh Weed because I loved the man that he was. I loved everything that made him him. I didn’t want anyone else. I knew that we had the kind of relationship that could work through hard trials and circumstances. I had faith in him and I had faith in our love. I did not choose to marry someone who is gay. I chose to marry Josh Weed, the man that I love, and to accept all of him. I have never regretted it.

I love this man.

Okay, next question, and Josh will take over again. If you’re still reading, I’m impressed!

7. Why do you not choose to be “true to yourself” and live the gay lifestyle?

First of all, I understand that when people refer to a “gay lifestyle” they are talking about a lifestyle that includes gay romantic and sexual relationships. But I want to point out that because I am gay, any lifestyle I choose is technically a “gay lifestyle.” Mine just looks different than other gay peoples’. My hope is that other gay people will be as accepting of my choices as they hope others would be of their choices.

But that doesn’t really answer the question. And it is an important question.

One of the sad truths about being homosexual is that no matter what you decide for your future, you have to sacrifice something. It’s very sad, but it is true. I think this is true of life in general as well. If you decide to be a doctor, you give up any of the myriad of other things you could have chosen. But with homosexuality, the choices seem to be a little bit more mutually exclusive. If you are Mormon and you choose to live your religion, you are sacrificing the ability to have a romantic relationship with a same-sex partner. If you choose a same-sex partner, you are sacrificing the ability to have a biological family with the one you love. And so on. No matter what path you choose, if you are gay you are giving up something basic, and sometimes various things that are very basic. I chose not to “live the gay lifestyle,” as it were, because I found that what I would have to give up to do so wasn’t worth the sacrifice for me. The things I wasn’t willing to part with were the following:

1. I believe the doctrine of the Mormon Church is true. One of the key doctrines of the church is that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” Another is that “children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” These are things I personally believe. I also believe, and my experience has shown me time and time again, that when I follow the teachings that I know to be true my life is blessed and I find immense joy and peace. I feel that this joy and peace is a direct result of my connection to God’s spirit as a result of living in a way He approves of.

Deciding not to give this up–these profound spiritual beliefs that I feel in the deepest parts of my soul to be true–in favor of my sexual orientation required a great deal of faith, but I can honestly say that, for me, it has been completely worth it. I have not regretted the decision one day of my life. My life is filled with so much genuine, real, vibrant joy that I would be remiss if I didn’t thank God for blessing me for my obedience and adherence to His guidelines as I understand them. I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the Mormon Church, which I consider to be His restored organizational unit. I did not want to give that up.

2. I am a traditionalist at heart. I wanted a wife. I wanted to raise children that were biologically the product of me and the one I love. Thankfully, Lolly was willing to marry me, and we found ourselves able to conceive children. I have three incredible daughters. Every moment with them is true joy. Sometimes as I wrestle in the living room with them, or watch them eat cookies with chocolatey mouths and lots of giggles, or read them stories before tucking them into their beds, I’m filled with a sense of such joy that I almost feel bad to have such an incredibly fulfilling life. I often find myself in awe at how amazing my life is, and how lucky I am. And in my opinion, it was more than luck. I believe my joy stems from living the Gospel of Jesus Christ and trusting God and his plan for me even when it was really hard and scary.

3. I love Lolly Shea. (In my mind, she will always be Lolly Shea, the girl that I’ve known since I was three years old.) I want to be with her for the rest of my life. I want to grow old by her side. I wouldn’t trade her for any human on earth, male or female. She is my best friend, my lover, and my greatest gift. I love her with a love that is undeniable, and anyone that knows us can attest to the fact that our love is real, vibrant and very apparent. Besides my relationship with God himself, she is my everything and nothing that I ever do or receive in my life will ever compare to her and her love for me.

I find that when I think of what alternative lifestyles could offer me, they pale in comparison to the full, joyous, bounteous life I live. Thus, I believe that to live my life this way is being true to myself, and to go down any other path would be egregiously inauthentic and self-deceptive.

About two years ago, I saw a psychologist to get medication for my ADHD-I. She was a lesbian, and when I told her that I was a gay man in a heterosexual marriage, she spent an entire session hammering me with questions about my situation in a genuine effort to make sure I was happy. I didn’t love that she did this, but as a clinician myself, I understood where she was coming from.

During our conversation, she told me about her life with her partner. She spoke of a girl, whom she considered her daughter, who is the biological child of her ex-lover, with whom she lived for only three years. She told me of how much she loved her daughter, but how infrequently she got to see her. And eventually, when talking about my sex life, she said “well, that’s good you enjoy sex with your wife, but I think it’s sad that you have to settle for something that is counterfeit.”

I was a little taken aback by this idea—I don’t consider my sex-life to be counterfeit. In response, I jokingly said “and I’m sorry that you have to settle for a counterfeit family.” She immediately saw my point and apologized for that comment. Obviously, I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way. I also don’t feel that my sex-life is counterfeit. They are both examples of something that is different than the ideal. I made that joke to illustrate a point. If you are gay, you will have to choose to fill in the gaps somewhere. She chose to have a family in a way that is different than the ideal. I choose to enjoy sex in a way that is different than the ideal for a gay man. It all comes down to what you choose and why, and knowing what you want for yourself and why you want it. That’s basically what life is all about.

8. Should all gay people who are LDS or Christian choose to marry people of the opposite gender?

I want to make it very clear that while I have found a path that brings me profound joy and that is the right path for me, I don’t endorse this as the only path for somebody who is gay and religious. I will never, ever judge somebody else’s path as being “incorrect” and I know many people who have chosen different paths than myself.

I have two general recommendations:

1. If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them. Do what you need to do to move past that impulse. Do not condemn the choices your loved one makes. Love. Only love. Show your love in word and deed. Embrace them, both literally and figuratively. I promise they need it—and they need to feel like they can figure out this part of themselves in a safe way without ridicule and judgment. It’s what Christ would do. It’s what your loved one needs. Accept them. Love them. Genuinely and totally.

If you are a parent or guardian, teach them what you know to be true in appropriate moments, with the Spirit. But then let go and let them govern themselves. Trust that they can find their own path. Let them live their life and have the experiences they need to learn and grow. Trust that they are in charge of their own agency and destiny. I promise you they will thank you. I also promise that pressuring them to live the life you want them to lead will only hamper their ability to make a genuine and authentic choice for their own future, be it what you hope for them or not. You will never, ever give your gay loved one a better gift than to love and accept them for who they are, right now, no matter what, period. The friends and family who did that for me (at varying points in my journey, including very recently) are cherished and will go down in the history of my life as the people that truly loved me, and as true Christians who helped me on my path. (And, btw, some of them are not technically even Christian—but to me are like Christ in their actions.)

2. If you are gay and Mormon (or Christian), I want you to know how much love I feel for you, and how much I admire you. I know how hard it is to be where you are. I want you to do me a favor. I want you, right now, to take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and accept yourself as you are in this very instant. You are you. And your attractions are part of you. And you are totally okay! I promise. I want you to stop battling with this part of you that you may have understood as being sinful. Being gay does not mean you are a sinner or that you are evil. Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them.

I want you to know that God loves you, and that even though you are attracted to people of the same gender, you are a completely legitimate individual, worthy of God’s love, your family’s love, and the love of your friends. You are no more broken than any other person you meet. You are not evil. You are a beautiful child of God. Please don’t be ashamed. Know that you can be forgiven for any mistakes you have made, and that God is not judging you. He loves you. Turn to him. He has a plan specifically for you. He wants you to be happy, and he will take you by the hand, and guide you step by step to where you need to be if you trust Him. He is not angry with you, and He knows you completely, every part, even the parts you wish you could keep hidden. He knows it all, and he still loves you! He couldn’t love you any more, and he is proud of you for your courage. I wish you could know of my sincerity as I write these words, and how deeply I feel compassion for you.

Conclusion (finally?)

You might be having an emotional reaction of some kind to this post. We want you to know that that’s okay.

Perhaps you’re someone that has never met a person that is gay whose opinion you trust, and are having trouble believing that a man or woman could actually be sexually attracted to their same gender. Perhaps it’s hard for you to accept the idea that people do not choose to be gay because it has helped you to understand this issue to assume that it is a matter of choice. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps it is hard for you to believe that a man who regularly has sex with a woman could actually be a homosexual who has chosen to live with a woman he loves, and that there’s no way I could feel what I claim to feel. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you are someone who has been affected by a loved one who is gay and got married to a person of the opposite gender under false pretenses and then left his or her family, and your feelings are raw, and this post makes you feel feelings of anger because you worry that anybody in these circumstances is in for an eventual rude awakening and horrible consequences. Perhaps it even makes you feel deeper pain and loss than you already do to imagine that while this type of marriage didn’t work for you or for someone you love, it is working well for someone else, and so it’s easier to dismiss our story as something that is bound to fail. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you are someone who has trouble believing a Mormon or Christian could actually be gay, so this post is difficult for you to take at face value. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you are someone who is gay, and you once had desires to have a family with biological children of your own, but you gave that dream up long ago, and so now you feel challenged by the idea that doing so is a possibility for you, which makes you resistant to accept that what we are saying could be true—and maybe that makes you angry or upset that we would even suggest this is possible for those who want it. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you have had none of these emotions and are totally supportive. Maybe you are even excited to see this being talked about so openly. Or perhaps you have felt something entirely different than anything mentioned.

Wherever you find yourself in your emotions, know that it is okay to feel what you are feeling. This issue is a very complex one and a very emotional one.

But this is a moment where whatever your feelings on the subject may be, you are reading the words of a real live person who is telling the truth. I am not lying to you right now. I have no reason whatsoever to share this with you besides to add a voice to the global discussion so that someone who might feel hopeless and lonely and devoid of role models or voices to trust can find all the information about their options available. I do so at great risk. I do so in spite of probable backlash from people I know as well as perfect strangers. I do so knowing that I will be misunderstood and possibly maligned—called a fraud, and told that my most intimate relationships are a sham. That I might be called Satanic, or told that I am the epitome of self-deception.

But the reason I do this is because I love you, whoever you are, and I want to share my situation so that you can know further truth: I am gay. I am Mormon. I am married to a woman. I am happy every single day. My life is filled with joy. I have a wonderful sex life. And I’ve been married for ten years, and plan to be married for decades more to come to the woman of my dreams.

All of these things are true, whether your mind is allowing you to believe them or not.

There are too many voices of dissent. There are too many voices saying that what I’m doing with my life is impossible. There are too many voices saying I don’t exist. Saying that I am a mirage, or a fake, or an impossibility. And Lolly and I have had our ten wonderful years of isolation, where we have enjoyed the goodness of our love and our life together in private. We have had chances to come out before in loud ways—we’ve been featured anonymously in news stories, been invited to be on radio interviews and documentaries, and were even asked to be on a national talk show. But it wasn’t time. We needed to have those years—ten wonderful years to ourselves, to live outside of any scrutiny, and just be ourselves.

But now we know that it’s time for us to share, and begin a new phase of openness and authenticity. We aren’t sure why, but we both know, without question, that this is what we are supposed to do. Maybe somebody needs to hear our story. Maybe you are that somebody. If so, thank you for reading, and thank you for letting us share this intimate piece of our lives with you.

If you are someone we know in person, we worry you might feel a little hurt about the manner in which you have found out about this. Know that if you feel that this was an abrupt way to find this out, we genuinely apologize. There was simply no way to talk to everyone we love before publishing this post–but we want you to know that the dialogue is open. If you have questions for us, please ask them. We are talking about this now. We won’t be weirded out if you ask us questions. And if you didn’t hear about this personally, it’s not because we don’t love or trust you. We tried to get to everyone, but just ran out of time.

Also, generally, please feel free to use the comment section to discuss this matter if you wish. However, remember that this is our lives you are talking about. Please feel free to say what you need to say, but we would ask that you be respectful of our decisions and the decisions of others if you decide to comment. And if you know someone who could benefit from this post, please share it. You can click share in the upper corner or down below. We want this post to reach anybody it could potentially help.

In closing, when talking to some friends about our situation in preparation for this post, one of them said “It’s almost like we’ve encountered a real live Unicorn!” She was joking of course. She was just saying that they were talking to something that not many encounter. A mythical creature. Someone who is gay, Mormon and married. And then as we told new friends about ourselves in preparation for this post, we told them we were initiating them into “Club Unicorn” because they had now seen something mythical with their very own eyes.

I now extend that invitation to every one of you. I am not a myth. I am real.

I cordially welcome you as the newest member of Club Unicorn.

Obama Comes Out

May 15, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Pundits scratched their heads at Vice President Joe Biden’s unexpected declaration of support for gay marriage. In the following days speculation grew that the White House was telegraphing a major policy shift announcement. For anyone who was paying attention or who cared to look at the record, President Obama has never been opposed to alternate lifestyle trends, and has specifically been a consistent supporter of gay “rights,” championing the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the U.S. military.

In fact, pressure has been building for some time in the President’s base as a result of his reluctance to come out of the closet on the gay marriage issue. On Wednesday, President Obama announced during an ABC television interview, that he now supports gay marriage. Newsweek magazine, which has featured Obama on several of its covers, this week added a rainbow halo, canonizing him with the epithet “THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT.”

Predictably, within days of making his position clear on the issue the President has received a deluge of campaign contributions from his hard left supporters—who were overtly withholding funding support pending his public announcement. Starting with the $40,000 per plate Hollywood bash hosted by George Clooney, the re-election campaign has garnered a quick $21 million resulting directly from the President’s change of public position on gay marriage.

The President insists that he has not flip-flopped on gay marriage, but has simply “evolved” his views. Regardless of the President’s assertions on his reasons for changing his stance, a CBS/New York Times poll reflects that American voters are ignoring contrived social issues coming out of the White House, and that 62 percent believe that the economy is the pivotal issue in this election—an issue that the President is apparently trying to obscure with a recent flurry of social issues discussions.

While the President is calling on the congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, GOP challenger Mitt Romney has confirmed his agreement with the American people that marriage is between a single man and a single woman. A full 67 percent of Americans believe the President’s revelation on his gay marriage views is politically motivated; a clear attempt to gather support and money. Over 25 percent of those polled say that the President’s announcement has caused them to reconsider their support of his re-election.

Will the President’s obvious pandering to the far left hurt his re-election chances? The CBS/New York Times poll shows Mitt Romney pulling ahead in what has been a close race. Why is the President’s campaign flailing? It could be that Christian African-Americans who are strongly opposed to gay lifestyles and other issues of morality are beginning to reassess their carte blanche endorsement of the man who promised them so much, and has delivered nothing but skyrocketing unemployment in their families and neighborhoods.

Publius

« Previous Page

Sen. McConnell Brings in FBI to Probe Ashley Judd Spies

Federal Judge Orders Abortion Pill Must Be Over-Counter For All Girls

Left Want Ben Carson Replaced as Commencement Speaker After Gay Marriage Remarks

Italy’s Highest Court Orders New Trial for Amanda Knox

The “Mormon Effect”

Readers of this story also find the following stories interesting:

Should GOP Rethink Abortion Policy?

‘Islamization’ of Paris – a Warning to the West

DNC Platform – More Taxes, Abortions and Sodomy

Ann Romney Delivers Again

Liberal Terrorist Attack In DC

Born This Way?

Gay Confession – Loving The Straight Life

Obama Comes Out

Federalist Press Dispatch

Thank you for subscribing to the Federalist Press Dispatch.

Economy

The Left’s Poverty Industry Nobody Wants to Talk About

‘Rules for Radicals’ and the Socialist March Through America’s Institutions

Stephen Colbert’s Final Curtain: When Late Night Became Political Therapy Instead of Comedy

Elections

The SPLC and the Profits of Division

Europe Is Finally Learning the Lesson Trump Tried to Teach

Trump Was Right To Ask — Georgia’s Election Questions Didn’t Disappear, They Got Louder

Foreign

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Passes Congress in Landmark Victory

Trump’s Decisive Strike: Ending Iran’s Nuclear Threat and Exposing Decades of Diplomatic Failure

BREAKING: President Trump Orders Devastating Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Facilities in Historic Preemptive Strike

Crime

Trump Was Right To Ask — Georgia’s Election Questions Didn’t Disappear, They Got Louder

How Many More Victims of Lethal Compassion?

‘Rules for Radicals’ and the Socialist March Through America’s Institutions

Science Tech

UFO Disclosure Has Crossed the Line From Fringe to Official Reality

Trump Administration Releases Second UFO Tranche — and One File Contains 209 Reports Near a Secret U.S. Facility

Fed Appeals Court Judge Stayed Silent for Decades. Now Witnesses Beginning to Talk.

Reader Responses