Author Topic: Social Heart Rot (Read 2740 times)

Sherman · « **on:** April 15, 2020, 11:20:02 am »

I have decided to use this site to post my theories. I have never done this on a forum before. Some of you may think I am an ogre after reading this, but I have never actually put this down in a paper since high school.
I’ll begin by stating I tend not to debate over things that are not salvic issues. Theories concerning the shape of the planet is not a salvic issue. In this God is concerned with the intent of the heart. That being said - it’s controversial enough - that I believe a site that embraces it, will embrace me. My views on the topic of LGBT are just as controversial as flat earth cosmology in today’s culture.
I used to live in the city of Lincoln Nebraska 15 years ago. The city is pretty old. The streets are lined with old trees. Some streets are lined with Oak. These trees live to a great age and grow to a great size. They possess a preserving substance called tannin, the secret to their longevity. The one of the trees that has the most tannin in the green kingdom is the Giant Sequoia. The substance quite literally preserves the wood and prevents rots. Of interest for this essay, though, is the green Pennsylvania Ash that was planted in abundance in Lincoln. It did not possess the protective tannins. Over time when the Ash incurred a wound, it would contract brown heart rot that would break the wood up at the center of the tree into cubes. At first this disease is invisible as it attacks the wood at the heart of the tree weakening it. But then yellow conks appear up and down the trunk. I saw one such tree a few yards from my neighbors house. At its foot was a large showy yellow fungus tinged with orange. It has the nickname ‘Chicken of the Woods, as it is said to be edible. But it's status as a comestible is dubious. People have sickened after eating it. Brown oozed from a wound in the trunk. It smelled. Leaves yellowed early and fluttered down from the thin crown. The tree was dying. I doubted that this sorry specimen was half as old as one of the magnificent Oaks. Every year while I lived there in October, when the cool air moved in, the guady fungus would pop out and the tree would give off a foul odor. Year by year the tree looked more sickly and more of the fungus displayed.
I then moved to a small town in Minnesota and watched Ash trees sicken in the same fashion. One came crashing down taking down power lines. I was without power for several hours until the city was able to clear the shattered log and repair the power lines. A fetid odor hung in the air when the tree was being cut up.
Now why do I talk about Pennsylvania Ash and Brown Heart rot? Cultures go through a similar life cycle. They start out vigorous and idealistic. Then they spread out and grow in strength. Then a rot sets in, invisible at first. This stage may last a century or more. The culture changes, from ideals focused on the other person, to ideas focused on self service and self pleasure. The government becomes corrupt and toxic, marked by murders. Flamboyant sexual perversion surfaces like a fungus, intruding on every aspect of public life. Rome decayed in this fashion. It had become a fractured society that pined away until it was replaced by Christian culture.

Sherman · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2020, 12:24:45 pm »

I didn't get the whole thing when I did the paste. Oh well, I am getting to learn the software on this site. Here's the other half:

Unless the nation or organization stays anchored to God’s laws and place Godly people in leadership, the organization is going to rot within. God’s people something that preserves.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 5:13-16
When Christian do not act as salt - or tannin, the society rots. In fact the rot may even stick to them. It can be seen in what is happening in our culture today. Everywhere we turn in the media and in the papers, there is discussion of sexual immorality. It started out as fornication and adultery. It was glorified in entertainment and books. There are porn magazines. Now it gets worse. There is homosexuality, bisexuality and BDSM. This filth pops out like a gaudy fungus marring our films, books, and even children’s programs. There’s the Drag Queen story time at some libraries for children. Thirty years ago no one would have thought of such a travesty. Immorality like this marks rejection of God and his principles.
Decay in our society has been going on for some time. It started with the introduction of Darwinism. Naturalistic explanations eclipsed biblical explanations. More and more members of our Western civilization turned away from Christianity. This secularism entered our schools and universities. Our society was left without the preserving effect of a Biblical paradigm and the influence of Christians grew less and less. Christian were scoffed at at the college level. Then there was Roe V Wade. By the 1990’s and 2000’s homosexuality and other perversions encroached on our entrainment industry. The film Fried Green Tomatoes was released in 1991. It included a lesbian relationship between the two principal characters. Other films cast perversion in a positive light. Bug’s Life by Disney in 1998 has a drag queen lady bug, Francis. And not too surprisingly, most children hate the toys of this character. The daughter of my friend would tear it up with her teeth. Now it is hard to find a animation by this company that does not have a character that is transgender or gay somewhere in the film.
Before anyone gets up my nose about me criticizing transgender and gay, let me say the Bible does not have anything favorable to say about it. For the sake of this discussion I will stick to the New Testament since we are under the New Testament.

Romans 1 22-32
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

In old testament times reprobates who engaged in these things were executed. That is what God thought of these sins. A lifestyle characterized by these sins is a sign of a spiritual state that separates a person from God. A society that embraces them is diseased. I had a person ask me “What do you have against gays?” I don’t have anything against them as persons. I have everything against the lifestyle and the sin. I hate anything that separates people from God and tears at the fabric of America. This group is making demands that impinge on the rights of families and Christians. But that is a topic for another essay.

patrick jane · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2020, 10:15:16 pm »

Sherman, I agree with you and we are basically forced to "tolerate" these many perversions as just "part of life" or if we express objection and /or disgust we are branded as racist or that we discriminate. It is everywhere and promoted by Hollywood, television and YouTube and every social platform in fact.

Also, I should as you if you want discussion and commentary in this thread. Great writing. How is A Culture Warrior? I miss him.

Sherman · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2020, 03:02:49 pm »

He's still writing in his threads and members are still denigrating him.

Member are free to comment on my threads. I am mostly a writer of fiction so I don't know how productive I will be on writing essays.

patrick jane · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2020, 01:04:41 am »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE5t8EBnOmg

patrick jane · « **Reply #5 on:** June 14, 2020, 11:31:16 pm »

Transgender Health Protections Reversed By Trump Administration

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration

The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule that would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people when it comes to health care and health insurance.

"HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress," said Roger Severino, who directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services, in a written statement announcing that the HHS rule had become final. The rule is set to go into effect by mid-August.

It is one of many rules and regulations put forward by the Trump administration that defines "sex discrimination" as only applying when someone faces discrimination for being female or male, and does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Supporters of the new rule said this is a necessary reversal of Obama-era executive overreach and will reduce confusion about the legal meaning of "sex discrimination." Critics argue the rule could further harm an already vulnerable group — transgender people — in the midst of a pandemic and historic unrest spurred by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis.

"I can't help but wonder if the timing [of this rule] is by design so that this is something that people won't pay attention to," said Tia Sherèe Gaynor, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati.

What the final rule does

The rule focuses on nondiscrimination protections laid out in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. That federal law established that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of "race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities." In 2016, an Obama-era rule explained that protections regarding "sex" encompass those based on gender identity, which it defined as "male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female."

In June 2019, under Trump, the HHS Office for Civil Rights proposed a rule (the one finalized this week) that reverses the one from the Obama administration.

Severino said at the time, "We're going back to the plain meaning of those terms, which is based on biological sex." He also said the rule could save hospitals and insurers and others $2.9 billion over five years since they will be relieved of the requirement to print notices of nondiscrimination in several languages and include them with any "significant" mailings.

Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office, said Lindsey Dawson, associate director of HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Other possible scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer, or a hysterectomy not being covered by an insurer — or costing more when the procedure is related to someone's gender transition.

The Trump rule makes changes to gender-based discrimination protections beyond Section 1557 of the ACA; it affects regulations pertaining to access to health insurance, for example, including cost-sharing, health plan marketing and benefits. The rule could also mean that those seeking an abortion could be denied care if performing the procedure violates the provider's moral or religious beliefs.

Even with the rule now finalized, an LGBTQ person who is discriminated against or denied health care can still sue, and courts may rule that their civil rights were violated in such a case. But that's not an easy avenue, Dawson said.

"Because of limited access to litigation, I think that it's fair to state that the ramifications [of this rule] could be pretty significant," she said. Protections will also vary based on where someone lives, she added, so the rule "creates a patchwork of civil rights, compared to standardized protections."

For Severino, this move has been a long time coming. He joined the Trump administration from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, where he wrote a paper on gender protections in Section 1557. He's also a devout Catholic and, as director of the Office for Civil Rights, has made protections of religious freedom a key focus, including the right of doctors to refuse to provide care that contradicts their religious or moral beliefs.

The rule the HHS proposed on gender and discrimination in health care garnered 155,966 public comments. The final rule is nearly identical to the original version proposed last year.

Conservative groups, including the Christian Medical Association, the Susan B. Anthony List and the Heritage Foundation, applauded the new HHS guidance.

"Health professionals know they must base medical decisions on biology and science, not ideology," Dr. Jeff Barrows, the Christian Medical Association's executive vice president for bioethics and public policy, said after hearing the announcement.

"We are hopeful that this rule will help steer consideration of gender issues in health care back toward science and away from politics and ideology, back to the protection of professional medical judgment and the freedom to adhere to long-observed ethical and moral standards."

Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former colleague of Severino's, submitted a comment in support of the rule. Anderson said it simply reverses what he sees as the Obama administration's executive overreach.

"Just for the lawmaking process, it's important that the Trump administration clarify that that's not what Congress had in mind when they used the word 'sex,' " he said.

Critics worry about access to health care, especially in a pandemic

Mari Brighe, a freelance writer and transgender woman who lives outside Detroit, called the rule "terrifying."

"I can relate a decade of stories about getting terrible health care because I'm trans," Brighe said. "We walk into any given health care situation not knowing whether doctors are going to treat us well, whether we're going to get high quality care, whether any given, random health care person is going to be terrible to us."

Once, when seriously ill with the flu and having trouble breathing, Brighe recalled, she was sent home from a hospital in rural New York and ended up driving 90 minutes and crossing a lake by ferry to get treatment at a hospital in Vermont.

She said worries now that the rule could make transgender people — who are already reluctant to seek medical care — all the more likely to avoid coronavirus treatment and testing.

"The way that [the rule] reads to me is that people could refuse to collect your COVID specimen because they don't want to touch a trans person," she said. "That's a recipe for spreading a really terrible pandemic among a really, really vulnerable population."

"I can't help but think about how this impacts black trans people," said Gaynor, the political science professor, who noted that African American transgender people are "arguably the most marginalized group in our country."

African Americans who get COVID-19 are much more likely to die from that disease than are white Americans, statistics show. A recent report from the Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that hundreds of thousands of transgender adults may be especially vulnerable to COVID-19 because they have an underlying condition, are over 65, lack health insurance or live in poverty.

For black transgender people, Gaynor said, "it's layers of oppression — it's transphobia on top of racism on top of economic oppression." All of that could affect their ability to get health care during the pandemic, she said, which in turn could have public health implications for all.

Katie Keith, a health law professor at Georgetown University, noted that the new rule could have another chilling effect. "Even if no one actually does discriminate more because of the rule, you've created a fear," Keith said.

She pointed to research documenting how the "public charge" rule — which penalizes people who are seeking to become citizens if they use public safety net programs such as nutrition and housing assistance — affected people and programs outside the scope of the rule itself.

"When they target these vulnerable populations, you see less enrollment in health insurance," she said. "You see folks scared to go to the doctor."

Although the Heritage Foundation's Anderson supports the rule, he said the prospect that it could have a chilling effect is "a very reasonable concern."

"I don't think any reasonable person wants to see transgender people not enrolling in health care plans and not having access to health care," Anderson said. What's needed, he said, is a "finer grain" approach to this issue — such as a new law in Congress that protects LGTBQ people from health care discrimination generally but carves out protection for providers to refuse to provide care related to sex reassignment.

What's next? a word from the high court and, perhaps, Congress

Now that it's marked "final," this rule — which was issued by an agency of the executive branch — may now encounter hurdles via the two other branches of the federal government.

This month, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on two major cases on the meaning of the word "sex" in employment discrimination. The two cases involve issues closely related to the legal questions at play in Severino's HHS rule, and the high court's decision might have major implications for the rule's legal footing.

"It's wild that they're finalizing this rule before we have the Supreme Court decision," Keith said.

Meanwhile, in Congress, House Democrats have already asserted that they strongly disagree with the HHS rule. In early May, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that read, in part: "The Administration must immediately abandon this outrageous, un-American plan and give LGBTQ individuals the reassurance that they will never be denied the health care they or their families need."

Now that the final rule is out, Congress does have a way of invalidating it, using the Congressional Review Act. That would only happen in this case if — within 60 days that Congress is in session — Trump were no longer president, and simple majorities in both chambers of Congress voted to block the rule. Even if Democrats win big in November, it's not clear if that's a possibility given the tricky timeline — Congress is typically in recess in August, and the COVID-19 pandemic may complicate matters further

The date at which the final rule would be able to avoid this congressional threat is a moving target, Keith said. "Folks are watching the calendar now [wondering], 'When is that 60-day legislative deadline?' "

What's much more certain, she said, is that there will be lawsuits to try to overturn the rule or block it from going into effect.

On Friday, less than an hour after HHS issued its press release, LGBTQ activist group Lambda Legal said it would challenge the new rule in court.

"Today's rule is a tragically failed public health policy and just flat-out illegal," Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Lambda Legal senior attorney and health care strategist, said in a written statement. "We will be challenging the rule because at a time when the entire world is battling a dangerous pandemic, which in the United States has infected more than 2,000,000 people and killed more than 116,000, it is critical for everyone to have ready access to the potentially lifesaving health care they need."

Unless someone does file a lawsuit that results in a judge putting the rule on hold, it is set to go into effect 60 days from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register.

patrick jane · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2020, 11:45:24 am »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/june-web-only/bostock-supreme-court-ruling-religious-liberty-implications.html

LGBT Rights Ruling Isn't the Beginning of the End for Religious Liberty

Social conservatives liked Neil Gorsuch before they didn’t. Maybe they were right the first time.

The US Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia is not the last word on the conflict between LGBT rights and religious freedom rights. In fact, Bostock could be the first step in breaking the impasse.

The case will certainly have major implications for religious exercise. But contrary to initial reactions, this decision should not be read as a decision that dooms religious liberty in America, but rather as an inevitable step toward something Congress and most state legislatures have thus far been unable to do: crafting a compromise that balances LGBT rights and religious freedom.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia involved a man named Gerald Bostock—by all accounts an exemplary worker with a decade on the job—who was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a government employee shortly after he had started participating in a gay softball league. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the 1964 federal law barring employment discrimination “on the basis of sex” protects people who are discriminated against because of sexual orientation and gender identity. And by a 6-3 margin, the court ruled that it does.

Social conservatives were distraught. Robert George described the majority opinion as “sophistical” and the position it endorsed “untenable.” “Hard to overstate the magnitude of this loss for religious conservatives,” added Rod Dreher. Denny Burk said the decision “eviscerated” religious liberty, while Andrew Walker called the opinion “devastating,” adding, “If you're a Christian higher ed institution taking federal monies, buckle up.”

Denny Burk
✔
@DennyBurk
Indeed. Pray for Christian business owners. Their ability to operate their business in accordance with their religious conscience just took a major blow.

The Supreme Court just eveiscerated religious liberty.

Cannot overstate how disastrous this decision is. https://twitter.com/puredesigntees/status/1272542084789125121 …

From Twitter:
PureDesignTees
@PureDesignTees
Replying to @DennyBurk
Say a prayer for Christian business owners everywhere.

70
9:54 AM - Jun 15, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
64 people are talking about this

These reactions, while understandable, are premature. Bostock, while a significant decision following 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, is limited in what it can tell us about the future of religious freedom. Its implications for future cases involving religious organizations and institutions are real, yes, but for people concerned about the future of religious liberty, there is reason for cautious optimism.

It should be noted, for one thing, that the majority opinion in the case was authored by Neil Gorsuch. His appointment to the Supreme Court was lauded by many of the same people criticizing his ruling now—and it’s possible they were right the first time.

Gorsuch ruled the way he did because of his commitment to the conservative legal philosophy called textualism. This is the philosophy famously embraced by the conservative justice Antonin Scalia. The philosophy says that judges ought not extrapolate principles from laws and rule based on these extrapolations. Nor should they try to imagine the intents of the many lawmakers who bargained and bartered their way to the passage of a bill. Those approaches leave too much leeway for creative interpretation and judicial activism. Judges should rather, according to Scalia and Gorsuch, restrict themselves to the plain, ordinary meaning of the text of the law. They should ask, what do the words say?, and make limited rulings based on that.

David French notes that Gorsuch’s legal philosophy shaped the whole case. Bostock’s attorneys appeared to make their arguments expressly with Gorsuch in mind.

You can see how textualism works in Gorsuch’s opinion. He dedicates pages of analysis to interpreting the meaning of “sex” and “discrimination” when Title VII of the 1964 law was written. The analysis is cautious and relies on the dictionaries of the era to interpret the ordinary meaning of those terms at the time the statue was being drafted. Gorsuch concludes that “homosexuality and transgender status are inextricably bound up with sex,” as “sex” was understood in 1964, so Title VII necessarily protects sexual orientation and gender identity from employment discrimination.

While other conservative justices disagree with Gorsuch’s textualism in this case—Samuel Alito, notably, calls the decision “preposterous”—there is little reason for people who care about religious liberty to doubt Gorsuch is a legal ally. He has a record, after all, of applying textualism in religious freedom cases. Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop, defending a Christian baker’s right not to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, shows this. In the ruling, as Robert George has explained, he critiques a colleague’s understanding of what a wedding cake is and, importantly in that case, what it means. In doing so, Gorsuch demonstrates that he understands the crucial issues of conscience.

In the Bostock ruling, he writes: “We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution.” He explicitly says that religious liberty issues will likely come up for other employees in other cases and there will need to be other rulings.

Gorsuch also indicates his understanding of the issue in some sublte ways. He favorably cites the Hosanna-Tabor case, in which the court unanimously exempted ministers from employment discrimination laws. Gorsuch also calls the Religious Freedom Restoration Act a “super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws,” suggesting that it protect religious liberty in the hypothetical cases worrying religious conservatives post-Bostock.

While defenders of religious freedom have reason to be more concerned after Bostock than before, there is more reason for optimism. Case after case in recent years—Hosanna-Tabor, Hobby Lobby, Holt, Trinity Lutheran, Masterpiece Cakeshop—have protected religious exercise. There is no reason to believe the court is poised to roll back protections for religious liberty. If anything, the appetite exists to expand them.

The controversy at the heart of Bostock has been foreshadowed for decades, intensifying in the years since the court’s landmark gay rights decisions. As a result, there have been efforts at all levels of government to balance LGBT rights with protections for religious freedom. Utah is often held as a standard for such a compromise, as a bipartisan bill of this sort was signed into law in 2015, just months before Obergefell.

At the federal level, however, these measures, commonly called Fairness for All, have stalled. Democrats appear to have consolidated around the Equality Act, which grants legal protections to LGBT Americans without any religious exemptions. At the same time, many religious conservatives do not support Fairness for All, saying any law protecting someone like Bostock from getting fired because of his sexual orientation is unreconcilable with religious liberty. And now, opponents of the Fairness for All proposals are citingBostock to justify their opposition, saying that once sexual orientation and gender identity are protected, there is no guarantee that religious freedom protections will be maintained.

Given larger cultural trends favoring LGBT rights, recognizing sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act may have been inevitable. But the court’s opinion here does not mean it is game over for religious freedom arguments in these disputes. It means that the debate rages on, most likely through the courts.

Despite some of the initial reactions, Bostock could conceivably be the first step in breaking the impasse. Those praising the court for its decision in Bostock will probably criticize related decisions in the future, and those upset today could very well be praising the Court in future cases involving religious freedom. While Fairness for All has not fared well in the legislative process, it is not difficult to see how the basic ideas of the proposal could be enacted via a series of judicial rulings, especially under the current composition of the court. Legal protections for LGBT Americans balanced with religious liberty exemptions may win the day after all.

Our pluralist society guarantees conflict and is dependent on compromise. While this process isn’t always comfortable, Christians should nevertheless come away from Bostock hopeful for the future. This does not deny the necessity of strategic engagement moving forward; such engagement is needed now more than ever. But our engagement must be paired with hope—not a naïve hope in a flawed and fallen political and legal system, but hope in him who has overcome the world.

Daniel Bennett is associate professor of political science at John Brown University. He is also assistant director of the Center for Faith and Flourishing, and is president of Christians in Political Science.

Speaking Out is Christianity Today ’s guest opinion column and (unlike an editorial) does not necessarily represent the opinion of the publication.

Firestarter · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2020, 10:00:35 am »

In 2012, Donald Trump donated $20,000 to homosexual activists of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that promoted: 1) "fisting" to middle school students; 2) books excusing homosexual paedophilia; 3) “homosexuality" to children as early as kindergarten.
“Fisting” is stuffing a fist up the “anus” for sexual reasons.

Kevin Jennings founded GLSEN in 1990. He and (other) homosexual teachers (including Jaki Williams) began indoctrinating children about the LGBT lifestyle from the age of 5.
This included teachers “casually” showing that a “mother a father” for “parents” is just as “normal” as “two dads” or “two moms”.

Jennings has stated that he was “inspired” by Harry Hay, who publicly stated that homosexual statutory rape is “precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need”: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/donald-trump-donated-to-group-that-promotes-homosexuality-in-kindergarten-f
(http://archive.is/11tpF)

Trump defended this donation, by telling that it wasn’t his own choice. These donations were part of Trump's role in his reality television show, in which Trump would make a matching donation to charities of the choice of the guests on the show.
Aubrey O'Day appeared on “Celebrity Apprentice” and was playing to benefit GLSEN. That show was executive produced by Trump’s friend Jeff Zucker, who has since become CNN president with the help of the Donald

See Zucker, Donald and Melania in 2004.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trumps-donations-to-lgbt-groups-were-part-of-reality-tv-show-not-private-ph

Firestarter · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2020, 10:59:40 am »

The associate of Steve Bannon (who was really the mastermind behind the 2016 Trump campaign) Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos has been advocating gay paedophilia, between adult men and 14-year-old boys.
https://youtu.be/oJhHwspZGcg

Yiannopoulos said:

Quote

We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff, to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults.

In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship — those relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.

But you know what? I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/video-surfaces-of-milo-yiannopoulos-defending-pedophilia-acu-board-reportedly-not-consulted-on-cpac-invite
(http://archive.is/wmhdo)

Quote

On July 19, 2016, Gays for Trump hosted a party, called "Wake Up!", at the Wolstein Center, in Cleveland, Ohio, United States, during the 2016 Republican National Convention. Speakers at the party were Milo Yiannopoulos and Pam Geller and the VIP guests at the party were Ann Coulter, Amy Kremer, Lisa De Pasquale, Genevieve Wood, Geert Wilders, and Roger Stone. Richard B. Spencer also attended the party.

On January 20, 2017, Gays for Trump hosted an inauguration party, called "Gays for Trump DeploraBall Gala", was held at the Bolger Center Hotel in Potomac, Maryland, United States. The party celebrated the inauguration of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gays_for_Trump

Bladerunner · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2020, 07:45:49 pm »

Quote from: Firestarter on July 20, 2020, 10:59:40 am

The associate of Steve Bannon (who was really the mastermind behind the 2016 Trump campaign) Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos has been advocating gay paedophilia, between adult men and 14-year-old boys.
https://youtu.be/oJhHwspZGcg

Yiannopoulos said:
Quote
We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff, to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults.

In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship — those relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.

But you know what? I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/video-surfaces-of-milo-yiannopoulos-defending-pedophilia-acu-board-reportedly-not-consulted-on-cpac-invite
(http://archive.is/wmhdo)

Quote
On July 19, 2016, Gays for Trump hosted a party, called "Wake Up!", at the Wolstein Center, in Cleveland, Ohio, United States, during the 2016 Republican National Convention. Speakers at the party were Milo Yiannopoulos and Pam Geller and the VIP guests at the party were Ann Coulter, Amy Kremer, Lisa De Pasquale, Genevieve Wood, Geert Wilders, and Roger Stone. Richard B. Spencer also attended the party.

On January 20, 2017, Gays for Trump hosted an inauguration party, called "Gays for Trump DeploraBall Gala", was held at the Bolger Center Hotel in Potomac, Maryland, United States. The party celebrated the inauguration of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gays_for_Trump

Like the days of Naoh, we are in...A little faith will go a long ways.

Blade

Patrick Jane Forums

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Author Topic: Social Heart Rot (Read 2740 times)

Sherman

Social Heart Rot

Sherman

Re: Social Heart Rot

patrick jane

Re: Social Heart Rot

Sherman

Re: Social Heart Rot

patrick jane

Re: Social Heart Rot

patrick jane

Re: Social Heart Rot

patrick jane

Re: Social Heart Rot

Firestarter

Re: Social Heart Rot

Firestarter

Re: Social Heart Rot

Bladerunner

Re: Social Heart Rot

Related Topics

Recent Topics