Blog Closed by Executive Order

Fellow Iowans:

I regret to inform you that, due to its homophobic content, I have instructed my newly created WSM (Welcoming Speech Ministry) to lock this blog to prevent further posts by its owner. The authority for me to do this comes from the new "Fair Speech" law, which is Iowa Code Section, uh, well, we haven't actually passed that law yet, but it is coming down the pike. However, due to the hateful and bigoted nature of this blog, I cannot wait for a technicality in order to enforce this law. I'm sure you agree.

Recent polls show that 59% of Iowans believe this kind of intolerant and offensive speech should be stopped at all costs. 11 other states have taken such action against blog posters, and it is time for Iowa to do so also. I know you share my concern that someone might be offended because some intolerant religious fanatic thinks freedom of speech means he can publicly say that homosexuality is immoral. That's just wrong and we're not going to allow it in this state!

Now, I'm going to ask for your help to make Iowa (and the Internet) an even more welcoming place. Our new WSM only has a staff of 150 and a budget of $32 million, so we are going to need the cooperation of every Iowan. If you see a blog, or other website, that you can determine is based in Iowa which portrays any of the following behaviors (real or perceived) in any way that is not positive--gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transexual, transvestite, cross dressing, gender identity, questioning, etc.--please bring it to our attention immediately. E-mail the offensive link to stop_homophobes@wsm.state.ia.us, and the problem will be "resolved" within 24 hours.

Thank you for your participation. As a result of your effort, Iowa will be a safer and more welcoming place for all people.

-CAC

Note: If you are a minor, you are welcome to be a part of this important effort. Be assured that if your parents are jailed for their hate speech, you will be placed in a good, loving home where you won't have to worry about having antiquated, intolerant religious beliefs forced down your throat.

***NOTE - The above is fiction now, but could become reality in the near future if we allow the liberals to continue to take us further in the direction they have been taking us since assuming total control of the Iowa Statehouse***

Danielson Tells a Citizen He Has Hate in His Heart

This is an excerpt from the legislative forum held March 10, 2007. There is too much misinformation and propaganda in this video to address it all here, but let me hit on a couple of points:

-Danielson said there is a "whole host of enumerated traits" in the Fourteenth Amendment. There are no enumerated traits in the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers wanted the rights to apply equally to everyone, without carving out certain categories of people more worthy of protection than others. You would think a legislator charged with upholding the Constitution, and who bases his votes on the Constitution, would at least know what it says!

-Senator Dotzler's comment that an employer could fire an employee who didn't adhere to a dress code was technically right, but didn't address the specific question. An employer could have a dress code prohibiting employees from wearing dresses/skirts, makeup, etc. But if he allowed the female employees to wear them, he could not prohibit the males from also wearing them.

I would like to see more Republicans/conservatives/Christians attend these forums, rather than have 90%+ of the audience be liberal Democrats, and 90%+ of those be from the education establishment.

It's GAYLA Week at Wartburg!

Wartburg College, in Waverly, Iowa, is holding its 2nd Annual Gayla Week. Wartburg is afflliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), a liberal denomination that is becoming even more liberal, abandoning God's word in the process. A spokesman from Wartburg once told me that Wartburg is not a Lutheran college, but a college operated by the Lutheran Church. Huh? In any case, I think Martin Luther would grieve that such a college is being operated by a denomination that was founded based on his teachings.

What concerns me perhaps more than the "Drag In The City Cabaret Show" is how the Waterloo Courier reports on one of the celebration's speakers. Story here. Notice how the word "homophobia" is used without quotes and without identifying it as the opinion of the author (neither the author being reported on nor the author of the Courier piece). In other words, the Courier's objectivity (and that of most other media) is out the window on this issue.

I have known for quite some time that the media, in general, is helping to advance the homosexual agenda but, for some reason, when I read that article it really sank in. When you see it happening in your local paper, it really hits home.

They just throw the word out there like any normal and rational person would accept that 1) there is a condition called "homophobia", 2) it is a widespread problem in this country, and 3) anyone identified as a "homophobe" should be punished and/or sent for "sensitivity" training. You might think that "homophobia" would mean "fear of homosexuals" or "fear of homosexuality", but you would be wrong. The way that homosexual activists and their allies define a "homophobe" is anyone who doesn't accept that homosexuality is normal and morally equal to the sexual relationship between a married man and woman.

I know it seems that I focus on this subject a lot, but I consider it to be the greatest threat to our religious freedom that we face. Not only that, but the children in the public schools will be indoctrinated (ARE being indocrinated) with pro-homosexual beliefs This means that, within a generation, we could live in a culture where the vast majority of people consider homosexual behavior to be normal, natural, moral, and equivalent (if not superior) to heterosexual relations. And anyone who dares to say homosexual acts are sinful will not only be called names like "homophobe", religious fanatic, hateful, and bigoted. They will also be considered ignorant throwbacks to an era when people were unenlightened on this matter. They will be seen not only as intolerant, but dangerous.

To be honest, I think we have lost the battle to prevent the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality, unless God miraculously intervenes. But that doesn't mean that we have to go quietly! I pray that God will raise up a legion of pastors, as well as Christian leaders and laymen, who have the boldness to stand for His word. We should show love and compassion toward all, but we should not stand by silently while sin--any sin--is being written into law by giving a protected class status to those who practice it.

Am I my brother's....wife?!

Here is more vindication for those of us who warned that considering homosexual behavior to be a civil right would be a slippery slope that would lead to calls for legal recognition of other aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., sexual relations other than between one man and one woman in marriage). Critics accused us of using fear tactics when we asked what would prevent polygamists from making the case that their civil rights were being violated. Homosexual activists dismissed those claims as the rantings of "homophobes". However, we are now seeing polygamists pushing for their "civil rights" based on the gains made by homosexuals.

Now comes something even more insidious that I have also been warning people about. Once we normalize homosexuality, where do you draw the line? Homosexual acitivists who try to shoot down arguments against same-sex "marriage" will say that the line should be drawn by limiting it to two people who are in love and want to share their lives together. OK, let's run with that. But now we have a case of a incestuous relationship. A brother and sister are living in a sexual relationship and have borne children. Chuck Colson reports on this case in his column today, entitled Saw This One Coming.

When the German government found 0ut about the relationship, they took away three of the couple's four children, and jailed the father/brother/husband for incest. Now, the couple is challenging the law in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. Some of the arguments the couple is making sound eerily familiar:

"this law is out of date, and it breaches the couple's civil rights"

"couple [is] not harming anyone"

the ban "is discrimination"

"Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children? (this in response to the argument that incest produces children at a higher risk to be born with a disability)

Do you recognize any of those arguments? They have all been made in the push for same-sex "marriage" in this country. The homosexual equivalent to the last argument is how they respond when it is held that one reason for marriage being only between one man and one woman is because that union can produce children, while same-sex "marriage" will not. They will ask, "If that is the case, then why are opposite-sex couples allowed to marry who, for whatever reason, will never be able to have kids?"

How will the homosexual activists respond to a couple who says it is their civil right to have an incestuous relationship? How can they say incest (or polygamy, or anything else for that matter) is wrong? Will they affirm family members being married to one another, or will they further try to refine the definition of marriage, but not so narrowly that it excludes them?

This is happening in Germany now, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it won't eventually come to our shores, especially when the US Supreme Court relies on laws and decisions in foreign countries to arrive at their decision.

This is just one more reason why you should contact your legislator and ask them to vote against adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Iowa's civil rights code.

That's gay!

I don't advocate the use of that phrase in a derogatory manner; I just want to say it while I still can! There is a movement in this country (which, like usual, is starting in California) to ban that phrase in schools.

The vast majority of students who use the phrase don't use it as a derogatory slur toward homosexuals, but rather in place of a phrase like, "That's lame" or "That's silly". However, the thought police in at least one school--and there will be others--have decided that the use of that phrase constitutes "sexual harassment" and is therefore a serious enough offense that they suspended a fourth-grade student for saying it. Read story here.

I wonder if the administrators at that school would suspend a student for making a derogatory statement about Christians? Somehow I doubt it. The radar of the speech Nazis seems to only pick up on words that are perceived to be derogatory toward "gays".

This type of infringement of free speech rights is just one of the reasons many of us opposed Iowa's "Bully Bill". Many schools in Iowa will no doubt ban the phrase "That's gay" or "That's so gay". I know this because one of the biggest arguments that was used for this law, and for bullying/harassment policies in the local school districts, is that "gay" students hear that phrase several times every day, and that constitutes bullying or harassment. This from a study commissioned by GLSEN that is trotted out at every opportunity, and is the foundation on which many state lawmakers and school board members based their decision to support a bullying/harassment policy that would include "sexual orientation".

Click here to visit the NEA (National Education Association)

Character-building message acceptable...unless the messengers happen to be Christian

This story is about a week old, but I felt it important to cover it anyway, in case you hadn't heard about it from another source. It seems that now we have gotten to the point that not only can't a Christian group come into a school to give a religious message, they can't even come in and give a secular message! This according to a recent editorial in the Ames Tribune, written in response to the appearance of the Power Team at Ames Middle School.

This view was shared by Iowa state Representative, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, who claims to be a Christian, but says, "we would not endorse this interpretation of Christianity." What "interpretation" of Christianity is that, Representative? Biblical Christianity? She also said, "not every family attending the Ames Middle School is a Christian. This assembly definitely verges on a civil rights violation."

Wow! A civil rights violation?! That's pretty serious! Explain to me again, Representative, how bringing a positive, character-building, non-religious message "verges on a civil rights violation"? I think I can say with some certainty that you won't see a "civil rights violation" when the homosexual agenda is shoved down the students' throats. After all, didn't you vote for the "Bully Bill", which will do just that?

The Tribune made the statement that, "(Superintendent) Beyea is right in that the schools do have enough on their hands just fulfilling their own mission." Hmmm....do you suppose they would say that if the object of controversy was an assembly bringing a message of tolerance for homosexuality conducted by GLSEN, GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force, or a school's Gay-Straight Alliance? Not likely! You see, such platitudes are only applicable when the secular left disagrees with your position. They have no problem finding a place for indoctrination they support.

More on Deerfield High

In response to a poster (thanks, Activist Scott), here is more info concerning the story I blogged about in my previous post. Story here. It appears that the panel is part of a mandatory class that all freshmen are required to take.

This is just one of many examples I could post where students are being indoctrinated with homosexual behavior. Unless something changes radically, and soon, we will see this happening more and more.

There has been a huge cultural shift in this country in the last few years. It is now virtuous to proclaim your homosexuality, and it is noble to help promote the homosexual agenda. Perhaps, people who missed out on the civil rights movement of the 60's see this as a similar cause (it is NOT) that they can latch onto and feel like they are making the world a better, more "tolerant" place.