Gay Agenda

Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

Posted on January 21, 2010. Filed under: Gay Agenda, Liberal Idiots, Obama, Politicians, Religion, Reverse Discrimination |

Here we have another radical in Obama’s administration who says that ‘gay rights’ should trump ‘religious rights’.

Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

Monday, January 18, 2010

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006.

“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.

Feldblum’s admittedly “radical” view is based on what she sees as a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and the homosexual agenda, where “a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side.”

“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.

“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”

Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.

 All beliefs should be equal, regardless of their source, Feldblum says. “A belief derived from a religious faith should be accorded no more weight—and no less weight—than a belief derived from a non-religious source.” According to Feldman, the source of a person’s belief – be it God, spiritual energy, or the five senses – “has no relevance.”

‘Identity liberty’ versus ‘belief liberty’

Feldblum does recognize that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, Feldblum argues that society should “come down on the side” of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. Because the conflict between the two is “irreconcilable,” religious liberty — which she also calls “belief liberty” — must be placed second to the “identity liberty” of homosexuals.

 “And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people,” she wrote.

“Protecting one group’s identity liberty may, at times, require that we burden others’ belief liberty. This is an inherent and irreconcilable reality of our complex society,” Feldblum wrote.

“But in dealing with this conflict, I believe it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held core, moral beliefs. Laws passed pursuant to public policies may burden the belief liberty of those who adhere to either religious or secular beliefs.”

The full Senate must now vote on Feldblum’s nomination, but a date for that vote has not yet been set.

As an EEOC commissioner, Feldblum would rule on cases involving alleged violations of federal employment law, including gender, age, and race discrimination.

LINK: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59965

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Should Make Parents Furious: Kevin Jennings and “FistGate”

Posted on December 14, 2009. Filed under: Education Idiocy, Gay Agenda, Obama, Politics |

Kevin Jennings should be nowhere near children, much less be the “safe schools czar.” Once again we get a glimpse of Obama’s complete lack of judgment when it comes to choosing his advisors.

Jennings is a militant gay man who pushes inappropriate, over the line garbage on kids in schools. Several years ago I sent out an email telling people about one of his events at a school in Mass. and luckily it’s being put back in the limelight. They were handing out very explicit gay materials to jr high and high schoolers (how-to guides) as well as a list of bars and other places where they could meet up with gays. This man should NOT be in charge of our school kids.

 Read the article below, but if you really want to see what he’s about and see why you should be so furious, follow the link in the article below (biggovernment.com) to get the details. It is pretty explicit which is why we should be sickened that he gave this info to school kids.

Kevin Jennings and “FistGate” Should Make Parents Furious

by Doug Giles

Man, am I about to sound like an uncool, homophobic, bigoted zealot who should be on a terror watch list (according to the paranormal progressives). Why is that, you ask? Well, I think Obama’s G-boy, Kevin Jennings, should not be the Safe Schools Czar for many egregious reasons. Here are just a few.

I believe anyone who thinks it’s okay to teach 14-year-old boys how they can jam their fist up another 14-year-old boy’s tailpipe, or provides “fisting” kits for the kiddos, or thinks it’s neat-o to urinate on one another during teen sex, or passes out literature to your young ones on how they can find old pedophiles to hook up with at “gay leather bars,” or talks to your teen about the tricky pros and cons of spitting versus swallowing should not be the Safe Schools Czar.

Maybe Kevin Jennings could be the “Adam Lambert Eye Liner Czar” or Cher’s “Do You Believe in Life After Love Czar,” but not the Safe Schools Czar. But then again, there I go being extreme. Shame on me for not being a hip parent who’s totally cool with adult flamers filling our fifth grade kids’ heads with filth. I am truly an ignorant, puritanical, buckle-shoed killjoy, ain’t I? By the way, what the heck is up with liberals? They have their hands in our pockets, their noses in our business, and now they want their arms up our backsides.

How crazy of me that I would have the audacity to go public with the notion that someone who headed up an organization (GLSEN) that proselytizes confused kids on how they can insert their knuckles up someone else’s anus should not be the determiner of what is “safe” at school, eh? Hello!

Hey, Kev… last time I checked, trying to make your mate a hand puppet didn’t fall within the city limits of SafetyTown. Sounds kinda dangerous to me. Oh and here’s an aside for the butt pirates: Our rectums are an exit, not an entrance.

In addition, Mr. Jennings, apart from the “arm in arse” thing, from what I remember during 9th grade health class many moons ago, it’s also not wise to place one’s reproductive organ in the end of another’s digestive system.

A fist up a rectum? Are you kidding me? You guys sound like you have way too much time on your hands. If you’re in need of an idea regarding what to do with your fist, here’s one: Why don’t take your fist and smack yourself in the face with it for poisoning America’s kids with your perverted crap?

For those not in the know, Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, who was cherry picked by Obama, is not having a good week as whistleblowers are righteously shouting this guy down and trying to get him removed from calling the shots regarding what is nontoxic in your kids’ scholastic lives.

Why are watchdogs barking this dude down? Well, it’s not because he’s mildly gay but because he’s wildly militant in his homosexuality, and both he and his hombres at GLSEN have had no problemo whatsoever filling your kids’ heads and bodies with weirdness galore. For the unbelievable full list of what this man and his organization have advocated and continue to advocate, check out the fantastic work Jim Holt has done on “FistGate” at http://biggovernment.com/

 Also, don’t miss Jennings/GLSEN’s “Little Black Book” for your sons! Hellish.

I’ve gotta warn you, mom and dad: What you’re about to read (at biggovernment.com) regarding “FistGate” is very sick and twisted. You’d better brace yourselves. I hope it thoroughly ticks you off that such baseness is being peddled to your babies. In addition, I hope you raise major hell with your elected reps about permanently removing Jennings from anything that has to do with your children and our schools.

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/12/12/kevin_jennings_and_%e2%80%9cfistgate%e2%80%9d_should_make_parents_furious

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Obama Appointee Lauded NAMBLA Figure

Posted on October 1, 2009. Filed under: Gay Agenda, Obama, Obama Corruption |

And the list goes on…another radical chosen by Obama. This guy is disgusting! To have anything to do with NAMBLA (North American  Man-Boy Love Association) is sick! Hey libs, are you questioning Obama’s judgment yet???

Obama appointee lauded NAMBLA figure

By: MARK TAPSCOTT

Editorial Page Editor

10/01/09

Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug FreeSchools at the U.S. Department of Education, is in hot water this week for having failed to report that a 15-year-old sophomore student in his school had told him of having sex with an older man.

But failure to report what appeared to be a case of statuatory rape of a child may be the least of Jennings’ worries. Lori Roman of Regular Folks United points to statements by Jennings a decade or more ago when he praised Harry Hay of the North American Association for Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which promotes the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.

Roman provides damning details and links here:

http://www.regularfolksunited.com/index.php?tab=article_view&article_id=2547.

She also notes that Jennings wrote the forward “to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket—Bill Ayers.” Ayers, of course, is the Weather Underground bomber from the 1960s who is just an “acquaintance” of Obama.

Every presidential administration ends up with scandals inspired by controversial appointees, but typically those tend to revolve around financial improprieties, conflicts of interest, or some other form of white-collar misconduct. For Obama, the scandals seem to be develping in a pattern of disclosures revolving around radical left ideology that raises questions about their fitness for any job in government.

And that in turn raises the inevitable question: Is nobody minding the White House personnel store?

LINK: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Two More Radical Czars Appointed by Obama

Posted on September 24, 2009. Filed under: Culture, Education Idiocy, Gay Agenda, General, Liberal Idiots, Obama, Politicians, Socialism/Communism |

Read the 3 articles below to hear about 2 more radical czars appointed by Obama – his ‘Safe Schools Czar’ and his “Regulatory Czar”.  I cannot believe who is in charge of our country- it’s very scary!! We cannot let these people get their agendas pushed through.

Sunstein: Fetuses ‘use’ women, abortion limits ‘troublesome’

Obama regulatory chief offers radical new interpretation of Constitution

Posted: September 25, 2009

By Aaron Klein

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Restrictions on access to abortion would turn women’s bodies into vessels to be “used” by fetuses, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“A restriction on access to abortion turns women’s reproductive capacities into something to be used by fetuses. … Legal and social control of women’s sexual and reproductive capacities has been a principal historical source of sexual inequality,” Sunstein wrote in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution.”

In the book, obtained and reviewed by WND, Sunstein sets forth a radical new interpretation of the Constitution. In one chapter, titled “Pornography, abortion, surrogacy,” Sunstein argued against restrictions on abortion and pornography.

“Restrictions on abortion, surrogacy and free availability of pornography are troublesome,” he wrote.

“I do not mean to oppose equality to liberty. … Liberty does not entail respect for all ‘choices,'” he maintained. Sunstein’s views on fetuses are not limited to his 1993 book.

WND reported earlier this month that in a 2003 book review, Sunstein argued there is no moral concern regarding cloning human beings since human embryos, which develop into a baby, are “only a handful of cells.”

In addition to Sunstein’s moral disregard for human embryos, WND reported the Obama czar several times has quoted approvingly from an author who likened animals to slaves and argued an adult dog or a horse is more rational than a human infant and should, therefore, be granted similar rights.

-snip-

Several other works by Sunstein, including his books, quote approvingly of Bentham’s statements comparing adult dogs and horses to human infants.

In the Harvard paper, Sunstein even suggests animals could be granted the right to sue humans in court.

“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are in some general sense ‘persons,’ or that they are not property,” he wrote.

The Senate two weeks ago confirmed Sunstein as Obama’s administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, overcoming months of delay due to Republican concerns that he would push a radical animal-rights agenda.

LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110934

 

Sunstein: Force broadcasters to air ‘diversity’ ads

Obama chief argues media must not have final say in selection of commercials

Posted: September 24, 2009

By Aaron Klein

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – The U.S. government should have the right to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that foster a “diversity” of views, argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome,” wrote Sunstein in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution.”

-snip-

‘New Deal Fairness Doctrine’

In his book, Sunstein outlines his positions regarding the regulation of broadcasting.

WND reported earlier this month that Sunstein used the book to draw up a “First Amendment New Deal” – a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “fairness doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

-snip-

LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110762

 

Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man for the Job

Critics say Kevin Jennings is too radical for the job of director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, citing what they say is his promotion of homosexuality in schools, his writings about his past drug abuse and his onetime contempt for religion.

By Maxim Lott

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

President Obama’s “safe schools czar” is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.

Conservatives are up in arms about the appointment of Kevin Jennings, Obama’s director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, saying he is too radical for the job.

Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student.

The OSDFS was created by the Bush administration in 2002. According to its Web site, one of its primary functions is to “provide financial assistance for drug and violence prevention activities and activities that promote the health and well being of students in elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.”

Jennings’ critics say he fits only half the bill, if that.

“Jennings was obviously chosen for this job because of the safe schools aspect… defining ‘safe schools’ narrowly in terms of ‘safe for homosexuality’,” Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told FOXNews.com.

“But at least half of the job involves creating drug-free schools, and we’ve not been offered any evidence about what qualifications Jennings has for promoting drug-free schools.”

Jennings’ detractors note that he made four references to his personal drug abuse in his 2007 autobiography, “Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir.” On page 103, discussing his high school years in Hawaii in the early 1980s, Jennings wrote:

“I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned.”

Sprigg said that quote is particularly unacceptable for someone who has been named to lead America’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

“It would be nice to hear from Mr. Jennings … that he regrets the drug use he engaged in when he was in school,” Sprigg said. “But in this autobiography, which Mr. Jennings wrote only recently, he never expresses any regret about his youthful drug use.”

But Amanda Terkel, deputy research director at the Center for American Progress, sees Jennings’ comments about drugs in a different light.

“We have had elected officials do [drugs] and we still believe it is fine for them to be elected,” she said. “This is a point in his life that he was struggling … I think those experiences now help him reach out to students, relate to what they are going through, and help them through their problems.”

Liberal groups remain in Jennings’ corner, saying he is fully qualified for his position and is the victim of a right-wing smear campaign. But Jennings’ detractors point to other things he has said that alarm social conservatives.

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

At the time, Jennings said he had concerns about events at the conference, but he also criticized attendees who filmed it.

“From what I’ve heard, I have concerns as well,” Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000. “GLSEN believes that children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner.

“What troubles me is the people who have the tape know what our mission is, they know that our work is about preventing harassment and they know that session was not the totality of what was offered at a conference with over 50 sessions,” he said.

But Peter LaBarbera, President of “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, said Jennings’ reaction was weak and unacceptable.

“He never really apologized. If a conservative group had done that, they would be out of business,” LaBarbera said.

The religious right is also alarmed by Jennings’ personal views about religion. In his memoir, he wrote of his views while he was in high school:

“What had [God] done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy — I don’t need you around anymore, I decided.

“The Baptist Church had left me only a legacy of self-hatred, shame, and disappointment, and I wanted no more of it or its Father. The long erosion of my faith was now complete, and I, for many years, reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion. Decades passed before I opened a Bible again.”

Terkel said Jennings was writing about a “low point” in his life, and he now considers himself a religious person.

“Since then he has been involved in the Union Theological Seminary,” she said. “He does consider himself religious. He tithes — I just don’t see any evidence that he is hostile to religion.”

Jennings is on the board of the Union Theological Seminary, which describes itself as “progressive and evangelical.”

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.'” [Audio is available on the professor’s Web site.]

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

GLSEN spokesman Daryl Presgraves told FOXNews.com that all the attacks on Jennings were hate-motivated smears, but he declined to address individual issues.

“From falsehoods to misrepresentations to things taken out of context to outright smears — all of which have been fully debunked — these groups will stop at nothing to ensure that no effective action is taken to address bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in America’s schools.

“They have failed to derail and slander GLSEN’s well-respected work in the education world, which includes partnerships with numerous national education organizations, and they now seek to tarnish Kevin Jennings’ highly regarded career as an educator.”

But Sprigg countered that nobody has adequately answered the questions that are being raised about Jennings.

Speaking of Jennings’ job, he said: “I think it’s unfortunate that [it] is a position that did not require any sort of confirmation process, because there are a lot of serious questions about Jennings and there has not been any forum in which Jennings has been required to answer the questions.”

Jennings forwarded questions from FOXNews.com to Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton, who declined to comment.

But Terkel said that Jennings’ appointment showed that the Obama administration was taking safe schools seriously.

“For a long time I think this position was largely neglected. It was seen as a throwaway position [by the Bush administration.] Now the Obama administration has made an attempt to find someone who, in many ways, seems tailor-made for this position. [Jennings] has devoted his whole career to promoting safe schools.”

LINK: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Guess Who Fired Miss California: Gay Activist

Posted on June 20, 2009. Filed under: Gay Agenda, Media Bias, Religion |

Well, well, well, isn’t this intresting? Miss California was fired by an openly gay man who is ‘executive producer of a same-sex marriage movie titled “For the Bible Tells Me So.” In the film, producers attempt to discredit biblical teachings concerning homosexuality.’ Does anyone else find that fishy??

Guess who fired Miss California: Gay Activist

Prejean attorney: ‘If she were a b-tch, I think I would have picked up on it’

By Chelsea Schilling

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

“This is one of the most rude individuals I have ever had the displeasure of working with in my entire 28-year career in public relations. She was rude. She was obnoxious. She’s a liar, and she’s not a nice person. … There’s nothing ‘Christian’ about her.”

Such was the description to WND of recently fired Miss California Carrie Prejean by a spokesman representing Keith Lewis, producer of Miss California USA.

Publicist Roger Neal said the beauty queen refused to work with the pageant to attend scheduled events, so they kicked her out.

But Prejean’s attorney, Charles Limandri, sees it another way.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, he said the head of the Miss California USA pageant is an open homosexual who does not approve of Prejean’s opposition to same-sex marriage – and that is the real reason he terminated her contract.

“He’s a militant gay activist who did a movie promoting same-sex marriage,” Limandri said. “This issue is very near and dear to his heart.”

O’Reilly asked, “Is he gay?”

Limandri responded, “He’s an openly gay man who did actually produce a movie in support of same-sex marriage. Since you’re asking me, I am telling you: He’s an ideologue, and he’s not going to tolerate someone with that viewpoint wearing a crown and sash. That’s what you see happening here.”

Lewis, the man who fired Prejean, openly admitted to being homosexual in a May 1 interview with Reuters.

He is executive producer of a same-sex marriage movie titled “For the Bible Tells Me So.” In the film, producers attempt to discredit biblical teachings concerning homosexuality.

The 2007 movie introduces its viewers to five self-professed “Christian” families, each with a homosexual child.

“Can the love between two people ever be an abomination?” the film synopsis asks. “Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?”

The film website claims the movie will offer “healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.”

Asked if the viewpoint expressed in the film “For the Bible Tells Me So” is reflective of a deep-seated pro-homosexual position that might have influenced Lewis’ decision to fire Prejean, Neal said, “Lewis is not an activist like that. He’s got two grown children. As far as his sexual preference, that’s really a question you’d have to ask him.”

Then when WND asked to speak directly with Lewis, Neal interrupted, “What they are trying to do is sidetrack the issue. She was fired because she violated her contract with Miss California USA. … She didn’t want to work. She didn’t want to do her job. She only wanted to do things that she wanted to do. That’s why she was fired.”

Prejean’s attorney, Charles Limandri, told WND he can prove she attended many events and never violated her contract.

He also asked, “How can Lewis not be a gay rights activist when he is an executive producer of this movie? Give me a break.” Limandri said that when Prejean answered Miss USA pageant question in favor of traditional marriage, her mother texted Keith Lewis, asking, “Is that going to cost her the crown?”

“He wrote back and said, ‘There are three gay judges,'” Limandri said.

Following the event Lewis said he was “deeply saddened and hurt” by Prejean’s stance on same-sex marriage and that “politics and religion have no play in the Miss California family.”

Prejean claims Lewis requested that she make numerous inappropriate appearances, including posing for Playboy and attending a homosexual movie premiere against her wishes.

“He actually said he wanted me to wear a hat and go in disguise and attend this movie premiere promoting gay marriage and then come out with a statement the next day saying that Carrie Prejean attended a gay movie premiere,” she told Larry King. “It just doesn’t seem right …”

Her attorney added, “When she declined that, he wrote her off.”

Asked about the homosexual movie premiere, Neal said, “I don’t know that to be true because I have never heard about that. … What they’re trying to do right now is sensationalize everything because she’s writing a book.”

He continued, “She turned down Playboy, which is her prerogative, but the pageant didn’t ask her to do it. The pageant simply passed everything by her. All of the sudden she’s offended. She is a very mean-spirited woman. She is not a nice person. There is nothing ‘Christian’ about her.”

-snip-

LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101470

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

‘Gay’ Day Coming to California Public Schools

Posted on May 7, 2009. Filed under: Education Idiocy, Gay Agenda, Liberal Idiots |

We need to let our representatives know what we think of this. We should bombard them with emails and calls, especially the Republican who voted for it. Their names are below.

 ‘Gay’ day coming to California public schools?

Lawmakers vote to make children honor Harvey Milk – without parent consent

By Chelsea Schilling / May 06, 2009

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

SACRAMENTO – A California committee passed a bill proclaiming that the state’s public school children will take a break from learning every year to celebrate Harvey Milk – a homosexual icon considered by some to be “a martyr for gay rights.”

The California State Senate Education Committee passed SB 572 today on a 7-2 vote. The bill encourages all California public schools to “conduct suitable commemorative exercises … remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state.”

It requires no parental consent for student participation.

SB 572 states, “Perhaps more than any other modern figure, Harvey Milk’s life and political career embody the rise of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement in California, across the nation, and throughout the world.”

“If signed into law, SB 572 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools, without parental permission,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which has been generating citizen phone calls and e-mails against SB 572.

“It’s absurd that government schools teach children not to smoke or use drugs, yet would teach children as young as kindergarten that homosexuality is good and healthy and maybe even for them. That’s just not true. Homosexual and bisexual behavior causes up to 82 percent of all HIV transmissions in California,” Thomasson said.

As WND reported last year, the same bill (numbered AB 2567) passed the Democrat-controlled Legislature, but was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A SurveyUSA poll recently found that only one out of five Californians support making Milk’s birthday a statewide “day of significance.”

Nonetheless, state legislators are still fighting for a yearly commemoration dubbed “Harvey Milk Day.” The following lawmakers voted to establish Harvey Milk Day in California public schools:

Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria

Sen. Gloria Romero, D-East Los Angeles

Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-San Jose

Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Alameda County

Sen. Carol Liu, D-Pasadena

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-San Fernando Valley

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto

Voting against SB 572 were two Republican state senators: Bob Huff of Glendora and Mark Wyland of Carlsbad.

The text of the bill states, “It is the intent of the Legislature that the exercises … be integrated into the regular school program, and be conducted by the school or institution within the amount otherwise budgeted for educational programs.”

The announcement comes only days after WND reported a California school district launched a website to “meet the needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth.”

Thomasson said SB 572 is just one more reason why parents should rescue their children from the “anti-family” public school system. He encourages parents to visit RescueYourChild.org to learn about other education options before it’s too late.

“With public schools becoming sexual indoctrination centers, homeschooling and church schools are no longer parental options, they’re parental imperatives,” he said.

Thomasson warned that the bill would impact children as young as 5 years old and positively portray homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality and anything else that’s “in the closet.”

“This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk,” said Thomasson. “For the love of God, respect for parents, and defense of impressionable children, Governor Schwarzenegger must veto SB 572 if it reaches his desk.”

LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97263

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

SF School Website Promotes Homosexual Agenda

Posted on May 7, 2009. Filed under: Culture, Education Idiocy, Gay Agenda |

How many times can San Francisco proves what a NUTJOB of a city they are?? They’ll force a homosexual website down the kids’ throats and allow boys to go into girls’ bathrooms if they perceive themselves to be girls, but they won’t tolerate Christian groups, boy scouts, or ROTC. And once again people sit idly by and do NOTHING! What will it take to get conservatives moving??

 School website promotes homosexual agenda

Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 5/4/2009

 A California school district is coming under fire for a homosexual website being funded with taxpayer dollars.

The San Francisco Unified School district has launched a “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning” (LGBTQ) website for students in order to create a “safe space for all students” and promote activities both in the classroom and outside. Carrying the inviting web address “HealthierSF.org,” the website includes links promoting Gay Pride Celebration Month, Day of Silence, and Gay/Straight Alliance clubs.

 Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, says the school district is excluding parents on this issue.

 “What about parents? Can parents opt [their child] out?” she asks. “And the explanation that they give is that, no, they can’t opt out. [They say they] are under no obligation to even let them know because this is not sex education — and that’s all the law requires [them] to do.”

 England says children as young as kindergarten in the Golden State are exposed to the LGBTQ agenda through the website. “And that [includes] transgender policy that allows boys, as young as kindergarten, to go into girls’ restrooms [or to] play on girls’ sports teams if they perceive themselves to be girls,” she explains.

 “And [it includes] curriculum — that is as young as kindergarten — that explains homophobia, explains the word ‘gay,'” England adds. The vocabulary link at the website also defines terms such as “bisexual,” “gender identity” (“Everyone has a gender identity,” it says), and “transgender.”

 The Institute spokeswoman notes the site also includes curriculum to go along with pro-homosexual children’s books such as And Tango Makes Three and King & King. “They are doing a full-out curriculum on gay and lesbian issues for all grades,” she laments. The website also plans to eventually include an elementary school lesson called “The Harvey Milk Story.”

England says discussions of such matters belong at home and do not need to be led by teachers who label students as “homophobic” if they disagree with the lifestyle.

LINK: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=514310

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Next on Senate Agenda? ‘Pedophile Protection Act’

Posted on May 6, 2009. Filed under: Culture, Gay Agenda, Liberal Idiots, Politics, Religion, Reverse Discrimination, Socialism/Communism |

Pastors are threatened by this bill, but pedophiles are protected???? The world is going mad!

Next on Senate agenda? ‘Pedophile Protection Act’

‘Hate crimes’ law definitions would protect 547 sex ‘philias’

Posted: May 04, 2009

By Bob Unruh

The leader of a pro-family organization says families across the nation need to contact their U.S. senators now to try to derail a legislative plan that already has passed the U.S. House and is being awaited by President Obama – after a Democrat confirmed it would protect “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.”

WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry, today cited S. 909, dubbed the “Pedophile Protection Act,” as an extreme danger to America.

As H.R. 1913, the House version of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill, the plan was adopted on a 249-175 vote, but not before several amendments were proposed by Republicans trying to mitigate the impact of the law.

Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy immediately introduced a matching plan in the U.S. Senate, and activists say a vote in committee could come as early as tomorrow.

The proposal, also called the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after a Wyoming homosexual who was killed in a horrific robbery and beating in 1998, creates a special class for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles and provides them protections against so-called “hate.”

It specifically denies such protections to other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly. Wrote Porter, “I’ve written extensively about how this bill would criminalize Christianity and turn those who disagree with the homosexual agenda into felons, but criminalizing Christianity is just the beginning of what this bill would do. It would also elevate pedophiles as a special protected class – since the term ‘sexual orientation’ which has been added to the ‘hate crimes’ legislation includes them in the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of various ‘sexual orientations.”

Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple:

The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.

But majority Democrats refused to accept it.

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, then explained what it means, Porter wrote.

There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he’s committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

I know my friend said that we have a definition in the law, but there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act…it’s not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there.

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they’ve committed a misdemeanor, you’ve committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.

King, Porter wrote, also told the full U.S. House that the APA has a list of 547 different “paraphilias” that would be protected by members of Congress under the “hate crimes” bill.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a “hate crimes” supporter, agreed, saying:

This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘Philias’ and fetishes and ‘ism’s’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…”

Porter said families, parents, Americans, anyone interested in the future of the nation, need to contact their members in the Senate and demand hearings, then demand a filibuster.

“Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviants would enjoy an elevated level of protection while children, seniors, veterans, and churches would not,” Porter said.

The “hate crimes” proposal not only sets up criminal charges against those whose actions or words offend homosexuals but also provides money “to improve the education and training of local officials to identify, investigate, prosecute and prevent hate crimes.”

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

“I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance,” he said.

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission said the Senate proposal could be voted on in committee as early as tomorrow.

“You must call the Senate today and demand that they hold hearings on this bill,” he wrote. “It is one of the most radical pieces of legislation to ever make its way to the Senate. If passed, it will lay the groundwork for restricting religious liberty and freedom of speech as it has in Canada and Europe.”

Similar state laws have resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said H.R. 1913 will create “thought crimes,” and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it will end equality in the U.S.

Gohmert warned the law will be used against pastors – or anyone else – who speaks against homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyle choices. He said it provides that anyone who through speech “induces” commission of a violent hate crime “will be tried as a principal” alongside the active offender.

Critics say that would allow for prosecutions against pastors who preach a biblical ban on homosexuality if someone who hears such a message later is accused of any crime.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, “A pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech’ under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on ‘sexual orientation.’ The pastor could be prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to commit a hate crime'” she said.

The bill previously failed when President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably is unconstitutional.

“The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone,” said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913 a number of times.

“As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling ‘hate speech’ laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle,” he said.

LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97115

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Judiciary Committee Greenlights ‘Hate Crimes’: Members Refuse to Protect Christian Pastors from Charges

Posted on April 24, 2009. Filed under: Gay Agenda, Politics, Religion, Reverse Discrimination |

Watch out pastors, they may be coming after YOU!! One of the congressman admitted that this law could be used against pastors and rejected any opportunity to protect them against being charged with a hate crime. It’s just a matter of time.

Judiciary Committee greenlights ‘hate crimes’
Members refuse to protect Christian pastors from charges

Posted: April 23, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today rejected an opportunity to protect Christian pastors who preach the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and approved on a 15-12 vote a “hate crimes” bill that supporters admit could be used to bring charges against religious leaders.

The bill, H.R. 1913, now will be considered by the full House of Representatives.

The committee rejected a number of amendments offered by several members seeking to protect religious liberty, to protect the unborn, to protect against violence by illegal aliens, and to clarify the bill’s meanings of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”

One of the rejected proposals was offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, who sought to ensure ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a “hate crime” simply because they preach from the Bible or another religious book.

When a nearly identical plan was developed in the last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the bill it could be used to prosecute pastors merely for preaching under the premise that they could be “inducing” violence in someone. The bill ultimately failed then because President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably was unconstitutional.

“The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone,” said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

“Instead of treating all crime victims equally, it creates a caste system where select groups, such as gays and lesbians, are given greater priority in the criminal justice system. This is not progress; it is political correctness. In other nations and states, the adoption of hate crimes legislation has been the first step toward widespread suppression of speech and ideas critical of homosexuality,” he said.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009,” a number of times.

“As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling ‘hate speech’ laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle,” he said.

Barber said the 14th Amendment already provides that victims of violent crimes are afforded equal protection under the law “regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.”

“If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally, discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e.,’gay’ and lesbian ‘sexual orientation’ or cross-dressing ‘gender identity’),” he said.

He also said there is “zero evidence” suggesting homosexuals do not get equal protection now.

“In fact, you need only look to the most famous ‘hate crime’ of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a ‘hate crime’ by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard’s murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible),” he said.

Barber said likewise the murderer of Mary Stachowicz, a devout Catholic grandmother brutally killed by a homosexual for sharing the Bible with him, also was given a life sentence.

“The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory ‘hate crimes’ legislation,” he said.

Barber cited FBI statistics showing there were about 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, but only 1,512 were presumed to be “hate crimes.” And two-thirds of those involved claims of “hateful” words, touching and shoving.

Under the specifications of the law, a Christian needn’t touch a homosexual to face charges, he noted.

“If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in ‘apprehension of bodily injury’ by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony ‘hate crime,'” he said.

The committee also rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would have withheld its special protections from pedophiles.

WND reported just a day ago that the plan was introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who said, “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way.”

Section 10 of the act states, “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

However, critics cite United States Code Title 18, Section 2, as evidence of how the legislation could be used against people who merely speak out against homosexuality. It states: Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, warned Christians to speak up before the legislation passes. He said they are acting like the proverbial frog in a slowly heating kettle that boils to death.

“They need to wake up and take action to oppose this threat to religious liberty.”

LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95923

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Miss USA Judge Calls Beauty Queen ‘C-word’ (and gives her 0 score) Because She Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage

Posted on April 22, 2009. Filed under: Conservatives, Culture, Gay Agenda, Hollywood Idiots, Liberal Idiots, Religion, Reverse Discrimination |

Oh my word!! I want you to imagine this scenario: In response to one of the questions, a pageant contestant says they believe in gay marriage, then a Christian judge gives them a ZERO for their score and calls them all kinds of names because they don’t agree with them.What do you think would happen???? Everyone would be up in arms over the intolerance of the Christian judge, would probably even throw out their score, and would then blacklist them from future pageants.

But what happens when it’s the other way around??? Nothing. This Christian contestant says she does not believe in gay marriage and she gets a ZERO from the gay judge along with name-calling. She also gets negative comments from other pageant folks. I ask again, why is it still ok to be intolerant and discriminatory towards Christians?? Read the article below for more details and feel free to email the folks listed at the bottom of the article to let them know what you think.

Miss USA judge calls beauty queen ‘C-word’
Openly homosexual blogger defaces contestant’s photos, gives her 0 score

Posted: April 21, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Note: This story contains material that some readers might consider graphic and offensive.

An openly homosexual blogger and judge of the Miss USA pageant has launched into a full-blown attack on Christian contestant Carrie Prejean – calling her a b-tch and a c—, as well as defacing photos of her with sexually explicit drawings – because she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.

At Sunday night’s pageant, Prejean was asked the one question she dreaded most, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage; do you think every state should follow suit?”

Her answer, which suddenly has made her the center of both praise and scorn, included the words, “In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”

Prejean received cheers and applause, along with some boos from the audience. As other contestants watched from backstage, the room was silent.

“A lot of people were shocked,” Miss Vermont told Fox News. “We were all kind of giving each other those eyes, we couldn’t believe it.”

But blogger and celebrity “judge” Mario Armando Lavandeira, also known by alias Perez Hilton, a self-described “queen of all media,” immediately tore into Prejean in a YouTube video he made right after the contest’s conclusion, calling her a “dumb b-tch” and claiming she had given “the worst answer in pageant history.”

He admitted to giving Prejean a zero score.

In a follow-up interview on MSNBC, the flamboyant judge was asked if he had apologized for his reaction, but instead he added to it.

“I don’t apologize,” Hilton said on air. “Over the course of the past 24 hours, the more I’ve thought about it, the more – you know what? – No, I’m going to stand by what I said just like she’s standing by what she said. And I called her the ‘b’ word, and hey, I was thinking the ‘c’ word.”

Prejean, a student at San Diego Christian College, was first runner-up, primarily due to Hilton’s vote.

The outraged pageant judge later displayed a photo of Prejean speaking into the microphone on his website. In place of the mic, he drew a white outline of a penis on her face.

Keith Lewis, executive director of Miss California USA/Teen USA, wrote a supportive letter to Hilton, condemning Prejean.

“As co-executive director of Miss CA USA and one of the leaders of the Miss CA family, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman,” he wrote. “Although I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit, I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone. Religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family.”

Prejean, already crowned Miss California, was considered a front-runner in the Miss USA contest, but she knew her answer to that one question might not sit well with the panel, especially Hilton.

“Out of all the topics I studied up on, I dreaded that one; I prayed I would not be asked about gay marriage,” Prejean told the Fox News Channel’s Courtney Friel in an exclusive interview. “If I had any other question, I know I would have won.”

Despite providing a response that ultimately cost her the crown, Prejean stood by her answer.

“I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God,” she told NBC’s “Today” this morning. “I wouldn’t have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it’s not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct.”

Hilton also appeared on NBC’s “Today,” explaining that he demands a Miss USA winner be “politically savvy” and that even though Prejean is a Christian, he doesn’t want her “talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, because that’s offensive.”

A legal analyst told Fox News Prejean may have grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

“It’s her religious beliefs which prompted her to say ‘I don’t believe in same-sex marriages,'” analyst Mercedes Colwin said. “So she was espousing her beliefs,” and has reason to sue for violation of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on religion.

Hilton’s comments have drawn sharp reaction, even from those who might also disagree with Prejean’s answer.

“I am an openly gay man and a supporter of same sex marriage and I wish Perez Hilton would shut up,” writes syndicated talk show host Charles Karel Bouley in a column on Huffington Post. “This is a person who is famous for smearing snarky and crude things over celebrity photos and following Brittney’s every move. He lives for controversy and is only famous for it.”

However, celebrity Miley Cyrus sided with Hilton in a Twitter conversation.

“Ya that’s lame!” the “Hannah Montana” star wrote. “God’s greatest commandment is to love. And judging is not loving. That’s why Christians have such a bad rep.”

Heidi Montage and Britney Spears also came out in support of Hilton.

But concerned viewers and leading West Coast pro-family organization Save California have blasted the Miss Universe Organization for allowing Hilton to judge the event. Comments on Perez Hilton’s Miss USA biography include the following:

Shame on the Miss USA organization. This is absolutely your fault. This year, you have single handedly taken down the integrity of the Miss USA pageant and organization. How awful for the new Miss USA that she has had such hard earned glory taken away from her at this time because of the sick media storm that has risen due to the degrading treatment this man is giving to Miss California. I will not be watching next year.

Trump should speak up. Otherwise, Carrie, my suggestion is a discrimination lawsuit

I’m contacting my local cable carrier and requesting that they no longer carry VH1 where this fool resides.

You were not a fair judge. Miss California should not have been given low scores for respecting the choices of all people and disclosing her own.

If you can’t respect opposing views, then you should not be a judge for any competition ever!

Shame on you, Hilton. You are a bigot, and the pageant should fire you!

Concerned individuals may contact the Miss Universe Organization by calling (212)373-4999 or by e-mail.

To send a message to VH 1, the channel that airs Hilton’s shows, call (212)258-6000 or send an e-mail.

Readers may also contact Perez Hilton or call Donald Trump, owner of the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants.

LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95743

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...