Today HRC got a hold of internal NOM documents that shed light on the anti-LGBT movement’s overall strategy. These documents were just unsealed in Maine mid-afternoon. The docs are part of the ongoing investigation by the State of Maine into the campaign finance activities of NOM in that state. Much more to come but some high (low) lights from PDF page 13 of the “confidential” 2008-09 report to the NOM Board of Directors: “The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…” Another passage: "The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation." On PDF page 12, it talks about “sideswiping Obama,” painting him as a “social radical” and talking about “side issues” like pornography.
From the always refreshing Linda Harvey, the latest to accuse GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project of being “bigoted” for simple pointing out certain pundits’ OWN WORDS: ”Hate branding, focusing on Jews, succeeded in branding them as the ‘enemy’ in public opinion in Nazi Germany. It’s the method used today by Islamic radicals who spread ludicrous fables about Jews in many mosques.” FULL PIECE, in which Harvey attacks GLAAD and the SPLC in multiple ways that likely soothe her mind but don’t even scratch the surface of reality [WND] Linda also asks, “Who’s next on their ‘Hate group’ list– Lucy and Desi? Ozzie and Harriet? Mickey and Minnie?” To which I respond: “I don’t know, Linda? Has Minnie Mouse called gay soldiers “folks have truly lost their way, their shame, their innate sense of God’s touch on and design for their lives,” and called on her forces to “first understand the decline into barbarism that homosexual and sex-change activism brings" and "Then, we need to each be that person who gets it, who understands that these folks with their radical ideology are purposely endangering families, children, our nation’s security, our economy and the religious freedom of all who don’t go along,” coupled with a warning that “that these sinful impulses will end in catastrophe”? Because you have, Linda. You’ve said that and much, much more Best I can tell, Minnie’s kept her ‘culture warring’ confined to the ongoing debate over why Goofy is afforded so many human rights like marriage, yet Pluto remains submissive, restrained, and largely denied. ”
Also, Joe.My.God. points out Linda’s other medieval views:
“Moron Of The Week" Inductee Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum Picks Fight Against Pornography
The Daily Caller reports:
Internet pornography could conceivably become a thing of the past if Rick Santorum is elected president. The unapologetic social conservative, currently in second place behind Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected. Santorum says in a statement posted to his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.” If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.” Although the idea of Santorum vanquishing Internet pornography may seem far-fetched, a serious effort to combat online smut might actually be successful, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller. “If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so,” explained Volokh. “Here’s the deal: In most parts of the country, a lot of pornography on the Internet would plausibly be seen as obscene.” There are a few approaches that Santorum could pursue in an attempt to eradicate Internet pornography. “It wouldn’t be that difficult to close down a lot of the relatively visible websites that are used for the distribution of pornography, if they’re in the United States,” said Volokh. Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered. But that would leave foreign-based sites untouched. To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers,” said Volokh. But the government could also prosecute individual citizens who view porn, and already has the legal authority to do it. “Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,” noted Volokh. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he explained. Most contemporary prosecutions for the receipt of pornography are because the government cannot prove its suspicion that the accused has committed more serious crimes, said Volokh. He speculated that there aren’t more prosecutions because “that prosecutor isn’t going to win a lot of votes in the next election.” The government would probably need to “find some extra money in the budget for additional porn prosecutors,” joked Volokh. He also cautioned that there would be significant outcry because “sometimes it’s viewed by husbands and wives who watch it to spice up their sex lives.” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, noted that “What constitutes obscenity remains maddeningly vague,” but added that he’s not entirely convinced Santorum would be successful in an attempt to snuf Internet porn.
"I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."
In 1994, Mitt Romney called for “full equality” for LGBT Americans, but this afternoon his presidential condemned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling against Proposition 8. “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court,” Romney said. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent asks, “That note about judges who interpret the Constitution according to their own “prejudices” — is that a reference to the fact that the judge on the case was gay, which was cited by Prop 8 supporters as proof of his bias? Naah, probably not. A major party presidential candidate would never go there.” For more on Romney’s devolution on LGBT equality, click here.
Harvey writes on her Hate Group’s blog, Mission Of America:
The practice of bisexuality provides more evidence that choice and flexibility are quite well known and accepted even among advocates of homosexuality. And within the homosexual community are many testimonies of change: sometimes called ‘fluidity’ and sometimes bisexuality or ‘queer’ orientations. It doesn’t take long to find self-contradictions within the ‘gay’ community that confirm the known reality of change and choice. [snip]We need to re-educate Christians to stand up for the truth. We must ask non-Christians who also see the problems with homosexuality (and there are many such citizens) to stand with us to oppose the public embrace of this behavior.
INDIANA: Creationism Bill Moves Forward In The State Senate
The Huffington Post reports:
Creationism, a theory with origins in the Bible’s Book of Genesis, suggests that divine power created man, animal, and all earthly matters. The idea is an opposing view to the science-based theory of evolution. If the bill passes, Indiana school districts will have the option to include creationism as part of science courses, Indianapolis’ WXIN reports. The bill was sponsored by Republican Sen. Dennis Kruse, head of the Indiana State Senate’s Education Committee. Kruse previously proposed similar legislation in 2000 when he served as a state representative. That bill never made it past a committee.
Wow. The worse thing about this, apart of the cruel indoctrination of kids to this stupid tales, is that they actually can’t see the difference of what’s scientific evidence and scripture (written by ignorant and superstitious men back in the Bronze Age).
Gay, Atheist, Latino & Blogger. Occasional writer, Collaborator for the Bestseller NYT's book "It Gets Better", a Cher devotee, Former Radio Host (in Mexico City), a Nutella lover & a Dan Savage & Christopher Hitchens' loyal. Pictures taken with an iPhone 5.