Friday, 28 December 2007

The Sabbath Day

Someone wrote to me concerning the Sabbath day so I'm going to talk about it here. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada supports the so called Lord's Day Act which would support most businesses to close on Sunday, but does make allowances for those who keep a different day such as the 7th day Sabbath commonly held on Saturday:

A weekly twenty-four hour period of business closure should apply to all non-essential services and businesses across Canada. In respect of our Christian heritage, the day of closure should be Sunday. However, reasonable allowance should be made for those who, because of religious convictions, observe a different day of rest (See also 3.1.1),3.1.2, & 6.2.2).

I'm a Seventh Day Adventist so I am very glad that the party recognizes other days people keep holy. Sunday blue laws of the past didn't recognize this and gave Jews, Adventists, and others a hard time. For example, a 7th day Sabbath keeper would have to open for business for 5 days a week while his Sunday keeping competitor would be allowed to be open for 6 days a week. Fortunately, the CHP doesn't support this inconsistency.

Now, the following is NOT a CHP matter but what the Bible says on the Sabbath issue:

There is NO scriptural basis for Sunday observance. I studied the issue extensively before I became an Adventist so I know this. To make a long story short, the Sabbath is one of the unchangeable 10 commandment laws and the church continued to observe it in New Testament times. If you are a Christian who believes that the 10 commandments are still binding on Christians, then you have to observe the 7th day Sabbath. You can't substitute another day for the 7th day Sabbath and expect to still be keeping the 4th commandment. I would go as far as to say that the 4th commandment is the most broken commandment of all of Christiandom because too many people use their own human reasoning to justify observing a different day. If God wanted it changed, He would not have included it as one of the 10 commandments.

Tuesday, 25 December 2007

FLASHBACK: Queen's First Televised Christmas Broadcast Warned about Guarding Morality and Religion

LONDON, December 24, 2007 ( – Fifty years ago this Christmas, the young Queen Elizabeth II broadcast her Christmas message to the nation asking Britons to defend traditional morality in the face of a rapidly changing world. Christmas day 1957 was the first time the Sovereign’s message was broadcast on television. The message has been posted to the online video website YouTube as part of the “official YouTube Channel for the British Monarchy” approved by the Royal Family.

In her 1957 Christmas message, the recently crowned Queen said her address to the nation on television “is just another example of the speed at which things are changing all around us.” She said, “Because of these changes I’m not surprised that many people feel lost and unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard, how to take advantage of the new life without losing the best of the old.”

She spoke gently of the feelings of many at the time, as Britain continued to rebuild after WWII, that profound changes had come not only in technology but in the meaning and purpose of life. She urged her subjects to retain their “ageless ideals and moral and religious values which were even then under threat from those she called “the cynics”.

“But it’s not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery,” the Queen said.

“They would have religion thrown aside,” she warned, “morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness, and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint.”

The Queen said that with Britain at a “critical moment in our history, we will certainly lose the trust and respect of the world, if we just abandon those fundamental principles, which guided the men and women who built the greatness of this country and commonwealth.”

She said that in these circumstances, the British people “need a special kind of courage.”

“Not the kind needed in battle, but the kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything which is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics. So that we can show the world that we’re not afraid of the future.”

Citing the growth of the British Commonwealth, the Queen said that these nations admire Britain “largely because we’ve always tried to do our best to be honest and kindly and because we have tried to stand up for what we believe to be right.”

The young Queen concluded, “ I believe in our qualities and in our strengths. I believe that together we can set an example to the world which will encourage upright people everywhere.”

The page was set up on YouTube with the encouragement of the Royal Family, to display film footage of the activities of “the Family Firm”, some of which date to the days of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra.

Films include footage of the late Queen Mother’s wedding in 1923 and state occasions with all the pomp and circumstance for which the English are famous such as the opening of Parliament. They include also more personal video documentaries of the day to day life of the members of the Royal Family.

Watch the YouTube video:

See other videos on the Royal Channel &nb...;


Religion and morality is something that the "Mighty Markie's" and the "bloviators" of this world have forgotten, in addition to a lot of other people. Like the Queen says, we need to hold on to them and practise them.

Sunday, 23 December 2007

Breaking the mirror

Are you a problem solver or a mirror breaker? Many people are either one or the other.
For example, if you look in the mirror and see a speck of dust on your face, do you get rid it by breaking the mirror? Of course not, because even if you can't see it after the mirror is broken, the speck of dust is still there. Therefore, you have to remove the speck of dust from your face in order to deal with that problem. If your parents nag you to clean up your room, how do you solve the problem? Do you tell your parents to shut up, or do you clean your room? The correct answer is to clean your room. If you have any bad habit, do you solve the problem by telling your wife or husband to stop nagging you, or do you do something about the bad habit that is the source of the nagging? The correct answer is to deal with the bad habit.

People who support homosexuality tend to be mirror breakers instead of problem solvers. They erroneously think that if they wipe out all opposition to their lifestyle, that everything will be okay. The reason why they are in error is because Christians (and others with similar views) are not the source of their problems. They are merely pointing out the problem. In other words, getting rid of opposition to homosexuality is not going to solve their problems. The problems will still be there long after they are gone.

Homosexuals like to accuse Christians of hate. But in reality, Christians lovingly tell homosexuals that their lifestyle is going to ruin their health, shorten their lifespan, and most importantly, keep them out of Heaven. Does that mean that Christians want them to suffer? Of course not. That's why Christians lovingly warn them; not because they want to see them suffer, but because they want them to repent, turn from their lifestyle, avoid the penalties, and enjoy the good things God has in store for all of His children.

Here is quote from a link that illustrates this:

Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well?

Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:

· Alcohol abuse

· Drug abuse

· Nicotine dependence

· Depression

· Suicide

Isn't it possible that these problems result from society's "discrimination" against homosexuals?

This is the argument usually put forward by pro-homosexual activists. However, there is a simple way to test this hypothesis. If "discrimination" were the cause of homosexuals' mental health problems, then one would expect those problems to be much less common in cities or countries, like San Francisco or the Netherlands, where homosexuality has achieved the highest levels of acceptance.

In fact, the opposite is the case. In places where homosexuality is widely accepted, the physical and mental health problems of homosexuals are greater, not less. This suggests that the real problem lies in the homosexual lifestyle itself, not in society's response to it. In fact, it suggests that increasing the level of social support for homosexual behavior (by, for instance, allowing same-sex couple to "marry") would only increase these problems, not reduce them.


So to all you homosexuals out there, are you going to do things that will contribute to solving the problem or are you going to continue to break the mirror by blaming other people for your problems and trying to get rid of them?

Here is a link to a former gay and a former lesbian who have decided that they are not going to break any more mirrors.


They have decided to repent and change their lifestyle with God's help. The Christian way is not to hate homosexuals, but to hate the sin, but love the sinner. The homosexual lifestyle will ruin your health, shorten your lifespan, and prevent you from entering Heaven. But I don't want that to happen to you and neither does God. Please get help while there is still time for you.

God bless.

Monday, 17 December 2007

STDs two and a half times More prevalent in lesbians than Normal Women

By Hilary White

December 17, 2007 ( - Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a sexually transmitted disease that a new study has found has a higher than normal prevalence among practicing lesbians. The peer review journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, is carrying a small study comparing the instances of BV among lesbians with that among heterosexual women. The result was that of 189 heterosexuals and 171 lesbians recruited, 25.7 per cent of lesbians compared with 14.4 per cent of heterosexuals carried the disease.

The study concluded that "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV compared with heterosexual women."

BV, although previously considered a "nuisance infection", may cause serious complications if left untreated. These can include increased susceptibility to HIV, and may present other complications for pregnant women. It has also been associated with an increase in the development of Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) following surgical abortion or hysterectomy.

Public health professionals admit that the problem with tracking the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among lesbians is the lack of research. What studies have been undertaken, however, show that most women in such relationships have had sexual relations with at least one man in the past and can transmit possible infections on to other women, sometimes years later. Commonly, such infections can include Chlamydia and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) the infection that has been linked to cervical cancer.

Among the lesbian subculture, it is widely believed that STDs are a problem only for "straight" women and homosexual men. But studies are slowly coming to light that show otherwise.

In Montreal, a study of the lesbian subculture found that nearly 90 per cent had been diagnosed with Chlamydia, and 50 per cent with bacterial vaginosis. The April 2000 edition of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports of two lesbians diagnosed with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) which is usually caused by untreated Chlamydia or gonorrhea.


Jemdude's Comments:

Looks like the idea that lesbians don't have much to worry about when it comes to diseases is false.

Thursday, 13 December 2007

Same-sex assult on freedom of speech

Someone took Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party to the Canadian Human Rights board for comments and articles against homosexuality. Freedom of speech is beginning to disappear in Canada.

You can read more about it in the following article:


You can watch the 1 hour interview from the program Insight:


Wednesday, 12 December 2007

Why Honey Is Vegan

Honey hurts more than just bees. It hurts egg-laying hens, crammed in battery cages so small they can’t spread their wings. It hurts mother pigs, languishing for months in steel crates so narrow they can’t turn around. And the billions of aquatic animals who, pulled from filthy aquaculture farms, suffocate to death. All because honey hurts our movement.

It’s happened to me over and over. Someone will ask me why I’m vegan—it could be a new friend, co-worker, distant family, or a complete stranger. I know I then have but a tiny window of opportunity to indelibly convey their first impression of veganism. I’m either going to open that window for that person, breezing in fresh ideas and sunlight, or slam it shut as the blinds fall. So I talk to them of mercy. Of the cats and dogs with whom they’ve shared their lives. Of birds with a half piece of paper’s worth of space in which to live and die. Of animals sometimes literally suffering to death. I used to eat meat too, I tell them. Lots of meat. And I never knew either.

Slowly but surely the horror dawns on them. You start to see them struggling internally. How can they pet their dog with one hand and stab a piece of pig with the other? They love animals, but they eat animals. Then, just when their conscience seems to be winning out, they learn that we don’t eat honey. And you can see the conflict drain away with an almost visible sigh. They finally think they understand what this whole “vegan” thing is all about. You’re not vegan because you’re trying to be kind or compassionate—you’re just crazy! They smile. They point. You almost had me going for a second, they chuckle. Whew, that was a close one. They almost had to seriously think about the issues. They may have just been considering boycotting eggs, arguably the most concentrated form of animal cruelty, and then the thought hits them that you’re standing up for insect rights. Maybe they imagine us putting out little thimble-sized bowls of food for the cockroaches every night.

I’m afraid that our public avoidance of honey is hurting us as a movement. A certain number of bees are undeniably killed by honey production, but far more insects are killed, for example, in sugar production. And if we really cared about bugs we would never again eat anything either at home or in a restaurant that wasn’t strictly organically grown—after all, killing bugs is what pesticides do best. And organic production uses pesticides too (albeit “natural”). Researchers measure up to approximately 10,000 bugs per square foot of soil—that’s over 400 million per acre, 250 trillion per square mile. Even “veganically” grown produce involves the deaths of countless bugs in lost habitat, tilling, harvesting and transportation. We probably kill more bugs driving to the grocery store to get some honey-sweetened product than are killed in the product’s production.

Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation.

In my eyes, if we choose to avoid honey, fine. Let’s just not make a huge production of it and force everybody to do the same if they want to join the club.


Jemdude's comments:

I've recently become a vegan in accordance to this definition for health reasons. I abstain from meat, dairy and eggs, but still eat honey. Honey doesn't have the health concerns that meat, dairy and eggs do so I'm not worried about.

This 11+ minute audio file also explains my view on this issue:

This is a new area for me, so please keep this in mind if you choose to comment on the article and my calling myself "vegan".

Monday, 10 December 2007

Latimer should stay behind bars

Your letter writers claim there was a "miscarriage of justice" for Robert Latimer? I don't think so -- Robert Latimer gassed his daughter to death.

The words seem stark on the page, but they are true. He murdered her. Consider this: your daughter has a congenital syndrome that, among other things, leads to a painful joint dislocation. You can take advantage of Canada's vaunted public health system and have the doctors perform the recommended orthopedic repair, with additional pain-relieving medication and rehabilitation. Or you can drag her out to the backyard shed and gas her to death.

Years later, he still shows no remorse. I think the penalty, and denied parole, are appropriate.

Anyone who now laments the jail sentence for "this simple farmer," this "salt of the earth" man can only be motivated by one thing: a complete disrespect for people with disabilities, indeed a belief that they are somehow not worthy of being fellow members of our human community. No amount of "care" or "compassion" talk can sugar-coat this ugly truth below the surface of such a notion.

If Robert Latimer truly believed he was doing the right thing in killing his innocent daughter, then he should be man enough to pay the price. His daughter already has.

Paul Ranalli, Toronto.


Jemdude's Comments:

This is a very popular case in Canada and especially among the disability community. Years ago, Robert Latimer killed his daughter Tracy Latimer just because she had a disability. Lots of people at the time wrote in and sympathized with Latimer. The disability community as a whole is outraged because it shows that a lot of people don't think highly of people with disabilities.

The problem is, we don't know if Tracy Latimer wanted to be killed. If this kind of ruling was left to stand, a person can kill anyone with a disability and then make up a story saying that "they wanted me to end their pain" when in reality, they just want to make an excuse to murder someone.

In Canada, we already have the legal right to take our own life. Don't support someone else to have the right to make that decision for you.

Thursday, 29 November 2007

Prostitute offers sex for charity

A high-class Chilean prostitute touched by a charity telethon's bid to raise money for handicapped children has stepped forward with her own contribution - 27 hours of sex.

That's how much paid sex work the escort, Maria Carolina, has said she wants to contribute to the Teleton association.

The money she earns from the marathon session, scheduled for November 30-December 1, will go to the charity, Ms Carolina said.

She said she would post a picture of the bank deposit slip on her website afterwards to dispel any doubts.

"I am going to contribute with my work to a purpose that touches me deeply," Ms Carolina said.

She has spread her message through several online sites and television programs.

But the administrator of the Teleton foundation, television presenter Mario Kreutzberger, has thrown cold water on the proposition, saying it falls well outside his moral guidelines and he cannot accept it.

Ms Carolina, though, said she was determined.

"How can someone question a person who wants to put her job at the service of a noble cause?" she asked.


Jemdude's comments:

There actually is a Bible verse that forbids a church from knowingly accepting money gained through questionable means:

You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog (male prostitute) into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 23:18 ESV

Wednesday, 28 November 2007

Australian pro-family group decries new prime minister

The leader of a pro-family group in Australia predicts the prime minister-elect will champion policies that are not friendly to Christians.

On Saturday, Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd soundly defeated John Howard, who held the post for 11 years. The prime minister-elect champions issues such as global warming -- for example, he plans to ratify the Kyoto Protocol -- and vows to pull all Australian troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Leading up to the election, Prime Minister Howard had argued before voters that "if you change the government, you will change the fundamental direction of this country."

Jack Sonnemann, president of the Australian Federation for the Family (AFF), could not agree more. He says Rudd's Labor Party will move the nation toward the political left.

"In fact, in Canberra, the Labor Party in their policy handbook says that they'll reform the law so that sexual acts between consenting minors above the age of 13 are not contrary to criminal law. He wants to lower the age of consent to 13; that's his party policy," says Sonnemann.

The family advocate also notes that no one from the Labor Party has ever promoted an AFF provision that would protect children from sexual exploitation. Rudd also promises to support homosexual rights. "We're going to have an uphill battle," says Sonnemann.


Jemdude's Comments:

I'm really going to miss John Howard. He was a good prime minister that I admired.

Tuesday, 27 November 2007

Six: The Mark Unleashed

In the last days before Armageddon, a brutal dictator rules Earth. Using high-tech surveillance from satellites through a sophisticated chip implant, the Community Police Force infiltrates every facet of human existence, tracing each physical and digital footprint left behind. For humanity, freedom is just a fond memory and defiance means death. Two political prisoners (David White, Kevin Downes) meet a mysterious stranger (Stephen Baldwin) who holds the key to their escape and mankind’s survival. Unbeknownst to the prisoners, CPF agents broker a deal with an inmate (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) for his life in exchange for betraying Christian renegades. These three unlikely allies must escape the executioner’s blade, thwart a manhunt by elite CPF operatives (Amy Moon, Brad Heller) and join forces with the world’s most wanted fugitive: the leader of the resistance (Cosimo Michael). If they fail, humanity will be marked for death, the resistance will collapse and the enemy will have taken every last life.

Starring: Stephen Baldwin, David White, Kevin Downes, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Amy Moon, Brad Heller and Cosimo Michael.

Debuted at #6 On The CBA Best Sellers List

"An entertaining movie and a useful tool for leading people to consider the claims of the Gospel." Ted Baehr, MOVIEGUIDE®

“The power of the gospel to transform the lives of the characters is shown with deeply moving reality. So real is the presentation of the plan of salvation in this movie, the viewer will be left without excuse.”
Pastor John Hagee, Global Evangelism Television

“Both Rexella and I believe this to be the greatest religious release we have ever watched. I know you will be tremendously moved as never before when viewing this Holy Spirit led production.”
Dr. Jack Van Impe, President of JVI International

Jemdude's Comments:

This is one of the best Christian movies I've ever seen! I already have the DVD of this movie and I encourage others to do the same. You can watch it in it's entirety at the following Youtube link in 11 parts. I'll put 1 of 11 here, and you can find the rest of them on Youtube:

Six: The Mark Unleashed 1 of 11

Wednesday, 21 November 2007

UN Finally Admits Worldwide AIDS Epidemic Greatly Overestimated

UNAIDS estimates now much lower but AIDS scientist says new figures still too high

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

NEW YORK, November 20, 2007 ( - As reported by LifeSiteNews at the beginning of November, the number of AIDS cases worldwide has been grossly exaggerated by the UN Joint Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). This exaggeration was seen to benefit the massive AIDS industry's constant demands for large funds. See stories here: Scientists Acknowledge AIDS Crisis is Distorted and Overblown - Part I ( and Part II ( Now the UN has been forced to admit there has been a major problem with its numbers.

On Tuesday, a UNAIDS annual report admitted the the world body has sharply reduced its estimates of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic because of strong evidence from AIDS scientists that the agency's methods for measuring and predicting the course of the epidemic were flawed.

Dr. James Chin, former head of a World Health Organization Global Programme on Aids unit from 1987-1992 and Drs. Edward Green and Daniel Halperin, formerly with AIDS units of USAID, accumulated and publicised much of the evidence that eventually forced the UN to publicly admit the serious flaws with its AIDS numbers.

The Washinton Post reports that Dr. Chin has responded that the UN's revisions are still too high. Chin estimates the current number of AIDS cases worldwide to be 25 million whereas the new UN figures are 8 millon above that. Chin told the Post "If they're coming out with 33 million, they're getting closer. It's a little high, but it's not outrageous anymore".

Much of the reduction, says UNAIDS, is due to revised information from India, where the numbers have been cut in half from six million cases to about three million, and from new data from several countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

The agency's former estimates were based on studies of HIV infection rates of women receiving prenatal care rather than populations as a whole. New studies relying on random, census-style sampling techniques observed consistently lower infection rates.

The AIDS experts critical of the UN emphasise that dramatically lower rates of infection in African countries such as Kenya and Uganda can be attributed to sexual behavior differences "which are the biggest factors determining the severity of the AIDS epidemic in different countries and even within countries." Significantly, these African countries have strong support for abstinence education, whereas countries in the "hot spot" of African AIDS concentration, such as Swaziland and Botswana, consistently promote condom use.

The UN AIDS agency and other members of the AIDS industry have often ridiculed and aggressively targetted those who emphasised abstinence programs over failed and very costly condom distribution campaigns.

AIDS researchers have stated that AIDS has become a "Billion Dollar Industry" that stands to profit from misinformation. Inflated AIDS numbers were used to distort information in order to gain political and financial support for AIDS progammes.

Helen Epstein, author of a recent book on the AIDS fight, told the Washington Post that within the UN, "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda".

The now far more realistic findings may cause spending for AIDS research and treatment to be reduced and at the same time possibly lead the UN to accept the overwhelming evidence that abstinence programs will save far more lives than massive condom distribution and harmful sex-ed programs.


Jemdude's Comments:

Nice to know that the truth is out. Looks like AIDS sufferers are being used by the condom makers and others for profit. Another reason to trust Christians when they say that abstinence and marital fidelity are the only real ways to prevent getting STD's and AIDS.

Thursday, 1 November 2007

Are kids Halloween costumes too adult?

I've seen this matter before. It's with a lot of kid's clothing, especially with little girl's clothing.


It's not just at Halloween, but everywhere. There have even been complaints about some child modelling sites where they may dress too lewdly or in questionable positions.

Thursday, 20 September 2007

Former gay and lesbian who have seen the light

After 29 years as a gay activist, former lesbian magazine publisher Charlene Cothran stunned the homosexual community when she announced she had become a Christian.

She has renounced her homosexuality, and changed the format of her magazine to spread the Gospel to the gay community.

full article and video

Article and 30 minute testemony of former gay man who has seen the light

Saturday, 15 September 2007

Will worldly mods/admins of secular message boards someday enforce rules against criticising pedophilia?

I have a poll at the bottom that asks this question, and as of today, you only have 15 days left to vote in it!

I guess you are wondering why I put it there? Well, I do go to some secular message boards where some of the mods/admins grew up in politically incorrect eras and now embrace the "new morality" which is in reality, immorality. If these same people were asked to support "gay marriages" back in the 80s, they would never have gone along with it. Some of them now support it after going through a 15-20 year process of political correctness. This is similar to the frog that jumps out of boiling water when put into boiling water, but will stay in boiling water if put in cold water that is slowing heated up to the boiling point. If this type of thing worked with them accepting homosexuality, then the same method will work with other forms of "sexuality" and politically correct issues of the future that they might not accept today. After all, some people in the APA and universities are endorsing it.

Do I expect the secular mods/admins to endorse pedophilia at this time? Of course not. Doing so at this time would be similar to promoting gay marriages in the 80s. Would they endorse it in the future? I can't speak for all secular mods/admins, but there is a chance that they would accept it if the political climate changed to that kind of acceptance. Their actions will show what side they are on. There are other sexualities such as bisexuality and transexuality and there is no evidence of any opposition to these lifestyles. That being the case, it is only a matter of time when they will support pedophilia when it becomes politically correct to do so.

So don't forget to vote in my poll down below on this issue.

Thursday, 30 August 2007

Tolerance Should Be Shown To What God Says About Homosexuality

(The following letter-to-the-editor of the Zanesville, Ohio, “Times-Recorder” was written by Dr. Patrick Johnston in response to the editor’s urging that their community be more tolerant toward homosexuals. Dr. Johnston has announced he is a Republican candidate for the 94th District seat in the Ohio House of Representatives.)

Managing editor Len LaCara decried the intolerance of our community in a recent Sunday editorial. I also would like to see more tolerance, but tolerance of something besides what he proposes we tolerate. Liberals propose we tolerate homosexuality and pornographic literature in our public libraries. I propose we tolerate the standards of morality found in the pages of the Bible.

According to the Bible, homosexual acts are “unnatural” and sinful. Physiology and statistical analysis show that homosexual acts spread dysfunction and disease. Michael Glatze, a major national gay activist, recently came out of the closet to talk about his repentance of homosexuality. He said, “For me, homosexuality was spiritual and psychological death.” The Bible says that homosexuals can change through God’s power (I Corinthians 6:9-11). It is not loving to embrace a sin that our Creator condemns and that is so destructive to those engaging in it. Love constrains us to oppose immorality, even as we lay down our lives (and sometimes our reputations) for those for whom Christ died.

When liberals are losing a debate over morality, they frequently resort to calling Christians “intolerant” and “judgmental.” But aren’t they being judgmental when they call us names? When they preach against our community’s intolerance, aren’t they foisting their morality upon others? Who they are to judge? You see, they violate the very standard they have set up to reprove Bible-believing Christians. Isn’t that hypocritical?

Ask a liberal what their basis for right and wrong is, and which behaviors should be tolerated or not tolerated. Ultimately, the liberal has no basis for his moral standards besides his personal opinion. Christians have the objective standard of right and wrong that has stood the test of time, the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Bible, our Creator tells us which behaviors are acceptable and healthy. Homosexual acts have traditionally been condemned by the world’s three main religions for good reasons. When tolerance of rebellion to God becomes widespread, destruction, not prosperity, is imminent.


Jemdude's Comments:

The article is very true. Christians determine right and wrong in accordance with the Bible, while atheists determine right and wrong according to their own opinion and the changing political climate. Homosexuals and their supporters need to be more tolerant toward those who have different views than they do. Not doing so is failure to practice the very same tolerance that they want everybody else to do toward them.

Wednesday, 29 August 2007

The problem with Mighty Markie's reasoning on the issue of children

Mighty Markie is one of the administrators in one of the message boards I sometimes frequent. He is of the opinion that only parents should be involved in child issues and that if one is not a parent, then they have no business with child issues whatsoever. To date, this is the only person I've met that thinks this way. I am going to explain why this is flawed reasoning.

1) If only parents are allowed to engage in child issues, then only parents can get involved in the pro-life/pro-abortion issues. The reasoning that anyone who is not a parent should keep out of this if flawed.

2)Some issues are not purely parental issues. A good example is the issue as to whether to lower the voting age to 16. Such an issue is a political issue as well as a parental issue. Another issue are laws outlawing spanking. These are political issues and therefore, are legitimate topics to talk about by anyone; not just parents.

3) I have my own childhood experiences to draw upon. In other words, I used to be a kid myself. I haven't forgotten what it was like to be one. I also had a little brother to guide and take care of. So the idea that not being a parent means that I have zero knowledge about kids is completely false.

4) Mighty Markie is opposed to the young marriages that I advocate. Nothing wrong with that. However, he seems to think that it is of my own thinking when in reality, it is a Bible principle that is geared toward people of conservative religious faiths. He is not a member of such a faith and yet he opposes it so much. If he doesn't like it, then he should take it up with God.

(I have modified my position on young marriages to ages 18-25 which I believe that the vast majority can wait until. Marriages at ages 16-17 with parent's permission is good in special circumstances, but not recommended for the majority of people.)

What is ironic is that he seems unconcerned about gay organizations in Canada who support keeping the age of consent at 14. Why this inconsistency is something that has yet to be explained.

5) Mighty Markie supports the "right" of parents to consent to doctors in hospitals to mutilate their child if they have a mental disabiity that makes them unaware of what is happening to them. A good example is the "Ashley treatment" where her parents consented to having perfectly healthy body parts removed to keep her "childlike". This is a violation of human rights that even parents should not break. So much for the rights of people with disabilities.

Saturday, 25 August 2007

Uganda: ABC Aids Strategy is the Way to Go

STATISTICS project that in 2010, 100 million people will be HIV-positive globally. As usual, majority of these will be the poor from Africa and Asia. Uganda's success story of reducing HIV prevalence from 30% to 6% will soon be a gone case. We have forgotten where we came from yet uncertain of the future.

Uganda's point was clear: Aids kills, abstain from sex before marriage and be faithful in marriage. Hope was restored and Uganda became a universal focal point on the Aids issue.

However, the consequences of Uganda's approach were not business friendly because condom-makers would not sell. Secondly, some organisations earn their daily bread from HIV/Aids. These advocate the change of the prevention strategy to anything other than ABC.

Today, abstinence is viewed as a primitive and religious act, but I do not agree with that. What matters is my life. A female friend in her 30s told me how a man had live sex with her after having begun with a condom. She was at that time too emotional to resist. She is now infected with Aids and regrets why she did not choose abstinence.

It is clear to anyone who reads between lines that UNAIDS does not appreciate the ABC model. If, indeed, they supported ABC, their funding would be highest on abstinence.

The Uganda Aids Commission (UAC) has of late been reluctant to do the right thing - pursuing the ABC strategy. Now in their quest to get funding, the UAC bows down to donor demands. They have become more of reporters on Aids than "trouble-shooters". Recently, they reported that Aids is fast spreading among married people without doing anything to protect marriage. They should defend the ABC strategy, especially before the donors. And where principle is involved, be deaf to expedience. What good is there in getting the money and you lose lives?

Let us make our point clear that we are not about to change our strategy. All Ugandans should rise up to defend this cause at any cost.

We also need to fund abstinence activists and come up with programmes to promote marriage to counter the reports of increased infections among married people.

The secret to success is consistency of purpose and this is what every human being should pursue. We can do our job well in one accord and kick Aids out of Uganda.


Jemdude's Comments:

It looks like there is more to the incentive to promote condom use than meets the eye. It is really shameful when organizations put money over people just because they make more money promoting condoms than saving lives and good health. It is even more shameful when they actually make money on the disease itself and want to keep the disease from being curable. Condoms may reduce the risk, but they do not eliminate the risk.

Friday, 10 August 2007

Is Pedophilia The Next 'Sexual Orientation' To Be Normalized?

by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC - The "Sexual Orientation" lobbyists are at it again. In mid-May, 2003, members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) met in San Francisco and listened to a psychiatrist argue for the declassification of pedophilia, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).

Rev Lou Sheldon

Dr. Charles Moser with San Francisco's Institute for the Advance Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) and Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz with the University of Ottawa, presented a paper entitled: "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." (Moser's IASHS is a Kinsey-based sexologist training group that approves of homosexuality, pornography, sadomasochism, and other deviant sexual practices.)

Moser and Kleinplatz argued that these various sexual interests are culturally or religiously forbidden-and thus should not be considered mental illnesses. They claimed that because psychiatry has no baseline to determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, these sexual behaviors should no longer be stigmatized.

Over the past few years, the APA has done several flip flops on its position on pedophilia as a mental disorder. According to Linda Ames Nicolosi with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the APA's DSM-III maintained that merely acting upon sexual urges against children is sufficient to earn a diagnosis of pedophilia. However, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed the definition. It claimed that only if a person experienced significant stress or social impairment, would his sexual attraction to children be considered pedophilia. In other words, if the person felt no remorse for molesting kids, he wasn't really a pedophile.

Is this really how the APA wants to define what is and isn't a mental disorder? If a person doesn't feel bad about his behavior, then he's normal. Using this definition, one could say that a person who feels no emotional discomfort from having sex with dead people or animals is perfectly normal. Would APA psychiatrists argue that Jeffrey Dahmer was a normal person because he felt no remorse or social impairment for cannibalizing his sex victims?

Has the psychiatric community gone insane? After bad publicity over this watered-down definition of pedophilia, the APA again flip flopped and issued a statement saying that pedophilia was morally wrong.

The debate, however, continues within the APA with the Sexual Orientation lobbyists working feverishly to normalize what most rational humans would consider serious mental disorders and sexual dysfunctions.

The leaders of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the Christian Boy-Love Forum, Girl Love Garden, and Philia (all pedophile web sites) must be pleased with the debate going on within the APA.

But will children?


Video about pedophile activist

26 minute video interview with pedophile activist

Jemdude's Comments:
I sincerely believe that this will someday be a "sexual orientation" of the future that will be given public acceptance someday. This doesn't mean that I want that to happen. I actually don't. But with the way political correctness works, it's only a matter of time.

Pedophile activists are even "coming out" now. These guys are sick!

Sunday, 5 August 2007

Jemdude's reporting

I guess those of you who have been reading my blog have been wondering why I report so much about homosexuality? I will tell you. I do it because in the mainstream media, you only hear about homosexuals in the best possible light. You are not allowed to say anything bad about them; even if what you are saying is true.

Much of what I post here about homosexuals are the things that they themselves are doing. So if you don't like what I'm posting here, blame it on the homosexuals. Instead, people tend to take a "shoot the messenger" approach and blame me. But in reality, if the homosexuals were not doing the things that I'm reporting on, I would have nothing bad to report.

Some people like to dismiss what I am reporting by claiming that it's something that can happen to anyone and not just homosexuals. This is not necessarily true. For example, homosexuals are the ones that engage in immoral and illegal activity such as having naked people at gay pride parades, support public washroom sex, and at the same time, tell people they are being "hateful and bigoted" for opposing these activities.

Some people will say to me, "I don't believe you". The problem with this is, I'm reporting actual activities that the homosexuals themselves are doing. So what is there that can't be believed?

There is nothing hateful or bigoted about reporting the truth. If you don't like my reports, then do something about the people that I'm reporting on. In other words, don't put your head in the sand and pretend these things are not happening. If you live in Fort Lauderdale Florida, you need to know about the things I reported on in my last post. Most parents are more concerned about their children's well-being than being politically correct. Are you one of them or not?

Some people on the nostalgia message boards have really changed. If we were back in the 80s and earlier, they would never put up with this PC crap. In fact, if it were possible to go back in time, I'm convinced that I would have a much easier time adjusting than the others who have accepted political correctness. Imagine trying to defend gay rights and gay marriages in the 80s?

So what caused these people to change their views? I think the experiment of the frog and boiling water holds the answer. If you put a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out. But if you put the frog in cold water and slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there even if it's boiling and die. I believe the same thing is happening here. At this present time, political correctness does not support pedophilia. But will that be the same 15 or more years from now, or even in the not too distant future? Current events are showing that if change happens slowly enough, people will end up supporting the most outrageous issues that they never would have supported in previous times and that's exactly what has happened in our present time.

Thursday, 26 July 2007

Mayor Issues Apology Demanded by Homosexuals, But Not One They Expect

Tells citizens he will end scourge of public sodomy in Ft. Lauderdale

By Peter J. Smith

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, July 26, 2007 ( - A major metropolitan mayor has finally issued an apology that has homosexual activists enraged and pro-family advocates cheering for his defense of decency.

Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle called a press conference at City Hall Tuesday afternoon telling reporters that he intended to make an "apology." Homosexual activists and reporters expected Naugle to retract comments published earlier in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in which the mayor said that a proposed self-cleaning, automatic toilet the city was going to buy for the beach would have an added benefit idof deterring "homosexual activity.''

Naugle, the city's Democratic mayor, had also gone on record as saying that he preferred to use the term "homosexual" not "gay" since homosexuals are "unhappy" touching off calls from homosexual activists that he resign or apologize.

Mayor Naugle finally did apologize, except that instead of retracting his controversial statements he instead apologized to the citizens of Fort Lauderdale for failing to do more to put an end to the public homosexual activity taking place in Fort Lauderdale's parks, beaches and public restrooms.

"I was not aware how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that is taking place in the bathrooms in public places and parks around Broward County, particularly in the city of Fort Lauderdale," Naugle told reporters Tuesday.

"I've been educated on that and I want to apologize to the children and to the parents of our community for not being aware of the problem."

Naugle's office had been receiving information from all over the country, but Naugle said the most important information came from a local homosexual activist and "a guy I call a friend", Norman Kent, who wrote an article condemning the practice of sex in public places and alerted Naugle to a website called "cruising for sex." The site lists 13 printed pages of "cruisy" places in the Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area for anonymous homosexual hookups. The website itself is bedecked with homosexual pornography and references to parks, fitness centers, department stores, shopping malls, farmers' markets, beaches, etc. (A greatly sanitized list can be viewed on the American's for Truth website - warning even the sanitized content is offensive and inappropriate for children:

"This to me is totally unacceptable," the Mayor told reporters. "I don't think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant that anyone in the community should have to tolerate this."

"My goal is to get the city parks removed from these lists," concluded Naugle, who urged all citizens to contact the police department if they witness any illegal activity.

Naugle also called upon "responsible members of the homosexual community" to help the city put a stop to this public homosexual behavior. He stated that the county health department recently announced that Broward County is leading the nation in new HIV/AIDS cases in the MSM (men having sex with men) category and criticized the Tourist Board for inviting homosexuals to Broward County with the HIV/AIDS health crisis ongoing.

"I'm really asking the homosexual community to join with me, to cease this activity, for the benefit of the children, the parents, and the community."

When a homosexual reporter asked him if he had any apologies to offer homosexuals, Naugle deftly replied, "I apologize for not having brought this earlier, maybe some lives could have been saved."

As he left the conference, angry homosexual activists began shouting at Naugle saying "shame, shame" and "you're an embarrassment to our city."

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth said Mayor Naugle should be congratulated for his courageous stand against a "vocal fringe and the liberal media."

"Finally, a public servant with the courage to stand up to the homosexual militants and their fellow travelers in the media," LaBarbera said. "Imagine: a big-city mayor tries to stop gross perversions from occurring in public places - and the pro-'gay' lobby says HE is the problem and is embarrassing the city!"

A video of the news conference can be found here at the Sun-Sentinel:,0,5688916.s...

Those who wish to contact Mayor Naugle to thank him for his actions may do so at this e-mail address:


Jemdude's Comments:
I also hope that responsible members of the homosexual community join with the mayor and do something about the gross public indecency that others in the homosexual community are doing. This shouldn't be tolerated. Not all homosexuals support public sex as the mayor pointed out, but the ones that did ought to be ashamed of themselves. They actually wanted to promote public sex in the name of "tolerance and diversity"! Please watch the video.

Additional video!:
Here is another video in support of Mayor Naugle and against public gay sex.


Tuesday, 24 July 2007

Bill O'Reilly and Rod Wheeler Apologize for Inaccuracies in Their Report on Violent Lesbian Gangs

July 3, 2007 ( - On July 3rd LifeSiteNews and many other services reported on a Fox News Bill O'Reilly segment on violent lesbian gangs in Washington, DC. and elsewhere. The report included video footage of violent incidents and a report from crime investigator Rod Wheeler. O'Reilly and Wheeler now report that there were significant inaccuracies and exaggerations in the the report.

In his apology Wheeler states, "During the O'Reilly Factor segment on June 21st, while engaged in a discussion on Lesbian gangs, I inadvertently stated that gang members carry pistols that are painted pink and call themselves the "Pink Pistol Packing Group." I was not referring to the gay rights group "Pink Pistols" who advocates for the lawful rights of gays to carry weapons for protection. Further, I mentioned that there are "over 150 of these gangs" in the greater Washington DC area. What I actually meant is that there are over 150 gangs in the Washington DC area, some of which are in fact lesbian gangs. Lastly, I mentioned in the segment that there is this "national epidemic" of lesbian gangs. A better choice of words would have been to say that there is a growing concern nationally, and especially in major urban areas, of increased gang activity, which includes some lesbian gang activity. I apologize for any misunderstanding this may have caused."

See also a YouTube video of Bill O'Reilly's apology and clarification of the issue at

See the original LifeSiteNews story which has been updated to reflect the new information


Jemdude's comments:
It is good to know that Fox News, and even Jemdude's Truly Outrageous Blog are not afraid to print corrections when the information has proven to be inaccurate. This proves that alternative news sources can be trusted. Now don't get me wrong. Although the numbers and some other details were either greatly exaggerated or wrong, it doesn't change the fact that there are Lesbian gangs out there doing harm to other people in addition to other types of gangs.

Sunday, 22 July 2007

Stuttering (Stammering)

I want to talk about one of the most misunderstood disabilities out there; and that is stuttering, also known as stammering in Europe. It's misunderstood because some people think that it is not a disability, when it is. Some people think that because I can still walk, see and hear, that it's not too serious. However, the truth is that it is the disability that gets lots of discrimination despite how intelligent such a person is.

Here are a couple of videos that show a couple of people who stutter and the device they are using to help in their situation. It costs around $5000 and it doesn't work for everybody all the time. I hope these videos give you a better idea on what stutters have to go through:

video 1

Video 2

Video 3

Monday, 16 July 2007

The hyprocracy of atheists in religious matters

Atheists can be very hypocritical when it comes to religious matters; especially when it comes to religion.

A good example of this is Harry Potter. Harry Potter is based on Witchcraft and the Occult. Yet many Atheists will defend Harry Potter products and try to pass it off as secular. Atheists will say that the Harry Potter books are educational. If that is the case, then why do they reject Christian books that are also educational? They do the same thing for Halloween which is an official religious holiday of Wicca.

Why do Atheists try to pass off stuff from Satan, Witcraft, or the Occult as secular?

Tuesday, 10 July 2007

The Truth About Gay Pride Parades

Have you ever watched a gay pride parade? If you watch on the news, they will show same-sex people hugging and kissing each other. But in reality, a lot more than that takes place. What they don't want you to know is that excessive lewdness and nudity takes place in these parades and the police fail to enforce anti-decency laws. Here is a link to some photos at Toronto's gay pride parade of 2006.

(Warning: nudity!)

Here is a news article that talks about these things and lies about the true number of people at these parades and the gay's continued use of the 10% figure that has proven to be false years ago.

It's interesting that homosexuals say they want equality, but they are really gaining special rights when they are able to engage in law breaking activities in public nudity with the police doing nothing about it.

Tuesday, 3 July 2007

Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls, Some Attacked in School Washrooms

Here is some news footage that politically correct people do not want you to know about about.

I'll put the disclaimer that this doesn't represent the entire homosexual community as a whole. So please don't write in claiming that's what I'm trying to do.

I would be interested in knowing what the homosexual community plans to do about groups like this?

Video 1

Video 2

full article

Friday, 29 June 2007

Why Canadians know more than Americans

I believe that it is absolutely true that Canadians as a whole are much more knowledgeable about what is happening around the world than Americans do and that Canadians are more adaptable than Americans.

One of the reasons is because Canada is bilingual, not just in the language of English and French, but because of the differences in Canadian and American spelling. Occasionally an ignorant American will say that I spell a word wrong when, in reality, it's the Canadian spelling.

Another reason why Canadians know more is because we have to keep track of 2 different political systems. Not only do we have to know about what the Republicans and Democrats are doing in the US, but we also have to know about what the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois are doing in Canada. We have to know what Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing as well as President George W. Bush.

Canadians also get Canadian media and American media, but Americans only get American media. In the age of the internet, Canadian media is accessible to Americans, but few Americans use it. They probably think that Canada is not important, but they are wrong. Canada is the US's largest trading partner. That's a good enough reason to know what is going on in Canada because whatever Canada is experiencing has a good likelihood of it happening in the US.

Americans are not concerned about certain issues unless it is happening in their own country. For example, Planned Parenthood and EGALE are two of the organizations that are fighting to keep Canada's current age of consent for sex at 14. This is also happening in other countries around the world. But since it is not yet happening in the US in a significant way, the Americans are not concerned about it. However, most politically correct American parents who defend organizations like Planned Parenthood and EGALE would be really angry if these same organizations were doing in their country what they are currently doing in Canada.

So there you have it. Canadians as a whole know more about what is happening in the world than Americans.

Saturday, 23 June 2007

Political Correctness

On another message board, we are talking about political correctness. I mentioned that referring to groups of people in the way that they would like is good since it's good manners that being practised, but I should add "within reason" because of the different labels and changes that can sometimes take place. For example, dark skinned of African descent like to be called "Black" or "African-American", but they generally don't like being called "coloured" and definitely not "Negro". People who have a physical or mental disability like to be called "physically challenged" or "mentally challenged" and NOT "crippled" or "retard". But when it comes to discussing issues, political correctness should have no place.

For example, there is one particular administrator who is into fitness. If someone were to ask him about junk food, he would say not to eat it, or at least in moderation, because it is not good for you, even though eating them may feel good. If someone were to ask this same individual about drugs, he would say to keep away from them, even though the drugs may make the person taking them feel good for a while. However, when this same individual is asked if kids experiencing same-sex feelings should act on them, he will say something like, " You encourage the child to be whoever he or she wants to be, regardless of sexual orientation" and will completely ignore the scientific evidence that it's not good for them (source). No truly responsible parent or anybody else who works with kids would encourage them to engage in behaviour that is inherently unsafe. That's political correctness for you. This is one example as to why political correctness is not good when talking about issues.

Abortion is another issue. Canada's birth/death replacement rate is dangerously low. The main reason is because of abortions, but politicans want to believe that it's something else and are not able to solve the problem. In some ways, I don't blame them because many people don't want to believe it either and probably don't care.

Another issue is "Happy Holidays" vs "Merry Christmas". Political correctness should not be used to look out for the wishes of minorities at the expense of the majority, in this case, religions. Most people know that the majority of people are celebrating Christmas at the winter holiday season. Yet some businesses and governments want to please minority faiths and disregard Christians.

The biggest problem with political correctness when referring to issues is that does away with freedom of speech. The concept of freedom of speech is, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Political correctness does away with that. So for those who are reading this blog, if you don't like what I am saying, and wish to silence what I am saying, then you do not truly believe in freedom of speech. There are some reasonable limits such as not yelling "fire" when no fire exists, spreading lies, and that sort of thing. But when it comes to expressing beliefs, opinions, and especially verifiable information, there should be no political correctness to get in the way.

Tuesday, 19 June 2007

Why I believe that alcohol should be illegal (and why Christians should avoid it)

In the past, I supported alcohol in moderation, but now, I support total abstinence of alcohol. One of the reasons is because of my conversion to the Seventh Day Adventist Church which requires all members to abstain from alcohol. But the most important reason is because of all the problems that it causes. The hazards seem to outweigh any benefits.

Many people have been injured or killed through drunk driving. Families have been split as a result, jobs have been lost, and many other problems alcohol causes. Many people don't even realize that you don't have to be drunk for alcohol to impair one's ability to drive. You don't even have to be drunk or have several drinks to be charged with drinking and driving violation. Also, there are laws that penalize a person or business for serving alcohol if drinker gets into an accident. It just doesn't seem worth it.

Many people say that moderation is the key. However, none of these people can agree on what moderation is. There are health benefits of moderate drinking, but it's only limited to one or two drinks a day. How many drinkers limit their drinking of alcoholic beverages to one or two drinks at a party? Not many I'm afraid. There are also studies that suggest that one can get similar health benefits from grape juice. This type of moderation may be fine for medications, but not for social drinking.

I know that not everybody will agree with this, but I would like to see a resurrection of the prohibition movement, or at least more Christians voluntarily abstain from alcohol. You don't need to drink alcohol to have a good time. Even if you yourself don't have a drinking problem, one of your invited guests may have one and serving alcohol only adds to that person's temptation.

I am not writing this to judge anyone in particular. I don't see anyone who disagrees with me as some kind of evil person. I'm also aware that there were problems with prohibition in the past, but I do think there should at least be a movement to encourage people to abstain. Personally, I would rather have prohibition back, even with the challenges of enforcing it, than to stay with the status quo of alcohol abuse going into the millions of dollars and ruined lives. With the high social costs of alcohol, I'm surprised that more Christians do not voluntarily abstain from it.

I am very thankful that I am part of a church that teaches and practises total abstinence because it enables me to hang around with friends that believe and practise the same thing and keeps off any pressure to serve or drink alcohol.

Sunday, 3 June 2007

Hope for homosexuals

If you've read the article in the previous post, then you know about the health consequences of homosexuality. I'm not someone that hates homosexuals. I'm someone that cares enough about homosexuals to tell them the truth. In other words, this isn't merely Jemdude's view or the Church's view. Engaging in homosexual acts may make you feel good (in ways I'll never understand), but it is not good for you.

You probably want help getting out of the homosexual lifestyle.

If you are in this situation, then I would like to refer you to Stephen Bennet Ministries. He's a former homosexual whose been there. He no longer struggles with it, and now has a wife and kids.

I'm not going to say that getting out of homosexuality will be easy, but this ministry will help you get through this.

You can download his 30 minute testimony at the following link:
30 minute testimony

Written testimony

Home site

Friday, 25 May 2007

FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over HIV Fears

By John Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 25, 2007 ( – Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.

This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.

According to the FDA, the ban is in place because, “A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.

The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”

Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion. “At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.

“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. “If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”

Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation,” reads the FDA's policy.

“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”

Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA. “The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said. “Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”

A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.

Read the full text of “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men”:


Thursday, 17 May 2007

Some In Democratic Underground Worried About Backlash To Their Falwell Hate Rantings

Almost from the moment that Jerry Falwell's death was announced on Tuesday, the leftwing nutroots at the Democratic Underground began gleefully dancing upon his grave. Here are just a few of their hate rants about Falwell:

Uncharitable or not, I am sorry his death was not more painful and drawn out. He did not deserve a relatively peaceful, painless and quick death.

Rot in Hell Falwell!

May Pat Robertson and James Dobson be next.

I'm putting on my dancing shoes and am going to look for his grave!

One more nail in the coffin for the hate crime that is religion.

Pretty strong stuff. Even a few of the more rational DUers thought it was over the top and are now worrying about the backlash to their extreme hate rants against Falwell. One of these DUers goes by the screen name of earthlover who is now desperately worried that this backlash will ultimately hurt the Democrats at the polls. Here is some of the nervous commentary by DUer earthlover in a thread titled, Is Our Response To Falwell's Death Hurting Our Cause?

Since Falwell's death, these boards have been inundated with posts, many of which demonstrated absolute glee at his death and judgementalism that rivaled Falwell's...

...Followers of Falwell, and there are MANY, are going to be really angry to read or hear about such hostility coming from our side, especially during this time. This will motivate them to fight their fight even harder, and they will have all kinds of ammunition now to further their cause and to try to convince everyone that Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites who show the same sort of hatred they disdain in others...

...Members of the conservative media are already picking up on the profuse hatred being spewed forth on these boards. So, to those who think these boards are just a means to "vent," remember one thing: the whole world is watching...

...Most moderates, and most sane people, and ANYONE with common sense is going to see people dancing on the grave of a still-warm body as being reprehensible, stupid and just plain rude...

...So, the question I have for you: do you have a political death-wish? Democrats have a great chance of winning in 08. However, the sort of thing I have seen about Falwell is going to help...the Republicans! They already are skilled at getting elected by painting us as anti-religion. Who would have dreamt that Democrats would act the way they have done this past day? It is a nightmare to me, but it is a dream come true for the Republicans...

To answer your question, earthlover, yes you folks on the left do have a political death wish. Don't think the over the edge hate rants against Falwell in the leftwing blogosphere will go unnoticed. Much to your evident dismay they will definitely be remembered.

If you don't have the stomach to see the unfiltered sicko hate rants against Falwell directly in the Democratic Underground, you can read a large digest of their bile in the DUmmie FUnnies.


Monday, 30 April 2007

Young marriage: Not so crazy

By: Cameron Jones
Posted: 4/20/07

I am what the enrollment office of the University of Arizona would call a non-traditional student. I like to hope that I am relatively normal, but alas, a little "event" a year and a half ago changed that.

I'm married.

And happy, thank you very much.

Listening to some of my closest friends before my wedding, you would have thought I was making the worst mistake of my life.

Apparently, I was far too young to know what I was doing, and far too na've to think that I could balance school and a husband.

They thought I would give up on my education and make babies while barefoot in the kitchen.

Planning my wedding was frustrating because everywhere I would go, whether trying on my dress or picking invitations, someone would invariably comment that I was too young to get married.

The lady hemming my dress asked if I was 16 yet. For the record, I was 20.

Common supposition is that people under 25 do not know enough about themselves to make an intelligent decision regarding a life partner. They say that you will change and grow apart and add to the high number of divorces in this country.

Scientific research used to suggest that women who married young were unlikely to finish their higher education. Women who did pursue a degree and a career were unlikely to marry at all because they postponed their personal lives to gain professional ones.

This attitude is still very prevalent, even though the reality is changing. It is no longer the 1970s, though. More than 30 years later, ideas about educated women have changed.

Women who go to college are very likely to get married eventually, according to Norval Glenn, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin in an article for the Daily Bruin.

Also, according to Glenn, "People that are married actually tend to do better in school."

It is refreshing to finally have something to back up my suspicions about the benefits of married life as a student, besides my own experiences.

Does that mean that my husband forbidding me to procrastinate helped me get better grades? Probably. Being forced to be responsible in financial areas like bill paying, credit management, taxes and getting a mortgage may have leaked over into other areas of my life.

I believe that having someone by your side who is committed to going through life with you, and having to be by their side in return, can form a very stable environment for schoolwork.

You want to succeed, not only for yourself, but also for your partner who is rooting for you as well.

Another thing I can be happy about: My husband and I are actually less likely to divorce.

Steve Mintz, co-chair of the Council on Contemporary Families and a sociology professor at the University of Houston said college-educated couples stay married longer than those who are not, according to the Daily Bruin.

Mintz said, "In a world where half the marriages end in divorce, people aren't just marrying for the moment anymore. They're trying to determine how it will sustain. Whether you're likely to grow together has grown more important."

It makes sense, in a backwards sort of way. My friends told me I would change and grow apart from my husband, but perhaps the point is to change and grow together.

By postponing marriage, one can establish their individuality, but they may give up the ability to mesh lives and goals with someone else.

If the point is to support each other along the journey, getting married young isn't such a bad idea.

Sure, it's not for everyone; only 15 percent of college students across the country are married.

But for some, it's the right decision at the right time. Perhaps it's time for a shift in perspective.

Getting married in college can be beneficial and does not mean that a person is going to give up an education and future goals. It just means that person is going to share them with someone.

Joyanna Jones is a journalism senior and wishes that college boys would learn to look for a wedding ring. She can be reached at


Sunday, 22 April 2007

Homosexual subculture wants to be infected with HIV!

A Melbourne man who fantasised about contracting HIV before actually being infected by the virus has spoken of a gay subculture in which infection is seen as "desirable".

The 20-year-old man, who does not want to be named, told Fairfax newspapers both complacency about the virus and the wish to have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man he was in love with led him to become infected.

"I wasn't actively seeking it, but maybe there were parts of me, dark corners, that wanted it, that were thinking, 'Let's just do it and get it over and done with and then it won't be an issue'," he said.

The young professional is the first to speak out about "bug chasing", a behaviour in the gay community in which men seek to become infected with HIV.

The phenomenon was highlighted at the recent committal hearing for Melbourne man Michael Neal.

Mr Neal was accused of deliberately spreading the virus.

A HIV-positive man said in court that "bug chasing" was "a big thing out there" and that he had been pursued on the internet by a man wanting the bug.

"I just kept reminding him that it was not glamorous," a witness told the court.

Dawn Wilcock, of Positive Women Victoria, a support group for HIV-positive women, said the reaction showed a need for Melbourne's gay community leaders to stop dismissing claims of the subculture as an urban myth.

"There's a lot of defensive and protective behaviour going on that is not addressing the potential repercussions of this," Ms Wilcock said.

"It's a real problem. We know that 75 per cent of Victorian women infected with HIV are contracting the virus from long-term male partners, so the health campaigns targeting gay men need to target others in the community who would never publicly identify themselves as being gay too."

The HIV-positive man said some men going to group-sex parties with HIV-positive men might want to "join the club" and have unprotected sex more freely.

"I have had an extremely intoxicated person claim that he wanted it once," he said. "I fobbed him off and he never came asking for it again."


Rolling Stone article that sheds major light on how sick minded this group really is

Short video on bug chasing

Friday, 20 April 2007

$5000 Fine Sought For Christian Marriage Commissioner Who Declined Gay Couple

Why do I talk about homosexual so much? One of the reasons is because they are at the forefront of the news. Another reason is because they are using the gay rights issue as a cover to dismantle freedom of religion rights. Another reason is because they have done more damage in Canada than in the US which, to an American, might give the appearance of going overboard.

This article talks about a marriage commissioner who could be fined $5000 for refusing to marry a gay couple. The gay couple could have gone to another marriage commissioner, but instead decided to file a complaint. This has nothing to do with "gay rights" but an attack on freedom of religion rights. This has got to stop.

Wednesday, 18 April 2007

The problem with Musclehead's attitude concerning my articles involving children

"Musclehead" is not the real name or the real nick, but he's an administrator of one of the message boards I visit. He is the only person whom I've met that is very sensitive towards articles I post that involve children. Why he is so sensitive, I don't know? He thinks that if a person is not a parent,that such a person should not post anything that has anything to do with children. I'm sure that many people will disagree with that. After all, I'm not a pet owner either, but that doesn't mean that I should be forbidden to post articles involving pets.

One reason is because there is nothing inherently wrong with a non-parent posting an article involving children. It doesn't break any rules. Also, not every issue involving children is purely a parental issue. For example, when Canada was looking into lowering the voting age to 16 (which didn't come to pass), that is a political issue, not just a parental issue. Same goes with the spanking bill. While parents may have different opinions on that issue, it becomes a political issue when an anti-spanking bill is being debated in congress.

Another thing to consider is that I am a pro-life and pro-family activist. That kind of position is naturally going to involve child matters.

When I post articles, I look for articles that are interesting and ones I think the rest of the posters might find interesting. Some will involve children and others do not. In any case, I think that Musclehead is out of line if he is expecting me not to post any articles involving children. I also notice that he doesn't say anything when another non-parent does the same thing. I think he's only doing this to bug me in particular. The best thing for him to do is to pay more attention to the subject matter and less attention on the person who posted it.

Monday, 16 April 2007

Billboard Company Refuses Ex-Gay Ads

from staff reports

Competitor stands up for free speech.

Focus on the Family's Love Won Out Conference is in Omaha, Neb., this weekend, but one billboard company doesn’t want anyone to know about it.

Over the years, Love Won Out has traveled to 43 cities sharing the message that it's possible to break free from homosexuality. The event is regularly advertised on billboards. But when conference organizers contacted billboard company Waitt Outdoor for the Omaha conference, they were turned down. Melissa Fryrear, director of gender issues at Focus on the Family, said no explanation was offered.

"There is nothing objectionable about the billboard whatsoever. The message is, ‘I questioned homosexuality. Change is possible. Discover how,’ " she explained. " It's obviously a message of hope.”

Thankfully, Lamar Advertising Company stepped up and placed the billboards. Scott Butterfield, a spokesman for Lamar, said his company would only turn down an ad that was inaccurate, misleading or promoted illegal activity.

“We support the First Amendment rights of advertisers to promote legal products and services,” he said.

Private companies have the right to refuse services to anyone they choose, although they rarely do. Fryrear said the message of Love Won Out is something people who are unhappy with their homosexuality deserve to hear.

“I needed that in my own life, and, thankfully, I did hear that message," she said. "We want to get that message out to as many people as possible and offer the hope that, yes, homosexuality can be overcome.”


Sunday, 15 April 2007

Young Marriages (For Christians and other conservative minded faiths)

NOTE: This topic is for Christians and other conservative minded faiths that believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If you don't believe this, then don't post your answers as I am not interested in you. Such posts will be deleted.

This is the most controversial view that I support because both conservative and liberal minded people do not like it.

Conservative minded people support abstinence. There is nothing wrong with abstinence. However, when you ask these people when youth are deemed ready for marriage, they will usually say around the ages of 25-30. I believe this is too long of a time period for many people to wait. If you tell a bunch of teenagers that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and at the same time, say that they won't be ready for marriage until the ages of 25-30, do you really think they will be encouraged wait? Some will, but a lot of them will not. They will just end up engaging in premarital sex thinking to themselves, "Well I am not going to be ready for marriage until several years in the future, so I might as well have some sex now in the meantime".

Liberal minded people believe in "safe sex". That is, as long as a condom is used, it's okay for youth to engage in sex. They acknowledge that youth have sex drives and that many of them do not have the will power to wait several years into the future when society deems them ready for marriage. The problem with this approach is that it compromises conservative religious teachings such as Christianity, that teaches that sex should only take place in marriage. Christians and other religions that have similar teachings should not have to compromise their faith in order to accommodate their youth's sexual needs. Also, condoms and other forms of birth control are not fool proof. In other words, it helps to reduce the risk or pregnancy and STDs, but they do not eliminate the risk.

What are the reasons why I promote young marriages among Christian youth and young adults? Because it combines the best of both worlds. Because the sexual activity is taking place within marriage, it doesn't compromise Christian teaching. It also promotes monogamy. Also, if they go through a series of premarital counseling and the wedding itself, these young couples might take their relationship more seriously as husband and wife than if there were just boyfriend and girlfriend. Birth control can be used if they don't want children. If you are Catholic, you can use a certain natural method to avoid having children at the woman's fertile times.

The Bible verses that I use to justify this are these:

1 Cor. 7:1-2 (NKJV) says, "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband."

1 Cor. 7:8-9 (NKJV) says, "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

The Wisdom Party of Quebec supports this view. They believe that the age of marriage should be abolished so that teenage girls can marry the father of their children. If the guy is a good man, then the teenage mother can cope with her situation much better than if she is left by herself.

Now I need to clarify some possible misunderstandings about what I support:

1) I do NOT support quick marriages. I am referring to young couples who have been seeing each other for at least 2 years and who plan to marry anyway. But instead of putting that marriage off in the far distant future, they might marry after high school graduation.

2) I do NOT support marriages just to have sex. The couple have to sincerely love and care for each other in addition to wanting to have sex with each other or the marriage won't last. Sex may not be the number 1 reason for marriage, but according to one pastor, it is the number 3 reason. So while it's not number 1, it's still one of the most important aspects of marriage. Most people do not marry someone if they have no sexual interest in them.

As I said, I only want Christians and other faiths that believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin to respond. I am not interested in arguing with people who find nothng wrong with sex outside of marriage.

Here is a good article on the subject:

Monday, 9 April 2007


( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )

CLERK: “Next.”
T&J: Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
CLERK: “Names?”
T&J: “Tim and Jim Jones.”
CLERK: “Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
T&J: “Yes, we’re brothers.”
CLERK: “Brothers? You can’t get married.”
T&J “Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
CLERK: “Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
T&J: “Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
CLERK: “Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
T&J: “For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
CLERK: “But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
TIM: “Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
JIM: “And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
CLERK: “All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
J&J&R&J: “Hi. We are here to get married.”
J&J&R&J:”John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
CLERK:”Who wants to marry whom?”
ALL: “We all want to marry each other.”
CLERK: “But there are four of you!”
JOHN: “That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
CLERK: “But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
JANE: “So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
CLERK: “No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
JOHN: “Since when are you standing on tradition?”
CLERK: “Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
ROBERT: “Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
CLERK: “All right, all right. Next.”
DAVID: “Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
CLERK: “In what names?”
DAVID: “David Deets.”
CLERK:”And the other man?”
DAVID: “That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
CLERK: “Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
DAVID: “Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
CLERK: “That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

Thursday, 5 April 2007

Expert Research Finds Homosexuality More Dangerous Than Smoking

PHILADELPHIA, April 3, 2007 ( - Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces lifespan by 24 years!

So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.

"What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.

According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.

In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.

"The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant," said Dr. Cameron. "The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."

Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented "Federal Distortion of The Homosexual Footprint." Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA, is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.

Read the full report


Friday, 23 March 2007

Gay oppression overrules freedom of religion rights in the UK

Here is one of the problems with the homosexual community. They have no respect for freedom of religion rights. A law has now been passed that makes it against the law for a religious school to teach that homosexuality is wrong. Remember, this is a private religious school; not a public school. A religious school should have the right to teach in accordance to it's faith. Government control of a religious school ends up defeating the purpose of forming a religious school in the first place.

Do you notice that nobody screams "separation of church and state" when it's the government that is interfering with church business? Homosexuals claim that they just want rights for themselves, but binding religious schools is not necessary to get those rights. What the homosexual community is trying to do is dismantle freedom of religion rights and are using "gay rights" (which is in reality, gay oppression of the religious community) as a cover in order to do that. This assault on freedom of religion must be stopped and must not spread in the rest of the world.


Saturday, 17 March 2007

The problem with nostalgia message boards

I've gone to various nostalgia message boards that talk about different past eras. Some may talk about the 80s while others will cover the 50s to the 90s. It's nice that they attempt to preserve these eras. However, the problem with all the ones that I've been to is that they have been way too influenced by the politically-correct views of today.

For example, I remember the 80s as a decade full of wholesome entertainment, and where true freedom of speech truly existed. However, when I go to these nostalgia message boards, I see moderators/administrators with all their left-wing garbage and limited freedom of speech. It is my belief that a nostalgia message board should reflect as much as possible, the era that they represent. For example, Archie Bunker and George Jefferson were able to speak their minds, but I can't do that on their message boards. However, I was able to speak my mind during the decades that these message boards supposedly represent.

Another thing is nostalgia message boards need to be more Christian friendly. I'm not saying that you have to have a Bible study, but you have to remember that a lot of Christians will come to a nostalgia message board because they miss the good old days when Christianity was more accepted. So imagine the disappointment when they come to your nostalgia message and find the same politically-correct garbage that they sought to escape from?

If I were running a nostalgia message board, I would run it as if we were still back in the 80s without the politically-correct garbage of today; and that's the way it should be.