Friday, February 27, 2009

Pepsi endorsing sodomite lifestyle

Pepsi has produced another TV ad not only promoting Pepsi but also promoting the gay lifestyle. Click here to see the ad.
Pepsi had released a similar ad before. According to American Family Association, "the ads serve two purposes for Pepsi: to sell Pepsi and to promote the homosexual lifestyle. AFA asked Pepsi to remain neutral in the culture war, but the company refused - choosing to support the homosexual activists.
Pepsi has made no effort to hide their support for the homosexual agenda:
Pepsi gave a total of $1,000,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the workplace.
Both HRC and PFLAG supported efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8 which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. HRC, which received $500,000 from Pepsi, gave $2.3 million to defeat Proposition 8.
Pepsi forces employees to attend sexual orientation and gender diversity training where the employees are taught to accept homosexuality. Pepsi is a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce." The picture on the left showing the Pepsi Co. supporting a San Francisco homosexual parade. Unfortunatley, where are the millions of dollars that Pepsi is giving to Christian organizations. Oh, the aren't. Many wonder why sodomite organizations and other left-wing, anti-Christian groups have so much money to spend on their "agendas." Well, when you have private companies such as Pepsi, Ford Motor Co., etc., giving hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to these groups then one shouldn't wonder why they are able to spend millions of dollars on t.v. ads, support queer activists, and "buy" politicians. Until then.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Firefighters win lawsuit over "sodomite" parade participation

In the land of fruits and nuts, four San Diego firefighters have won a discrimination lawsuit. Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center points out that all four of the firefighters are Christians, husbands, and fathers. He explains the case. "The firefighters were ordered against their will by the fire chief of San Diego Fire Department (picture on the lower right), who is an open lesbian, to participate in a so-called gay pride parade that happens every year in San Diego," he notes. According to a Thomas More press release, during the all-day event, the firefighters "were subjected to vile sexual taunts and gestures along the parade route." At the trial on Wednesday, the jury ruled in favor of the firefighters, claiming they were subjected to discrimination. "It was a great victory for the courage that they had, but more important it was a moral victory because what this will do is not only make sure that it never happens in San Diego again," Rooney contends, "but it will give firefighters, policemen, and other city workers throughout the country the moral courage to stand up and say, 'I'm not going to be subjected to these kinds of things any longer.'" The San Diego city attorney plans to appeal, but Rooney is confident of winning on that level, too. It's hard to imagine in America that we are actually witnessing the days of Sodom and Gamorrah. Who would have thought that we actually be seeing Christian men forced to participate in a sodomite parade, where these firefighters were being "hit" on by queers, and where these sodomites were attempting to make sexual advances towards these firefighters. If you read the story of Sodom and Gamorrah were the angels of God went to the city to warn Lot of the destruction of these cities, and the sodomites wanted the angels to come out of Lots house in order to have sexual relations with them, one can easily see how the story is not too far off from these firefighters. May we have courage in these troublesome times. Until then.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Sodomite group calls for passage of Uniting American Families Act

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund is calling for a quick passage of Uniting American Families Act. The NGLTF It is applauding the reintroduction of the Uniting American Families Act, which would "grant binational same-sex couples equal treatment under immigration laws by allowing them to sponsor their partner for immigration purposes." This bill is sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) bottom right and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) upper right hand corner. Obviously, these politicians are not standing up for our Christian values and faith, or ensuring our children will have a future where they can be proud of their race and nationality. The Task Force Action Fund, a longtime supporter of the measure, is working closely with Immigration Equality and other ally organizations to garner congressional and presidential support for the legislation. Statement by Rea Carey, Executive DirectorNational Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund “U.S. immigration policy is supposed to be based on the principle of bringing and keeping families together. But for far too long, thousands of binational same-sex couples and their families have been kept separated, or are forced to live in exile. This discriminatory practice is painfully unfair and inhumane. We applaud Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Sen. Patrick Leahy and our colleagues at Immigration Equality for insisting the Uniting American Families Act be reintroduced this year, and we urge for its swift passage and enactment.” That is right, we as Christian Americans who have since the conception of this country stand for the principles of Christianity and do not believe in the grotesque lifestyle of homosexuality. We do not want this sick and perverted life style do be placed upon our children. We do not want sodomites in our country, being in our schools, or in our government. Everyone should be encouraged to write to their senators and representatives and encourage them not to support this bill that will further destroy our country. Unil then.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

New York couple fighting "sincerity test" for vaccinations


A family in New York is fighting for the rights of parents to opt their children out of vaccines.

Ron and Rita Palma of Bayport, New York, have been fighting for the right to opt their children out of the vaccines that public schools require children have before attending school. Parents are allowed to opt out of the medical requirement if they cite objections on religious grounds. The Palmas did so, citing their Catholic faith as a reason, but they were met with resistance from the Bayport-Blue Point Union Free School District. Rita Palma explains. "I handed in my letter, handed in my application, and they called me in and insisted that I come in for a face-to-face interview," she shares. "Now I know other people in the community who have gone through this, so I talked to some lawyers. I knew that they [school officials] were within their legal boundaries, and I really didn't think that it was going to be all that much of a problem. You know, my feelings were true, my beliefs fit squarely with the law -- so I complied." But Palma says she and her husband were grilled for two hours by the school's attorney, David Cohen. She refers to the session as a "sincerity interview." Following is an excerpt from that meeting:
Cohen: "If you believe God is on your side, does that mean he's not on the side or can he be on the side of somebody who believes in immunization?" Rita: "Mr. Cohen, I wouldn't know. I know my deepest, most spiritual beliefs. I don't know the belief system of others and..." Ron: "And nor do we control God." Rita: "Yeah." Cohen: "Okay." Rita: "I wouldn't know."
Rita says the attorney concluded that her beliefs were not "sincere" enough and decided to deny her vaccine waiver. She is now taking her fight to the New York State Capitol. Videos of the Palmas' session with Cohen are available on YouTube (Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3) (view all three parts).

In an interview with OneNewsNow, Rita Palma claims David Cohen, the school's attorney, tried to intimidate her in the questioning process. "He has been named in enough publications where I'm sure he has experienced some pressure -- and some not-so-nice pressure -- from other sources criticizing his actions," she says. "My assemblywomen actually wrote a letter to my school district...criticizing their actions." Rita is currently working with state lawmakers to pass New York Bill A00883, which would amend existing law to ban so-called "religious sincerity tests." "Rather than appeal this decision, the route that I chose to take is to change the law," says Rita. "[I hope] to really compel school districts to accept the [opt-out] letter at face value, and make it illegal for school districts to close the door and ask you what your belief system is all about." Rita is also working to help pass New York Bill A00880, a bill that would make medical waivers accepted at face value. According to Rita, she handed the school a medical waiver from her doctor that would exempt her son from vaccines, but the school rejected that as well. OneNewsNow asked Rita if she had considered private school or home school. She replied that her children really like their current teachers, and apart from the vaccine issue they have no complaints. Rita also explains that private school would put undue financial pressure on the family; but if they do decide to switch schools, she wants the choice to be hers -- and not something the public school forces them to do because of the vaccine issue. Rita operates the website, which assists parents who also wish to opt out of childhood vaccines.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Stimulus package attacks religion.

The U.S. Senate is taking the lead on the campaign for Change that President Obama has been harping on. The Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) that would have stripped language from the stimulus bill that would force colleges and universities to throw religious clubs off campus if the schools receive federal funds. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice had this reaction. "Well, not only is it disappointing, it's almost a throwback to litigation that we conducted in the 1980s that we won unanimously at the Supreme Court," he says. "And I feel like this particular legislation pokes the finger in the eye of people who take religious faith seriously. "It's discriminatory in its application, unconstitutional as it's written, [and] unfortunately it's going to take four or five years for it to be litigated all the way through," Sekulow adds. With passage of the bill with the restrictions in place, how might colleges and universities be affected? "We're going to look at filing an application for a stay of this provision, trying to get it declared unconstitutional through a restraining order," he shares. Sekulow plans to file suit the day after President Obama signs the bill.

Jay Sekulow, told OneNewsNow "there is a provision of the act that actually allows for funds to be given by the federal government in the form of grants for renovation of existing colleges and universities. "But when you read a little bit further into this legislation, there's a specific prohibition on two things," the attorney explains. "One, if the university itself is a religiously based or faith-based institution, it does not qualify. And if the facility that is being renovated allows religious worship to take place, it also does not qualify." Specifically, the provision reads that stimulus funds may not be used for "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities -- (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."

Under that provision, according to Sekulow, many schools would bar on-campus worship or even Bible study because it will put federal funding in jeopardy. That, he says, should raise a warning flag in a federal courthouse. "It is unconstitutional -- and while I'm prepared to challenge it in court, and we're already working on a possibility, it really needs to be handled in the legislation," the ACLJ leader suggests. "That needs to be job one...remove this provision and get it out of the legislation." Sekulow states that a "troubling pattern" is developing regarding the use of taxpayer money -- and that this provision is the latest example. He contrasts it with the new administration's swift move to make federal funds available for abortion-providers overseas. "There is a priority problem in Washington," he says in a press release. "This is not what 'economic stimulus' is about. We know that the American people don't want their tax dollars used for discriminatory measures. That's why this provision must be removed now." The attorney says if the discriminatory provision is not removed from the stimulus package and is approved and signed into law, the ACLJ will challenge it in federal court.

Stimulation of discrimination? Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, agrees that the "anti-faith" language of the provision will censor and force people of faith from the public square. "In order to receive stimulus money our public schools will have to expel after-school Bible clubs and weekend religious meetings," says the Christian attorney. "People who want to speak about their faith will be unwelcome in public places." He adds that President Obama's idea of faith-based initiatives apparently is to "remove faith from all initiatives."

It's another example how President Obama and the U.S. Senate is bent on creating a change in America where Christianity will not be welcomed. They want Christianity to be removed from our schools, colleges, and all form of our education system. In fact, they want Christianity to be completely banned in order for our youth to continued to be robbed of their Christian heritage. Until then.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Ice Storm hits Arkansas

As many of you can tell, it has been a while since my last post. The reason is that a terrible ice storm swept through Arkansas, Kentucky, and Missouri, last week and a half and literally hundreds of thousands of individuals lost electricity, including me. Well, our electricity has just been turned on.