latest

Before I get into the heart of this article, I want to say this: The LGBT has an agenda, and it's not what you think it is.

The documentary below, 'Inside the Homosexual Agenda' gives a revealing look into their motives, and serves as a good starting point to understand the information I'm going to discuss below...

You may not be aware of this, but just about everything, and I mean nearly EVERYTHING you see on TV, in movies, in magazines, in the fashion world, and in music, has been controlled by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community since the 1970's if not earlier.

Through their monopolization of the media, LGBTs have charmed their way into our homes, into our mindsets, into our religious views and into our sex lives. The seduction was overt.

EVERYTHING IN THE MEDIA OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS has blurred the line between true masculinity and femininity: effeminate (girly) men and mannish (boyish) women. Nearly every show in the 1990's gave a manufactured glimpse into gay and lesbian 'love.' Pushing same-sex intimacy as normal, we were told that they were born that way, and that everyone needs to embrace their latent same-sex attraction.

LGBT SEDUCTION OF CHILDREN OCCURRED THROUGH the most popular children and family shows: The Odd Couple, Three's Company, Bosom Buddies, Laverne & Shirley, Three Men and a Baby, Full House, Roseanne, The Real World, Beverly Hills 90210, Xena, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek, Frasier, Ellen, Spongebob & Glee. Within these family shows, LGBTs used an overwhelming number of suggestive images, subliminal messages and in many cases direct promotion of gay & lesbian intimacy.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but don't let the LGBT's rainbow fool you; the pot of gold at the end of their rainbow is fool's gold. They've simply used the rainbow imagery to lure children into their grasp.

Behind the scenes, LGBTs are violent. They physically attack anyone who doesn't agree with them, they bully and intimidate anyone and even elderly women are not exempt.

The LGBT's main goal was and always has been to have sex with children. And what better way to accomplish their goal than by indoctrinating impressionable-developing minds with a sympathetic heart and a curiosity about gay and lesbian relationships and sex.

The LGBT knew that once they sparked a young child's interest, they can almost guarantee that the child will then seek out and welcome older LGBT people to explore their sexuality with.

The LGBT is ultimately a predator, spearheaded by white affluent gay men. These white gay men have been systematically at the root of this seduction of children, mainly boys.

Below you will find a 1967 Mike Wallace documentary titled 'The Homosexuals,' that shows the true face of the LGBT movement.

AS YOU CAN SEE, the gay movement used willful lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people as an elaborate front to hide behind. They knew as white gay men, they could never argue for civil rights issues, so they let lesbian women and minority gays, black gay men and black lesbian women, to join their team. Without having women and minorities included in the gay initiative, they knew no one would ever view homosexuality as a Civil Rights issue. They also knew that once they got the Civil Rights label, they could get ANY homosexual law passed, gay sex, education at school, gay adoption etc.

Many of the gay men in the LGBT community, are also a part of pedophile & pederasty organization called North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This association seeks to abolish the age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with children, and campaigns for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contact with children.

I was disgusted when I learned this. The LGBT alliance with pedophiles was confirmed in the 1979 National march on Washington for Lesbian and Gay rights program. In this document, the LGBT community welcomed pederasts (men who engage in anal intercourse with boys) and pubescents (young teenage children). [...]

Remember: a pederast is a man that has anal intercourse with boys. Now why would the LGBT community welcome them if they didn't endorse pedophilia?

In recent years, the LGBT community claimed to not condone pedophilia, but their willful allegiance was documented. They've creatively repackaged their pedophile allegiance into gay adoption, the anti-bully campaign, the labelling of any and all anti-homosexuality comments into hate speech, and their desire to lower the age of consent for teenagers to engage in same-sex relationships with adults.

As previously stated, the original face of the gay movement was white affluent gay men. They knew that they couldn't easily access boys (the American public wasn't having it), so they settled for men for the time being. But as you can see clearly above, they had boys as their prime target all along.

The founders of the gay movement have systematically and legally used the media and the legal system to get closer to being able to legally have sex with boys.

Well known actor Corey Feldman gives a candid interview about the predatory habits of pedophiles behind the media industry.

I want to caution you: Each law you allow to pass for the LGBT community, the closer you allow pedophile and pederasty organizations like NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses(female pedophiles) to molest children, even your own children.

We have allowed them to seduce and create a generation of young people who willingly agree to be sexually abused. One day, these children who 'think' they are LGBT, will push for the government to allow them to have the legal right to participate in homosexual and lesbian sex, all under the guise of being 'born' attracted to the same-sex.

And meanwhile in the background, groups like NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses, along with other LGBT groups, will be silently waiting to have consensual sex with the very children they've seduced through all sorts of media.

THE MORE RIGHTS GIVEN TO THE LGBT, the more perverse our society will get. Before you know it, you will have a man with real-life breast having sex on primetime TV. And then you will have to explain to your child that some MEN have breasts too... see how sick that is?

Don't our children deserve to maintain their innocence? Why do we continue to allow them to be sexualized with this type of media?

We have allowed a small group of people, less than 4% of the total United States population, to dictate to the rest of us 96% about how to teach and raise our children.

Bishop blocked by Twitter — for telling the truth about sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church

That notorious purveyor of hate and guile, the Rt Rev’d Dr Gavin Ashenden, has been blocked by Twitter. Actually, the tense is wrong: he was blocked by Twitter, but recanted and deleted and is now restored. The allegation of purveying hate and guile is also wrong: it is hard to imagine a more amiable, gentle and honest soul tweeting into the cybersphere. But ‘hate’ is what Twitter accused him of, and so he was ordered to recant and repent on pain of eternal excommunication. Deletion was insufficient: he had to prostrate himself in humility at the feet of the Twitter Pontiff, and beg to be restored to his ministry.

Bishop Gavin spent the day considering whether he would do either or both. He mulled and prayed and anguished for many an hour: should he recant and beg? Would he come to regret his decision and recant his recantation? He sought fellowship and wisdom among friends, and decided that since the article he had commented upon had been written some days ago, this particular tweet was not performing to much continued purpose. He considered that deleting it and continuing to foster public conversation on behalf of the kingdom was the better course. He then discovered that on pressing the ’delete’ button, his Twitter excommunication was immediately withdrawn. He was restored without further pleading.

His tweet was a link to an article written by the Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes, which concerned sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. The article is fairly robust in its research, though quite unremarkable in its assertions: it is surely a matter of biological fact that the scandal engulfing the Roman Catholic Church is primarily one of homosexual clergy preying on teenage boys. It is not paedophilia (though the term is often applied in the vernacular), but ephebophilia — that is, sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents. Since the Roman clerical hierarchy is exclusively male, and altar boys are boys, and seminarians are young men, it is surely not only a matter of biological fact but also of irrefutable logic that the scandal is exactly as Gavin Ashenden described it: not paedophilia, but predominantly one of homosexual lust.

He had previously written about gay predators himself, but this appears to be an unmentionable truth on Twitter: a violation of their rules against ‘hateful conduct’. Bishop Gavin shared no ‘hate’, and yet the infallible edict descended in order to censor him and demand conformation to Twitter’s moral orthodoxy. It is hard to discern where this might stop. Is it ‘hate’ to quote Moses (Lev 18:22)? Is it ‘hate’ to quote St Paul (Rom 1:26f)? Is it ’hate’ to tell people they are sinners and need saving? Is it ‘hate’ to tweet ’offensive’ extracts of the Bible? Would Twitter block Jesus?

If, as Dr Gomes avers (with supporting links), 80 per cent of the sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church is of a homosexual nature, and only 96 of 4,329 priest offenders were classified as true paedophiles, how can it be ‘hate’ to tweet this? He writes: “The US bishops even admitted that ‘an understanding of the crisis is not possible’ without speaking of ‘the presence of homosexually oriented priests’. Criminologist Margaret Smith, who worked on the John Jay report, insisted that: ‘The majority of abusive acts were homosexual in nature.'”

One cannot be too critical of paedophilia, but this is not that. Surely one has to be careful when speaking of sexual abuse lest one point the finger at the wrong group? Don’t we need to properly define our terms so we are clear what we are talking about and whom we are criticising?

Was it the phrase “predominately a gay crime” which caused the Twitter police to block Bishop Gavin? It can hardly be “homosexual lust”, unless Twitter is of the view that homosexuals don’t experience lust as much as heterosexuals or bisexuals do. How would they measure such things?

Either way, this is not ’hate speech’: it is simply factually correct. It is a crime to engage in sexual activity with minors (fact), but around 80 per cent of the recorded instances of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church were committed by homosexual adults on pubescent or post pubescent boys (fact). It is, therefore, predominantly a gay crime. Or perhaps the Twitter police were being grammatically pedantic? People may be gay, but a crime may not: is ‘gay crime’ a juxtaposition which offends against the public mood of progressive tolerance? Must it be censored to avoid the public paying attention to the more problematic areas of gay culture?

By censoring this, does Twitter not become complicit in the perpetuation of sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church? At the very least, does it not become an impediment to academic inquiry and wider understanding? And by censoring Bishop Gavin Ashenden, are they not defaming him as a ‘hate preacher’? This erstwhile Chaplain-to-the-Queen has been found guilty of threatening or harassing people on the basis of their sexual orientation, and from this judgment there is no appeal; no natural justice. He must re-learn what virtue is, and what moral goods are, and only then may he resume his role in the social-media order. In the tensions of moral conflict, where compatibility is difficult if not impossible, it is orthodox Christians (and Jews and Muslims?) who are forced either to re-think their way through some painful choices, or to work out a strategy for evading these choices. Yet it is only by raising and openly debating these moral tensions and conflicts that public morality acquires an important dimension of its content. Shouldn’t Twitter be facilitating that conversation, rather than hurling ‘hate’ at every slightly contentious use of terminology?

Who reported Bishop Gavin? That’s the interesting question. Is it not preferable to take up a matter of dispute with your brother rather than run to the Twitter police and demand his suppression and restriction? What are you afraid of? Truth?