Preview chapter material
.
New book by Billy Rojas-
Forthcoming: Summer 2015
.
.
When the truth is found to be lies...
.
The title, of course, hearkens back to a song composed by Grace Slick
in 1967. As used for my book it refers to compulsive lying in the
American political establishment; my special concern covers the years
from 1977 to the present. However, part of the enormous problem
of pervasive lying wherever you turn includes media collusion with
various political leaders and famous literary celebrities. And it
concerns endemic lying on the part of homosexuals and their
supporters, mostly on the Left but not without large numbers of
libertarians and establishment Republicans.
.
The book exposes everything in my power to tell the world about.
Numerous rocks have been turned over to see what would crawl out
and, for fans of all things grotesque and criminal, you won't be
disappointed. Such a title would be unwieldy but the book might
also be called "New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco
Confidential" - it exposes the worst mess since Watergate.
If you have a few minutes, you will be glad you took the time
to examine the materials presented here, the opening section
of Chapter 26. And please be advised that there really are
25 other chapters already written. I have been working like
crazy on this book since April, although, in fairness, some parts
here and there re-use text that dates as long ago as the Summer
of 2014 and even before. But be assured that well over 90% is
brand new and even the re-used materials have been extensively
re-worked such that, for all practical purposes, that material
also is new.
.
It is difficult to know exactly how many chapters this will have.
>From the perspective of today a minimum of 30 is assured;
it could be higher since, as I have worked on the book, several
single chapters became two chapters and one became parts
of three. So, I can't be precise.
.
What can also be said is that this is non-fiction, it is totally factual.
Yes, I have experimented with novel format in the past, as
recently as early this year, but you would be well advised to
regard this effort as completely legitimate scholarship.
Nothing is fabricated or otherwise made up.
.
Of the work that remains to be done, most of it exists in rough form
already. And some editing remains to be done on the 25 finished chapters
but that part of the book, approximately 3/4ths of the total page length,
everything is in the 99%+ complete range. Not much new text needs
to be written out for anything, at most maybe 25 pages.
.
It is uncertain whether the completed book will be ready before
the end of June; it is possible but unlikely. However, much of what
it written is very time sensitive and it seemed advisable to get as much
that is completed out to the public with no further delay. As it is,
several chapters have already been sent to private persons
who have helped me in the past and who I consider friends.
.
The book is divided into three parts, or "sections." I think the total
length
will come to about 300 pages but that is a rough guess. Using that number
as an approximation, the first "third" should be maybe 75 pages long,
the final third will be about 75 pages long. The middle "third"
will be over 150 pages long, that is, just about half the book.
Chapter 26 is taken from the middle section.
.
Part # 2 is obviously important or it would not have received
as much time and attention as it has.. I think that you will agree that
I have demolished the American Psychiatric Association, brick by brick,
and there is nothing standing any more. When you read the opening
stanzas of Chapter 26 please keep in mind that this is the conclusion
to ten lengthy chapters on the theme of homosexuality as
a psychopathology. Almost all other chapters in the book
are a more reasonable length.
.
Part # 1, of course, is very special; it is newsworthy. And because it is,
I asked a
question of myself: How can I leverage the story so that my
main political / cultural interests can also become newsworthy?
Simple (but time consuming and difficult): Fuse the news story
with an all-out exposé of homosexuality. Which is not an "Add On"
As you will see, the issue of homosexuality arises in the first section.
But what I could not do was to slough anything off as if "everyone
already knows" the two and only two possible positions on the
subject of homosexuality, yes ("liberal") and no ("conservative").
.
My position is radically different than anyone else's view of
the issue although there is strong overlap with some of the work
of researchers like Reisman and Cameron, plus NARTH, the
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
There was no choice but to explain my views in detail especially
since my previous book on the subject, written in 2000, remains
unpublished. I have a great deal to say on the subject that
no-one else is saying and the best thing to do is write is all out.
.
What makes part # 1 newsworthy?
.
I finally have documentary proof that Alvin Toffler was a member
of the Communist Party in his past. His many denials are on record.
Indeed, there are a large number; who hasn't he lied to? And
his influence on Newt Gingrich is also on record. His association with
GHW Bush is less known and his association with Reagan is totally
obscure but, it, too, is on record. That is, Toffler has lied to many,
many people, and despite my repeated attempts to wake Newt up
to the truth, Gingrich effectively colluded with Toffler. At those times
when I communicated with Newt I had the knowledge but no
documentation. I now have the documentation.
.
Don't even think about being dismissive. Its all there, including
Betty Friedan's Communist past, which she also lied about,
and the testimony of foreign writers who knew dimensions
of the story that I was unaware of until this past May.
.
This will be newsworthy -especially since not only does
this story involve past major political figures, it involves a current
Who's Who in American Business, a lineup of multi-millionaires
and billionaires. Don't tell me they won't, as idiom has it, "shit a brick"
when they find out how badly Alvin Toffler has duped them. And did
I mention that Newt Gingrich has (blush) enemies? Well, it is true,
even if you may find that hard to believe, him being someone
liked by all, someone so cuddly and universally beloved.
.
( Note to my friends from India and other points East, this is American
"sarcasm." You can look up the word on Google. Actually Newt is
almost universally reviled not only on the political Left but even among
a good number of conservatives who regard him as a traitor to their
cause.
Take my word about this, some of those people really despise Gingrich,
and I know who they are).
.
.
Then there is part # 3. You will get a kick out of this section,
trust me on this. This will, among other things, discredit Barack Hussein
in new ways, be assured of that. And I don't mean maybe. One chapter
that is half unwritten, -it might take another five+ pages to do the
theme justice- is the full story of Obama's homosexual associations
in Chicago before he met Michelle. I have not quite a "ton" of material
on this subject. I do not take a position on the question of whether
or not Obama took part in homosexual activities in those years,
however. The plan is simply to present all available reliable
evidence (no conspiracy theory crap, etc) and let the reader
come to his or her own conclusions.
.
But there are all kinds of other things that President What-Me-Worry
will not like. As part of a grand finale the plan is also to make
considerable use of the outstanding research of Pamela Geller.
.
Maybe you have heard of her.
.
If raw evidence alone could convict someone of treason,
Barack Hussein would be in a federal penitentiary; Geller has
a lot of hard evidence to this effect, much of it dealing with
known Muslim terrorist organizations that Obama has close
-documented- relationships with but about which the news media,
still in love with their sweetheart after all these years,
will not touch.
.
It should also be noted that as a political Independent -a genuine
Radical Centrist, not the half-baked kind at New American Foundation-
I like to shovel dirt as equally as possible, Left and Right. But this
is not because I hate everyone. That is not true. I am a big fan of
Theodore Roosevelt, for example, my favorite president, of Hannah
Adams the foremother of Comparative Religion in the United States,
and I am thankful for my good friends at Centroids, those who
have kept the Radical Centrist faith alive through thick and thin.
Its everyone else that I hate.
.
Admittedly, given the subject matter of the book, the Democrats
get the worst of things. If we were discussing economics it would be
the Republicans in the toilet. However, it might be noted that 2/3rds
of the dirt leaves 1/3rd of the dirt, and the GOP elite will be
discomfited,
I feel confident in saying. About which I could care less, they can also
go to hell. I don't like them, either.
So, enjoy !
.
.
Some final comments:
As soon as chapter material is ready, basically after doing final
proof reading for completed text, Part # 1 will be sent via e-mails
to people who can use the information. This will be sent a few
chapters at a time. This will be followed as soon as possible
by the chapters for Part # 2, an in-depth exhaustive argument
that provides all the evidence anyone might want to the effect
that homosexuality is a full blown psychopathology. I think
I know the subject quite well since I have studied it since
the mid 1980s.
Parts #1 and # 2 should all be sent in installments no later than
the end of June -ceteris paribus, of course, if there aren't even
more disruptions and nonsense to deal with than has so far been
the case as I have worked on the book these past 12 weeks.
As soon as Part # 3 is ready everything will be posted online.
That is the plan.
.
.
Billy Rojas
.
Eugene, Oregon
June 21, 2015
.
==================================
Chapter 26
.
The public in denial: Facts no-one likes to talk about
.
.
.
What has characterized public policy toward homosexuality
throughout the 1990s and 2000s so far, can only be characterized
as gross irresponsibility. Indeed, this state of affairs can be dated
to at least the Carter years, when the homosexual campaign to
normalize sodomy started to become influential in political circles.
.
What was the reaction of our elected officials to the rise of organized
and sometimes outrageous homosexuals ? You know the answer.
Right-wingers reached for their Bibles and Left-wingers reached for
the latest words of wisdom in Playboy or Ms. magazine. Moderates and
Wall Streeters ran away from the issue and hid under the bed.
.
Think about the number of Congressional hearings that take place
when topics of widespread concern are talked about in the media
or on the cocktail circuit. And when citizens' groups take up some cause.
How many hearings have there been on the subject of autism ? As a
reasonable guess, about ten. How many hearings have there been
over the years on gun control ? Surely in the dozens.
And so forth for issue after issue.
.
Compare this record with the number of hearings to determine the
competency of the APA to render judgement on homosexuality; according
to Judith Reisman in private correspondence with the author in response to
my observation that I could find no record of an such thing, there has not
even been one (1) hearing since this matter became important in 1973.
And this despite the fact that by now a whole literature exists which makes
it
very clear that the APA was effectively taken over by pro-homosexual
interests in 1972. In effect, while the story of the corruption of the APA
is complex and not always easy to follow, by no later than the 1990s,
to use popular idiom, “the inmates had taken over the asylum.”
.
Into this void a number of researchers began to do work in the field
in those years. A name who is mostly unrecognized is O.R. Adams,
who published a 1998 volume entitled As We Sodomize America
-The Homosexual Movement and the Decline of Morality in America.
This is an important contribution to homosexual studies even though it
has
some major flaws. Adams, a New Mexico lawyer, essentially wrote
a 700 page legal brief that takes real work to read to the end.
Moreover, parts of the text consist of material about the religious
beliefs that motivated him to write the book, much of that content
extraneous to the main subject.
.
However, the first 400 pages or so, especially the first 200 pages,
could not be more pointed and relevant. From a review of the book,
edited here, that I prepared for Adams' site, American Traditions,
the following remarks should help explain the book's significance :
.
" The whole thing reads like a nightmare as Adams chronicles the rise and
triumph of the "homosexualist" cause from the late 60s to the late 90s. It
is
a tale of irresponsibility and denial, of media manipulation and
collusion
of politicians with the media, of corruption in the churches, of brave
champions
against the forces of darkness, you might say, made ineffectual by the
sheer
power of the courts, of giant business firms completely compromised
by homosexuals, and of the utter depravity of so-called conservatives
in Congress who, while all this was happening, did just about nothing."
.
" The book, in its first chapters, provides a comprehensive view
of homosexuality. Without being anything but objective, not counting
his occasional editorial disapprovals of homosexuality, Adams describes
in gory detail the real life actions that constitute homosexuality itself,
things no-one who is not pathological can possibly
want to think about."
.
" There are whole chapters on such topics as anal sex, rimming
(kissing and licking the anus ), ingesting fecal matter for 'fun,' and so
forth),
fisting (insertion of a fist up the rectum for sexual thrills), mud
rolling
(sex play with feces), and every homosexual's favorite pastime,
sadomasochism -including bondage, torture and brutality. That is,
a reader would need to be seriously mentally ill not to immediately
recognize that describing such conduct is to discuss pathological
behavior and a diseased form of mentality. "
.
" None of which, at least except in certain avant garde venues,
and the public schools in the guise of AIDS and safe sex "education,"
homosexuals want others to even know about. Why not? Because
to discuss such behavior is to discuss repulsive behavior by any
psychologically normal standards, behavior that would
cause the non-clinically insane to recoil in disgust."
.
"If you need to heave your guts for any reason at all, read the
first 200 pages of the book. In no time at all after that, your lunch
will be splattered all over the toilet bowl or the nearest sink,
guaranteed."
.
Books don't get more relevant than that.
.
And to his great credit, Adams was not reluctant to criticize Billy
Graham,
until the 1990s the Big Name in the Evangelical movement.
.
About the elder Graham, do not count me as favorably disposed;
in fact from the first time I heard him in the mid 1950s, he struck me
as a poseur for Christ, a phoney. He reeked of insecurity. And he
had an understanding of Christian faith that I can only describe as
lobotomized, not much different in quality than what has come down
the pike in later years in the person of George W. Bush; this is religion
for people who thrive on situation comedies and never read books.
Or if they do read books, they are incapable of understanding
a single word.
.
Yes, Billy Graham had faith in Jesus, there is no reason to think
otherwise.
But what he offered multitudes was an excuse to be uniformed
as long as they believed. This I found intolerable.
.
My negative views of Graham are what they are despite the fact
that he sometimes took courageous stands, as he did in helping
Martin Luther King, Jr. in the years when King had few supporters;
that counted considerably. Also, he was the guiding light behind the
founding of a first rate publication, Christianity Today. However,
Graham was also a boot-licker extraordinaire, someone ready,
willing, and able to make excuses for each and every president who
came along because he thrived on access to the White House and
the heady sense of national fame that went along with a reputation
as minister to the president. He even was a cheerleader for Nixon
during the months before Watergate ended his presidency. A time
when huge quantities of evidence had already made it clear that
Nixon was guilty as sin, so to speak.
Basically Graham was a sycophant at heart with serious ego problems.
Not to mention a sugary theology that wasn't all that concerned
with scholarship, viz, 'day by day, pray your troubles away.'
I really cannot stand such simple-minded pabulum.
.
What drew Adams' ire was, as cited on page 265, a news report of 1997
that he read. Billy Graham was asked "whether or not he considered
homosexuality to be a sin." Graham's reply? "Graham said that
according to the Bible, 'their lifestyle...is wrong. It is a sin. But there
are other sins. Why do we jump on that sin as if its the greatest sin?' "
.
Adams was outraged: "This timid and impotent statement was clearly
contrary to the teachings of the Bible on the gravity of the sin. It plays
down how vile, depraved, and destructive homosexual acts are.
Rev. Billy Graham has let down our society in failing to lend his voice
to combat this war against the good and decent values of our society.
It appears that Billy Graham has now become an apologist for sodomy.
He has also become an apologist for the one who has done the most
to promote sodomy in America, ...President Clinton."
Adams had followed Graham's sermons and other statements over
the years. But in all that time he had not heard or read even one comment
by Graham about homosexuality; there were no condemnations whatsoever.
Finally came that 1997 comment, basically a capitulation to the enemy.
That was inexcusable.
.
,
Yet one serious problem should be mentioned so that you don't get
the wrong idea. Adams is a conservative who, although he sometimes
makes serious criticisms of fellow conservatives for dropping the ball
and letting homosexuals advance in their on-going campaign, nonetheless
simply could not bring himself to discuss the glaring weaknesses in
Ronald Reagan's social values positions. Namely, Reagan did almost
nothing in this area to further the conservative cause.
.
Reagan was more-or-less the conservative equivalent to Barack Obama
during that era of time. He was someone worthy of worship. He was
not to be criticized. He was a political messiah. Which I regard as
rubbish,
as much rubbish as it is to regard Obama as some sort of political
redeemer.
The concept, in either case, is ludicrous ; both are (or were) moral
hypocrites
of the first order, and both genuflected to homosexual interests as a
matter
of routine. But so that you will know :
.
Reagan, while he was governor of California, supported Troy Perry
in his founding of the Metropolitan Community (so-called) Church.
What is so galling about his official recognition is the fact that the
MCC
falsely teaches that Jesus was a homosexual; and what slander of Christ
could be more damning? Yet Reagan saw no conflict between this ugly
teaching and his presumed Christian faith. But what is just as
incredible,
almost none of his high-powered Evangelical supporters bothered to
look into their hero's past. What is even more astounding is the fact
that
this information was available -documented- in Ronald Enroth and
Gerald Jamison's 1974 book, The Gay Church, sold by one of the
most reputable Christian publishers then or now, the Eerdmans Company.
Without the least question, Evangelical scholars of ca. 1980 knew about
the text; surely some of them discussed this with leaders of their
movement.
Yet, to the best of my knowledge, not even one held Reagan accountable
at any time during his presidency.
.
Reagan also saw nothing wrong with Hollywood homosexuals while they
sought to expand their influence in the movie industry. This should be
clear enough when you consider how he was the first among film equals
of those giving tributes to Rock Hudson after the movie star
had succumbed to AIDS.
-----
..
So, there are "issues" with Adams' volume. He is a political partisan
and in our era this necessarily means a choice between the lesser
of two evils. Nonetheless, the fact that each party has major flaws
should be recognized for what it is. The pretense that the Republican
Party is all for the good, even in years when it takes the most moral
side on important social questions, honesty demands that GOP voters
should recognize their party's failings -including the failings of their
undeserved heroes. This they do not do. Hence, Evangelical voters
are played for fools -again and again and again.
.
Mr. Smith may go to Washington, but he is laughed at because he
is hopelessly naive, is essentially uninformed, and has inappropriate
intellectual resources to work with. You cannot win a war of values
if all the ideas in your head consist of big-government-is-the-enemy
mantras, theories of marginal utility as God, and simplistic dysfunctional
political philosophies like single tax economics
or libertarian me-me-me-ism.
.
Even if you have a degree in mechanical engineering or money management.
.
It is a major shortcoming that Adams cannot bring himself to recognize
this serious problem. This said, his book is a monumental achievement
that deserves national recognition. It is utterly amazing.
.
To give the reader some sense of Adams' work here are a series
of quotations, some from other authors, that spell everything out;
his sources are clearly identified in the text:
.
.
"I examined a catalog named "Voyages," published in 1994, which listed
every kind of sex device that I have ever heard of in studying this trash,
and then some, plus a large number of videos and magazines. It listed
all kinds of dildos and penis shaped vibrators, with harnesses to hold
them, whips, various things to insert in rectums, chains, handcuffs,
leather
harnesses, and various other items for all kinds of sexual perverts,
although
a large part of these things appeared that they would have been for
lesbians.
All of these publications...were ordered and received in the mail.
Thirty years ago, selling such things would have been a criminal offense
in all states..."
.
Re: so-called "water sports," citing a study by Paul Cameron-
"About 30 percent of gays have 'showered' in the urine of others,
and about 20 percent have drunk urine...about 15 percent of
homosexuals regularly seek to be urinated on and about
eight percent or nine percent regularly drink it."
.
Re: Studies carried out by Concerned Women of America
..."one eighth of lesbians admit to practicing sadomasochism
and 8 percent of them admit to "water sports" (urinating on
their sexual partners)."
.
a "lesbian sex booklet advises: When penetrating with other
creative items such as cucumbers, course fruits, veggies, hairbrushes,
poolcues, etc., be sure to dress them in condoms."
.
"The pursuit of sexual happiness via raunch -fetishism, water sports
and coprophilia, and so forth- seeks, essentially, to restore erectile
thrills by restoring the 'dirty,' hence forbidden, aspect of sex -thereby
providing, as C.A. Tripp called it in The Homosexual Matrix, a new
barrier of 'resistance' to overcome. Unfortunately, this, as with all
attempts
to sustain the furor sexualis of youth by sheer intensification of some
peripheral aspect of the experience is doomed to failure; mere
amplification of 'dirtiness' results, finally, in mere wallowing in
filth..."
.
..."17 percent of gays admitted to having eaten and/or rubbed feces on
partners. An additional 12 percent reported giving and receiving enemas
as part of sexual pleasure."
.
"Toy" is homosexual argot for various objects, including live animals,
which are inserted into the rectum -sometimes bottles, carrots,
lightbulbs,
or specially designed devices. More recently a small proportion of
homosexuals do [anal] sex with animals -gerbils are commonly used."
.
"Dr. Judith Reisman analyzed the contents of The Advocate between
the years 1972 and 1991. Roughly 10 - 20% of the ads since 1972
have both subtly and blatantly, solicited child/teen boy entrapment."
.
Re: a national random survey in Britain-
"35% of boys and 9% of girls said they were approached for sex
by adult homosexuals. Whether for attention, curiosity, or by force,
2% of the boys and 1% of the girls succumbed. In the U.S. 37%
of males and 9% of females reported having been approached for
homosexual sex (65% of those doing the inviting were older)...
a quarter of homosexuals have admitted to sex with children
and underaged teens."
.
Reported before Catholic Church sex abuse scandals
were publicized nationally from 2002 onward:
"Andrew Greeley says sex abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy
is widespread in the United States, involving between 2,000 and 4,000
priests and more than 100,000 victims."
.
>From the book, The Homosexual Deception, cited on page 105:
"One study demonstrates that 6,349 Americans...contracted AIDS
from contaminated blood as of 1992..."
.
..."a 1982 study found a 14 percent sexual assault rate at one California
prison, a 1984 study reported that 28 percent of the inmates at six
New York state prisons had been the target of sexual aggression..."
.
Re: a study of 518 mass murders in the US between 1966 and 1983
that involved sex, in which between 44% and 68% were killed by
homosexuals, depending on how various cases are interpreted-
"Considering that homosexuals constitute approximately 2 percent
of the population, these statistics are indeed high. As to the mass
murders, homosexuals killed thirty-four times as many people
as were killed by heterosexuals, on a proportional basis."
.
Re: Cited from a publication of Concerned Women of America-
"In a study...of "gay values" as reflected in a 19 years' issues of the
national homosexual magazine The Advocate, Dr. Judith Reisman
found that gay-on-gay violence is instigated...as S & M, 'spanking,'
'slaves wanted,' etc., and is largely endorsed by the prevailing
'gay' cultural values. Finding: Roughly 13 - 22 % of Advocate
sex ads solicited or promised brutality, gay-on-gay bashing
or other forms of sexual injury."
.
Re: a parade in San Francisco-
"It is unbelievable that such a vile and base display could go on in this
country in public...There were also children in the parade. Both men and
women are involved [in] its full displays of gross nudity... Both men and
women are acting out homosexual acts. The scenes are indescribably
loathsome, offensive, and disgusting. One man has a bare behind, and
a leather harness on that extends around his waist and between his legs,
and had on some kind of dido which appears to be a penis sticking out
in front of him. Men are dressed up as and heavily painted up as women,
acting out sex acts with others."
.
Re: March on Washington, feted by William and Hillary Clinton,
June 1993, taken from a variety of reports, mostly Christian
organizations observing the proceedings, one under the title:
What the Media Didn't Show You."
"A million gays and lesbians from across the nation in a dramatic display
of political unity [gathered to raise] public awareness of the strength
and conviction of the gay community [which was] perceived as
essential in winning Congressional support for the gay agenda.
.
...there was an extremely obscene Drag Queen show at the Washington
Monument...obscenities were continual. One large sign...stated:
BUTT-FUCKING IS FUN and under that was QUEER NATION.
Another large sign being displayed and carried high was: SUCK COCK
FOR JESUS.....Simulated, or real sex acts were prevalent.
.
When a nation promotes and tolerates such things as this, particularly
in our nation's capital, our morality has sunk into the depths of Hell
.
[As reported by Peter LaBarbera, there was a] fisting display inside
a Federal building..... various things on sale in the Mellon Auditorium,
included leather cat-O-nine tails whips, chained and leather hoods,
handcuffs, canes and other assorted implements used by such people.
.
[All of this is what] the news media sanitizes and misinforms the public
as to what they do... As time goes on the role of the news media
turns from reporting gay issues to promoting them, [hence] it comes
as no surprise that the news services nationwide portrayed the event
as a gathering of fair minded serious citizens."
.
"From the 1930s (when Kinsey started collecting data) to the early 1970s,
before a politically correct answer emerged, only about 10% of
homosexuals claimed they were 'born that way.' "
.
"homosexuals seem to have an inability to tell the truth, and perhaps
even to recognize it."
Page 430
.
"It should make little difference to society even if it were proved that
some people are born with homosexual inclinations. The same arguments
could be made, and have been made, for child molesters, those who
commit incest, rapists and many other such deviants. There are certain
things that are so evil and destructive that they should not be tolerated
by society, and homosexual acts are certainly among them."
.
.
What this suggests is a simple questionnaire:
Which of the following common homosexual activities do you regard
as sexually healthy, not pathological, essentially "normal"?
.
(1) Male-on-male fellatio
(2) female-on-female cunnilingus
(3) so-called "water sports" involving sex play with urine
(4) "mud rolling" and other forms of sex play involving feces
(5) inserting objects into the rectum for sexual purposes
(6) fisting and/or rimming
(7) sex with pre-pubescent children
(8) sado-masochism as part of sexual activity
(9) use of bondage gear, whips, harnesses, etc, as part of sex activities
(10) homosexual masturbation
.
You could add to this list of questions at some length. However, the
objective
here was to keep this as simple as possible, to highlight various well
known
behaviors that characterize homosexual practices, to make a point.
.
There are a number of possible uses for this questionnaire. For example,
judges and Justices of the Supreme Court could be asked for their replies.
Presumably they would not be under obligation to answer but if some
judges and Justices did answer in the negative, that they thought all of
the activities listed were pathological, that would present a problem
for the others; they would be tacitly consenting to all these behaviors,
and making a "professional" judgement that they regard all such things
as "normal" and unobjectionable.
.
This questionnaire could be asked of Congressman and women, and
Senators. If any elected official answered that he or she regarded
all of these activities as pathological the next question would be:
"What are you going to do about it?"
.
In any supporter of so-called "gay marriage" answers that these activities
are pathological then he or she would be caught voting for a mental
illness.
.
The questionnaire could be asked of clergy, news people, doctors,
business executives, teachers, lawyers, movie stars, Rock stars,
fashion designers, radio personalities, and so forth.
.
In the event of a "no comment" reply a follow-up question could be asked:
"Are you willing to defend these activities openly, in public?"
.
Some people would have no choice but to answer:
Presidential candidates.
.
Any who answer that he or she regards these behaviors as pathological
could then be asked:
"What are you going to do about it?"
.
Vague generalities should not be accepted as adequate responses.
"What, specifically, would you do about this, as president?"
.
Of course there would be no need to ask these questions of William Clinton,
Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Laura Bush, Jeb Bush, Bush 41,
Marco Rubio, the Fat Man, and, besides, Ron Paul and all of his libertarian
friends. It also includes the editors of the New York Times, decision
makers
at CBS, NBC, and ABC, plus anyone who works for MSNBC, the
various homosexuals and pro-homosexuals at Fox News TV or CNN,
and many others. All of these are, in effect, on record as regarding
all of these activities as sexually healthy, not pathological, and
essentially "normal"
.
In fact, each and everyone you know who supports "gay marriage"
is on record as regarding these activities as sexually healthy,
not pathological, and essentially "normal"
.
The same goes for anyone who supports so-called gay marriage.
This means anyone, including spouses, parents, aunts, uncles,
you name it, including your boss at work. Therefore
the question to you is:
"What are you going to do about it?"
.
Or are you willing to say that you see nothing wrong in mud rolling,
use of urine as part of sex, fisting, rimming, use of the rectum as a
substitute for a sex organ, or seduction of children into homosexuality?
Are you willing to say that any of these typical homosexual behaviors
are psychologically normal and that if a child of yours became
homosexual you would not object?
.
If you approve of homosexual ersatz marriage these are the kinds
of activities you approve of and regard as not pathological, you know.
.
You have not studied the issue? Is that so? Why not? Exactly what
excuses your gross irresponsibility? I can tell you this, if you have
not studied the issue, have not as much as cracked one critical book,
you can't blame people like O.R. Adams who spent tens of thousands
of dollars -counting his research time, the months and months it took
him to write the book, and his expenses in printing the volume and
distributing it. You can't blame dedicated psychology professionals
like Dr Paul Cameron and Dr Judith Reisman who have spent
decades researching the issue and publishing their findings. And
no-one can blame me; I have done literally everything open to me
to encourage others to become informed; all of this has cost me
a good deal of time and money, especially books necessary
for my research, some of which have been quite expensive.
.
Are you that much of a herd animal that you can't think for yourself?
Are you so cowardly that even the thought of taking a stand against
homosexuality in the current climate of opinion causes you anxiety?
If so, you are pathetic, utterly pathetic.
.
.
We should stress the question: Which of these activities would you be
indifferent about if your son or daughter was participating in?
.
.
By the standards of the American Psychiatric Association, whose leadership
insists that homosexuality is "normal," each of these activities qualifies
as pathological. By other standards, whether Freudian or psychotherapeutic,
all of these behaviors qualify as mental disorders.
.
In so many words, homosexuality is a mental illness and all talk of
"homosexual rights" is an absurdity. There is no such thing as a
right to be mentally ill.
.
The entire "homosexual rights" movement is a travesty, it is based on
nothing that can be called science, it was engineered by the political
Left starting in 1970, and continuing to our own time. In this, the
Republican Party leadership, almost to a man or woman, has colluded
whole heartedly.....
.
All political rights granted homosexuals since 1973 should be rescinded,
nullified, reversed, in a word, thrown out.
.
Each and every judge or Justice who has made pro-homosexual decisions
who is now on the bench should be removed in disgrace. There has been
no possible excuse for the gross irresponsibility of many of the judiciary.
All elected officials who have supported any homosexual initiatives
in the past who do not immediately change their views and become
critics and opponents of homosexuals should be impeached.
.
"All" means 100%, no exceptions for any reason.
.
This is what the information you have just read directly implies.
And this is only the beginning.
.
Nothing about homosexuality is justifiable.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
