Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Rev. Louis P. Sheldon is the founder and chairman of The Agenda: The homosexual plan to change America Kindle Edition. by.
Table of contents
Their agenda could be successfully enforced, they reasoned, by keeping up intense pressure on Christians and other moral critics. Eventually, through the combined impact of all these forms of pressure, there would be a "change of heart" in the general population. In , the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of emotional disorders. By the late s, homosexual groups were making major inroads into the largest religious denominations in the country, while dozens of homosexual political action committees formed over the previous decade continued to shake things up on the political scene and to make resistance to 10 homosexuality in all areas of life a very unpleasant experience.
Between and , at least forty state legislatures granted "civil rights" to homosexuals comparable to those accorded to ethnic minorities. At least twenty states repealed their sodomy laws, and in the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, ruled the sodomy laws of Texas unconstitutional, forcing by implication all fifty states to take similar action.
All across the country, openly gay political candidates have been elected to public office, ranging from local city councils to the United States House of Representatives. And in , the state of Massachusetts and the city of San Francisco, California, both began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The combined result is that today there is virtually no area of society where homosexuals do not have a highly visible presence. The agenda included a program of sweeping changes to virtually all the basic institutions of society.
The following objectives were included in the list of demands announced by the Gay and Lesbian Task Force during their March on Washington in Every day, it seems, another fortress of America's traditional moral values faces the wrecking ball, while judges, juries, and legislators tell us that the values we once took for granted can no longer be invoked. More and more it seems, Christian n virtues are forbidden, while sexual hedonism is everywhere exalted and homosexual behavior may not be challenged.
For most of the last decade, the liberal media have trumpeted the news that researchers have found proof that homosexuality is innate, genetic, and normal behavior within a sizable percentage of the population. In particular, the findings of researchers Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer were held up as irrefutable proof that homosexuality was innate and inborn.
News accounts suggested that these new discoveries only confirmed what homosexual activists had been saying for years and proved at last that anyone who objects to homosexuality is bigoted, ignorant, and a danger to society. The only problem was that their findings, along with their methodology, were imprecise, unorthodox, and chock full of holes. Reports fed to the media were misleading, and the stories they generated were quickly proven false.
In the wake of all the sensationalism, researchers at Yale, MIT, Columbia, and the Washington University School of Medicine pointed out the errors in LeVay and Hamer's findings, denying that any of the data or accompanying analysis could substantiate their claim of a so-called "gay gene" Some analysts even said that a proper interpretation of the data would lead to the precise opposite conclusion.
But, predictably, evidence indicating that homosexuality is a learned behavior and not a genetic trait went mostly unreported by the media. Fortunately, politically correct spin and wishful thinking cannot change the facts. The tactics proposed by Kirk and Madsen have had a profound effect on the culture, but the facts speak for themselves. Homosexuality is an emotional disorder with deep psychological roots, but it is also, despite arguments to the contrary, a learned behavior.
Homosexuals have waged a relentless campaign for decades to focus the debate on "rights" instead of "behavior;" but they haven't convinced everyone quite yet. In the age of civil rights, the gay rights lobby understood that their chances of winning public acceptance would be greater if homosexuals and lesbians were perceived as oppressed minorities rather than as the sexual hedonists they are. The last thing they wanted America to think about was what they actually do behind closed doors. But not everyone is buying the cover-up.
African Americans and Hispanics who have won legitimate civil rights victories since the s have a right to be offended by the claims of the homosexual lobby. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, expressing opposition to President Clinton's efforts to permit gays to serve in the military, remarked, "Skin color is a benign, non- behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.
Sexual behavior, on the other hand, has 12 everything to do with character and tells us a great deal about the person. But these are facts that the homosexual community wants Americans- particularly young Americans-to simply ignore. They have done the impossible by turning an ancient sin once punishable by death into a celebrated and protected right, practically overnight. But before they celebrate too much, there's one troubling fact of history they ought to consider: For hundreds of years historians have chronicled the fate of empires, large and small, and the lessons are painfully clear.
The excesses of sexual libertinism, combined with social and economic decay, have led to the collapse of great societies since the beginning of time. And America is by no means immune from such a fate. Empires that once rose to greatness as a direct result of temperance, self- restraint, and obedience to established moral and ethical standards have collapsed in shame and humiliation because they failed to hold firmly enough to the beliefs and values that made them great. The spectacle is sad but true. But will this also be the fate of America?
Will this once proud nation, the world's longest surviving constitutional republic and a beacon of liberty to the world for centuries, succumb at last to an excess of the very liberties we have treasured and defended? If you doubt that it could happen here, then you haven't been paying attention. In his book, Our Dance Has Turned to Death, Christian sociologist Carl Wilson outlines the dangers facing traditional marriage and the family in today's increasingly sexualized culture.
Wilson recognized what would happen to the family if American society continues to be tolerant of every sort of sexual perversion, and his analysis was eye-opening. History reveals that nations decline and eventually die when sexual immorality becomes rampant. If the traditional family is discarded in favor of group sex, homosexuality, infidelity, and unrestrained sexual hedonism, cultural norms cannot survive. In that landmark study, Wilson cited the writings of the great British anthropologist J.
Unwin, whose book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the decline of dozens of cultures. Looking at the history of some eighty-six different empires of history, Unwin presented some shocking facts, among which was his discovery that no nation that rejected premarital sexual chastity and monogamy in marriage survived longer than a generation after it had embraced sexual hedonism. Unwin put it this way: In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its 13 energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence.
In other words, premarital sex and sex outside of marriage will destroy the vitality of any civilization. Very much as the British historian Arnold Toynbee reported in his massive, lifelong research project, A Study of History, Unwin saw that nations that valued traditional marriage and sexual abstinence were creative and productive. He described it as a cultural energy that could only be maintained so long as sexual activities were restricted to traditional patterns of fidelity within the sacred bonds of marriage.
Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, who authored another classic work in this field. The American Sex Revolution, observed much the same thing. In his review of the breakdown of tradition that began in the late s, Sorokin warned that America was in the process of committing "voluntary suicide" through unrestrained sexual indulgence. As individuals began engaging in premarital sex unrelated to marriage, Sorokin predicted with remarkable insight that the birth rate would decline and our nation would begin to be depopulated.
He also predicted the inevitable increase in divorce, desertion, and an epidemic of sexual promiscuity resulting in a rise in illegitimate births and abortions. As we now know, those predictions have all come true in the most heartbreaking ways, and society is paying a terrible price. Sorokin's exhaustive study of decadent cultures convinced him that a healthy society can only survive so long as strong families exist and sexual activities are restricted to marriage.
Centuries of solid evidence make the point only too well: In his research project, Carl Wilson found that decadent cultures display seven distinct characteristics of social and moral change: Men reject spiritual and moral development as the leaders of families. Men begin to neglect their families in search of material gain. Men begin to engage in adulterous relationships or in homosexual sex. Women begin to devalue the role of motherhood and homemaker.
Husbands and wives begin to compete with each other, and families disintegrate. Selfish individualism fragments society into warring factions. Men and women lose their faith in God and reject all authority over their lives. It is not surprising that in such a culture moral anarchy reigns supreme. The loss of religious faith means that virtues such as trust, honor, and respect must fail, and the customs of chastity and selfdenial no longer restrain society's worst impulses.
Then, once families begin to collapse, the entire society follows. The point is very simple. George Santayana said it long ago: And, once cultural decline begins, it's almost impossible to turn things around. My concern is that we are now embarked upon an experiment that violates a universal social law: In attempting to raise children without two parents, we are seeing, on a massive scale, the voluntary breakup of the minimal family unit.
This is historically unprecedented, an authentic cultural revolution-and, I believe, socially calamitous. We may be under the illusion that we can cheerfully deconstruct marriage and then one day decide to pull back from the brink. But as a friend of mine puts it, once you shoot out the lights, can you shoot them back on again? As the long record of human experimentation attests, civilizations, even great civilizations, are more fragile and perishable than we think.
If our society is to avoid the disasters that come from such a dangerous shift in the social and moral order, we must strengthen traditional marriage and promote the value of strong families in our schools, our churches, and our homes.
- The Agenda - The Homosexual Plan to Change America?
- The Agenda: The homosexual plan to change America by Louis P. Sheldon!
- See a Problem?!
- NOLS Wilderness Ethics: Valuing and Managing Wild Places (NOLS Library).
- .
We must promote abstinence before marriage and reject attempts to undermine the laws of human nature by redefining marriage to include nonmonogamous couples. To do less would be unthinkable. But in order to empower those who are determined to stand against the tide of moral relativism, we need more and better resources.
Even highly motivated and well-meaning citizens need encouragement to stand up against the tidal wave of popular culture. And we especially need support for our views about marriage, the family, and human sexuality. In a society with a media climate that has become hostile to the Christian religion and traditional values, good intentions aren't enough. We need motivation and inspiration to empower every man, woman, and child to withstand the destructive forces that threaten our nation's survival.
And that only comes with a solid faith commitment. High-school age and younger children are already damaged by family disintegration, the erotic images of television and the movies, vulgar rock music, a wide-open Internet, and other media that contribute to identity confusion. Some vulnerable children are being catapulted into destructive and desperately unhappy behaviors. It is not coincidental that, from earliest times, homosexuality has been discouraged.
The encouragement of family formation has allowed societies to prosper, to reproduce themselves, to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, and to provide healthy nurture and training for future generations. We turn our backs on that sane and responsible model only at our great peril.
This book has been written as an urgent appeal for a return to a safe, sane, and responsible understanding of human sexuality. My purpose throughout these pages is to awaken each reader to the seriousness of the issues. Homosexual activism is at the center of an enormous cultural debate, and I want to make a case for a renewal of morality and self-restraint-to restore the foundations of decency throughout American society while there's still time. On many occasions homosexual activists have said that the only thing standing between them and full acceptance of the homosexual agenda is the Christian activist who believes in the Christian gospel and who holds to biblical standards of right and wrong.
Clearly, we are the main target of a massive public relations campaign, and when we come against what the homosexuals stand for, things really start to light up. But that must not deter us. President Abraham Lincoln reportedly said to a White House guest in , "It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" Christian morality is under attack in this country as never before, but sooner or later the truth will be visible to everyone, for, indeed, you can't fool all the people all the time.
- Skateboarding: Legendary Tricks.
- ;
- ?
- Linformation scientifique et technique: Nouveaux enjeux documentaires et éditoriaux. Tours (France),;
- Understanding Revelation Made Easy (First).
- The Third Shift: Managing Hard Choices in Our Careers, Homes, and Lives as Women.
It's with that conviction that I have prepared this work. God is with us, and we will not be silenced. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing with a shrug of their shoulders, then your batde for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary.
A largescale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. Every great society has condemned it, and the Bible leaves nothing to the imagination. Repeatedly, from Leviticus in the Old Testament to First Corinthians in the New, we are warned of God's judgment of sexual sin and the condemnation upon individuals-and entire nations-that ignore those stem warnings.
It's impossible to interpret St. Paul's words any other way: The historic, cultural, and religious proscriptions against homosexuality make the point very well that there is simply no grounds for the notion that homosexual practice is a legitimate social good, or that it was ever considered normative in our culture. As I often say when I speak on this topic, "The body parts don't fit! Gagnon points out what's really at stake in the homosexual debate and reminds us of the undeniable fact that "same-sex intercourse constitutes an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created order.
Gagnon goes on to say that: It degrades the participants when they disregard culture's obvious 17 clues, and results in destructive consequences for them as well as for society as a whole. These consequences include matters of health catastrophic rates of disease and shortened life expectancy and morals unstable and destabilizing patterns of sexual behavior where short-term and non-monogamous relationships constitute the rule rather than the exception.
How much clearer could it be? In light of so much history, and with such alarming evidence of social and moral disorder, the attempt to convince people that homosexuality is a reasonable and normal lifestyle would require an act of incomparable deception and a level of cold-hearted calculation almost inconceivable in a civilized world.
But that's exactly what the gay rights movement has done. By manipulation of public opinion, by loud and offensive denunciations of their detractors, and by shrewd and deceptive marketing techniques, they have succeeded in changing the attitudes and habits of millions around the world.
The result, sadly, is a legacy of shattered lives and broken dreams, all recorded in heartrending detail in the statistics of death, disease, and emotional dysfunction within the homosexual community. So how did all this happen? How could so many be so deceived? By almost any measure, the twentieth century was one of the bloodiest in all of human history. Not just because of the tragedy of war and rumors of war, but also for the sheer human toll exacted by tyrants, butchers, and despots of every description. By some estimates, no fewer than million men, women, and children were killed in the carnage of that century.
The moral and spiritual fallout of those turbulent years has been profound. The impact of two world wars, coming practically backto-back, was felt most strongly in Europe, where millions have apparently given up on God. In some places in that part of the world, belief in traditional values seems to have disappeared altogether. But America has been affected too, and we must never forget that this was also the century of Margaret Sanger, the outspoken leader of the eugenics movement who founded Planned Parenthood, and of Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who manipulated the Constitution and the Court in order to create, with no moral or legal justification, "a woman's right to choose" to abort her unborn child.
By some estimates, as many as forty-five million innocent children have died in that holocaust so far, and the toll continues to mount. Of all the deceivers who ever violated the social order and corrupted the human spirit, none has done greater damage than Alfred Kinsey. From start to finish, Kinsey's life work was a fabric of lies: His research methods and published findings violated the most basic standards of his own profession. Far from being objective, Kinsey knew before he ever began his studies what he wanted the data to say, and he skewed his findings to get the exact results he had in mind.
Kinsey and the graduate students who assisted him did not use conventional sampling techniques, but selected informants for their study who were in dramatically large numbers either incarcerated sex offenders, pedophiles, homosexuals, or prostitutes. Kinsey's young assistant, Clyde Martin, admitted that he had no training in statistics and was utterly unqualified for the tasks he was given. But when challenged to add a qualified statistician to his team by the Ford Foundation, who was funding the projects, Kinsey adamantly refused.
Furthermore, he refused to allow competent researchers to examine his data, his interview techniques, his methodology, or his calculations. And the reason is perfectly clear: Kinsey had an agenda, and transparency was the last thing he wanted. The son of a Methodist minister, Kinsey rejected his father's religion as a child and was a lifelong atheist, a homosexual, a sexual exhibitionist, and a pedophile.
During his undergraduate studies at Bowdoin College, and later at Harvard, he volunteered as a Scout leader in order to gain access to young boys. Accounts of his conquests, his voyeurism, his perverse exhibitionism, and his fascination with pornography and masturbation-all now part of the public record-are too sordid to describe here. But these things certainly cast a somber light on Kinsey's work as a "scientist" and help to explain why his two most infamous books aroused such shock and dismay in the s and s. I was in the eighth grade when Kinsey's first book appeared, but I remember very well the public reaction when his findings came out.
No one really understood what this man was saying, but shocking rumors were whispered in comers, and we knew these books were going to shake things up. Among his many disturbing pronouncements, Kinsey concluded that 10 percent of the U. When my mother read about that in the Washington Post, she sat me down 19 one afternoon and said, "Louis, you let me know if any man ever approaches you in an inappropriate way. By the mid-fifties it was clear that something terrible was happening to American society.
To this day, the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University continues to burnish the reputation of its founder and to propagate specious studies of human sexuality. The Institute still refuses to reveal their sources of data or their research methods. The first rule of scientific inquiry is that no study can be deemed authoritative unless it can be replicated and validated by other scientists working in a reasonably similar environment. But Alfred Kinsey was so averse to public scrutiny that he once said he would destroy all his files and go to jail before he would let outsiders see any of them.
And the Kinsey Institute still operates in much the same manner. Kinsey's assertion that 10 percent of the population is homosexual was undoubtedly his most controversial and most unsubstantiated claim. Many studies over the last forty years have found no grounds for it. The best estimates of the actual occurrence of homosexuality, in both the male and female population, have never been higher than 2 percent. Yet Kinsey's false claim has become the loudest boast of the gay rights movement and a pillar of the sex-education movement in America's public schools.
Gershon Legman, who was the researcher that compiled Kinsey's pornography collection, revealed in his book about erotic literature that Kinsey's whole purpose in creating the "10 percent myth" was to "respectabilize" homosexuality, fornication, and other stigmatized practices. In order to bolster his own misleading reports and to undercut anyone who might object, Kinsey even claimed that the Holy See, at the Vatican, maintains the largest archive of pornography and erotic literature in the world. Investigators quickly discounted those claims, but Kinsey refused to recant, and he continued to promote that baseless charge for years.
At the height of public reaction to Kinsey's spurious findings. Abraham Maslow, a highly regarded psychologist and researcher at Brandeis University, best known for his work on "self actualization," demonstrated conclusively that the large number of sex offenders, prostitutes, and other volunteers that Kinsey had used in his study would skew the results and lead to seriously flawed conclusions.
But Kinsey not only ignored Maslow's assertions, he also abruptly ended their long friendship. In their landmark study of Kinsey and his claims. Judith Reisman and Edward W. Eichel concluded, "Kinsey's human sexuality research may be the most egregious example of scientific deception in this century. Kinsey's world, the damage to the culture has already been done. Over the last twenty years there have been scores of groundbreaking books, journal articles, magazine features, and newspaper accounts outlining the flaws in Kinsey's work, including the horror of his sexual experiments with children and even infants.
But, sadly, Kinsey's message came at a time when the American culture was in transition, and there were some who wanted nothing more than a Sexual Revolution, with unrestricted sexual license and a repudiation of Christian morality. For Hollywood, the music industry, and the mass media, the Sexual Revolution was a bonanza. And for many in that world, homosexuality is not just a matter of "rights" but a cause celebre. Instead of unbiased treatment of the genuine risks and dangers associated with sexual promiscuity and the "gay lifestyle;" many in the liberal media aggressively defend sexual license and excoriate those who would dare to point out the lies and hypocrisy that prop up their agenda.
The film Kinsey, which starred actor Liam Neeson, was merely Hollywood's most recent attempt to resurrect the reputation of this pathetic figure. Such people still use Kinsey's research to defend homosexuality, and they use the gay agenda, in turn, as a ramrod to transform the culture. Following in the wake of the homosexual movement are all the other movements that have been built on that foundation of lies. And that's really what it boils down to: To see how this plays out in contemporary society, just consider what has happened to the news media over the last twenty years.
There may be no better example of the media's bias against moral absolutes than the case of Pinch Sulzberger, who was an outspoken advocate for homosexuals in the newsroom from the day he first joined the staff of his father's newspaper, the New York Times, in Despite profound misgivings about his young heir, Arthur Sulzberger Sr. And what has happened since then? In a candid admission in July , the paper's ombudsman had to confess that the Times' coverage of homosexuality is more like "cheerleading" than objective reporting.
What the ombudsman didn't say was that homosexuals now make up fully 75 percent of the editorial board that decides what stories to report and how they're reported by the Times. Edward Pawlick says the Times "is personally managed by its latest chairman, who is using his power to further his personal agenda of imposing gay marriage' nationwide In the aftermath of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision allowing gay marriage in that state, Ed Pawlick and his wife, Sally, led a citizen group that collected , signatures for an amendment to overturn the court's outrageous ruling.
Predictably, the New York Times and its satellite publication, the Boston Globe, weighed in on the other side of the issue and pressured lawmakers to skip the vote, thereby silencing the voice of the people. Which they effectively did. Even though a vote was required by Massachusetts law, the citizens' initiative was killed there, and the liberal media applauded loudly. Pinch Sulzberger and company weren't concerned about objective journalism or constitutional principles -they were too busy shaping the way America thinks.
The goal was to defeat moral limits on sexual libertinism in general and homosexuality in particular. But Ed Pawlick's response was precise: During one panel discussion, these "objective journalists" argued against presenting alternative viewpoints about the issue of homosexuality. Jeffrey Kofman said, "Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don't do that with Jews, blacks, et cetera? I don't see why we would seek out Members of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association hold high level positions at newspapers and broadcast organizations from coast to coast, and they aggressively censor the news each day to make sure that one, and only one, point of view is given credible coverage.
These are the people who determine what you will see and read about in the mainstream news. Is it any wonder that millions of Americans are tuning out and turning off the networks, looking instead to talk radio, the Fox News Channel, or the Internet, where objective reporting still exists? How things have changed.
In the fifties and sixties we had TV shows like Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, and Father Knows Best, all of which offered positive portrayals of family life and real moral values. But little by little, Hollywood ditched the ethical approach and turned its attentions in a very different direction. The first network program to feature a homosexual character in an ongoing role was the soap opera One Life to Live in By , there were twentyfive sitcoms or daytime dramas with homosexual characters.
Without exception, these characters were portrayed as witty, clever, lovable, and just a little quirky. It's perfectly clear what the Hollywood writers and producers were doing- grinding away at public morality, using comedy as a vehicle to overcome the natural resistance of adults, and playing on the curiosity and credulity of children. By sheer persistence, the gay-friendly media have been forcing Americans to accept homosexuality as a normal and natural choice, whether they believe it or not.
The media conspiracy to subvert the morals of children became painfully apparent in January when several major children's television shows joined with the We Are Family Foundation to promote the homosexual agenda under the guise of teaching children "tolerance and diversity. The characters all sang together, "We Are Family;" and kids were directed to the Web site of the pro-homosexual We Are Family Foundation, which teaches them to accept and celebrate differences of race, class, gender, and "sexual identity. Can somebody say "brainwashing" here?
There's no question what was really going on. And to top it off, children were being 23 urged to visit a Web site where they could sign the "Tolerance Pledge;" which promises to respect all people whose "abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity, or other characteristics are different from my own" PIED PIPERS OF HOLLYWOOD There's no limit to how low some of these organizations will go, using technology, comedy, and entertainment, to wrest control of children's minds and emotions away from parents. The children's network Nickelodeon was promoting homosexuality as a normal lifestyle choice in , when liberal commentator Linda Ellerbee hosted a program called My Family Is Different.
To promote the acceptability of same-sex "families;" Ellerbee featured a homosexual school principal, a homosexual New York fire fighter, the lesbian entertainer Rosie O'Donnell, and several children who were being raised in homosexual homes. Of the thirteen individuals featured on the program, only three teenagers spoke against homosexuality.
The rest were all for it. It was a set piece from start to finish: Unfortunately, Nickelodeon isn't the only player promoting the homosexual agenda. Among the young crowd today, it's cool to be gay, and Hollywood is leading the way. For several years Hollywood has been under the thumb of a group of writers, producers, and directors known as the "Lavender Mafia," which is an informal network of homosexuals and gay-friendly movers and shakers.
The Agenda: The homosexual plan to change America
These are the people who produce many of the programs our children see on TV and in the movies. The Margarethe Cammermeyer Story. They also helped create the program What Makes a Family? David Geffen, a partner at DreamWorks, the production company founded by Stephen Spielberg, was producer of the film American Beauty, which presented a dismal image of heterosexual marriage and a very positive portrayal of homosexuality.
This film was written by homosexual 24 screenwriter Alan Ball and produced by Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, both homosexuals. But perhaps the most flagrant and dangerous indoctrination has come not from the world of the "R-rated" and adult films but from the place you would have least expected-the "Wonderful World of Disney. Good and evil, the antagonists of all great drama in some guise," he said, "must be believably personalized. It's no longer a secret that Disney's once fabled empire of childfriendly films, cartoons, theme parks, merchandising, and related ventures is now in the grasp of the homosexual agenda, but it is nevertheless one of the saddest and most disappointing aspects of this story.
Elizabeth Birch, a lesbian activist and former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, reported to participants at the Aspen Human Rights Summit in Colorado on a brief conversation she'd had with Michael Eisner. When she encountered Eisner at a meeting, she said, she told him, "Michael, 30 percent of your employees are gay. A decade ago, a feature story in Buzz magazine entitled "Disney Comes Out of the Closet" chronicled the conversion of Disney under Eisner's leadership into a fortress of gay culture and the foremost promoter of homosexuality to America's children.
Tom Schumacher, who was president of Walt Disney Feature Animation and the man who oversaw production of the animated film The Lion King, is an outspoken homosexual. Another gay executive at Disney, Lauren Lloyd, produced the film Boys Town, which was a Disney feature dealing with the murder of a homosexual in West Hollywood. So why would a child-friendly organization like Disney go to such lengths to support the gay agenda? As the old saying goes, follow the money.
As one 25 analyst puts it, "Homosexuals are a wealthy and identityconscious consumer group, and Disney knows it" The large number of films, cartoons, books, television features, and theme-park spectaculars with gay characters and themes has given this cash-hungry company a massive following in the gay community. Some studies show that homosexuals are more than three times as likely as the general population to see two or more movies a month, and their influence at Disney Studios is immense.
This plays to Disney's financial interests, of course. And the open, welcoming environment at Disney World and other theme parks that feature "Gay and Lesbian Day" each year only helps to increase loyalty among the homosexual crowd. Never mind that it also alienates millions of Christian families and contributes to the deterioration of moral standards for everyone.
Site not found · GitHub Pages
The moguls at Disney believe they can overcome the resistance of parents and moral opponents in the community by powerful advertising aimed at children, and, by all accounts, the gamble is working just fine. But the toxic waste spewing from Disney doesn't stop there. Another Disney subsidiary, Hyperion Press, promotes homosexuality in America's bookstores with publications aimed at "the homosexual children of heterosexual parents" One such example was Hyperion's publication Growing Up Gay, written by comedians Jaffe Cohen, Danny McWilliams, and Bob Smith and designed to help kids adjust to homosexuality.
Hyperion has also published an autobiography of the transvestite entertainer RuPaul and a series of "self-help" guides for parents and their troubled teens. Ina book entitled Tinker Belles and Evil Queens, author Sean Griffin chronicles the transformation of the Disney organization by describing how the company's vision changed after the death of its founder, Walt Disney.
Item Preview
Griffin begins with the early days and how the homosexual connection began; then he examines the degree to which "gay culture" now pervades everything Disney does. Although the author speaks of these changes in generally favorable terms, he nevertheless reveals how homosexuals have co- opted Disney's cartoon characters, films, parks, and other products for their own purposes, and how they've manipulated the images of Mickey Mouse and the Magic Kingdom to insinuate homosexuality into every American home.
Some might argue that the transformation of Hollywood and the news media that I've just described is a good thing. Those who favor the idea of "Live and let live! Though well meaning, that view misses the point entirely. The homosexual agenda has nothing to do with making a positive contribution. Furthermore, gay rights activists will 26 never settle for a "live and let live" role. Their goal is to enforce acceptance and legitimization of their lifestyle and to overpower and overwhelm by sheer force anyone who dares to stand in their way. Does anyone doubt that?
Then take a look at what homosexuals have said about their own game plan. Homosexual activists have a strategic marketing plan to promote homosexuality and to vilify their enemies. That plan was published in Guide magazine in November , and it makes for some pretty eye-opening reading. In "The Overhauling of Straight America," homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill describe several strategies that homosexuals can use to push their way onto center stage. This is what it's really all about-deception, misdirection, coercion, and brute force when necessary, and, above all, perpetuating the "Big Lie" that homosexuality is a natural "lifestyle alternative" and that those who oppose it are to be branded as intolerable bigots.
As Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill prescribe: Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex action to assume the role of protector Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Public must be given no extra excuses to say 'they are not like us' Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. You can be certain this is not merely a passive campaign of resistance.
It 27 is above all an aggressive campaign to demonize opponents of the gay agenda. Kirk and Pill write: Make the victimizes look bad The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: There is nothing benign here, no reasonable disagreement, no respect for the opinions or moral reservations of those who have expressed concern for the dismantling of our culture. Rather, what's being presented here is a plan for combat and the conquest of a nation.
Marco, makes the logical connection between the words of the pamphleteers and their even more sinister precursors who masterminded the tyrannies of the last century. The words, tactics, and attitudes expressed in the manifesto written by Kirk and Pill, says Marco, bear a striking resemblance to those of a directive of the Communist Party USA that was quoted in the "Report of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities;" which said in part: Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic Constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell.
The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind Volume I, p. The message of both documents is the same. Furthermore, the tactics are the same. And gay rights activists have learned this lesson well, as illustrated by an incident in Colorado cited by Marco. In the early s, Christians and other concerned citizens were urged to stay away from a city's "Gay Day Parade: But did this silence the homosexual activists' claims that they were victims of violence? Despite the total absence of socalled 28 "gay bashing" or dissent at the parade or anywhere else that day, spokesmen for the event told the sympathetic news media that they were victims of Colorado's hate mongers, KKKers, neo-Nazis, and other right-wing bigots.
They weren't interested in telling the truth or protecting themselves. Their object was to portray themselves as victims, as Kirk and Pill had prescribed, and to demonize their opponents. I have helped to create a truly fascist organization I had taken copious amounts of LSD. We were impressed with the energy and with the self- righteous anger of the crowd. We conspired to bring into existence an activist group that Under the influence of powerful, illicit drugs, it really seemed like a good idea. Furthermore, Pollard revealed that the group had adopted "subversive modes, drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf the book by Adolf Hitler that describes how he seized power in Germany in the s , which some of us studied as a working model.
But, again, this is all part of what Hitler had called "the big lie" If you tell a big lie, tell it often, and repeat it boldly enough, people will begin to believe it-and the bigger the lie the better. What matters to the propagandist is that his tactics will allow him to overwhelm and defeat the opponent. Truth is not only not the issue in such a campaign of deception, but truth is also the enemy. The idea is to change the debate, to humiliate and 29 discredit the adversary, and to create an entirely new reality based on lies.
Hitler's words say it very well: When all's said and done, I don't want to be guilty of the sin of omission, and I'm convinced that God will hold us all accountable if we don't have the courage to stand up and challenge the "big lie" and to vocally and physically resist the wickedness that is invading our culture. But beyond that, it is part of a sophisticated social and political campaign that threatens immeasurable damage to our nation if we fail to stand our ground. What's really at stake in allowing homosexuality to become a "viable lifestyle alternative;' as they phrase it, is that the homosexual agenda is a denial of God's creative order.
It is a rejection of the obvious truth of Genesis 1 and 2. When you remove the pristine doctrine of Creation and the incredible work that was done there by the Creator God, then the rest of Scripture can be taken tongue in cheek. To deny the Creation account and its meaning for maintaining an orderly and moral society is like denying God's plan of redemption merely to satisfy some notion of political correctness being pushed by the homosexual community, and that would be unthinkable.
For much of the last century, homosexual activists and their friends have been pushing the idea that homosexuality is a normal, and even desirable, lifestyle choice. Their papers and magazines say they were "bom that way;" but there's no reliable science to support that claim.
In fact, most homosexuals don't believe that their orientation is genetic and inborn. In that regard, it's only fair to point to a survey administered by Alfred Kinsey in based on a questionnaire administered to a group of homosexuals about this question. Even Kinsey came closer to the tmth than today's propagandists. What he found in that study was that less than 10 percent of respondents believed they were "bom that way. Here's what they said: But no amount of hype and disinformation can change the fact that, while there are genuine psychological and emotional factors involved, homosexuality is a learned behavior and ultimately a choice-not an inborn biological condition.
And homosexuals themselves know this. It's just another example of their campaign of deception. Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Based on the loose morals and broken lives of a "no-fault divorce, anything goes" culture, love was just a secondhand emotion.
Turner said that if there could be a broken heart, then one should just skip all the formalities and take pleasure wherever you find it-self-indulgent hedonism and low-risk "hook-ups" were the answer. Those were the ethics of a bmised and battered generation. Earlier, as America entered the strung-out seventies, songwriter Stephen Stills put it even more bluntly in his song "Love the One You're With;" which told listeners to love whomever they were with if they couldn't be with the one they loved. What a sad epitaph for modern civilization. In God's perfect order, sexual intimacy has always been reserved for marriage.
The union of man and wife produces life. It's an expression of divine unity. The two become "one flesh," and the consummation of human love as it was meant to be includes the promise of a lifetime commitment of love, fidelity, and accountability. But whenever God's natural order is scorned, and wherever mere hedonism and sexual license are allowed to prevail, chaos inevitably ensues.
It's a law of nature as certain as thunder and lightning: When you look at the statistics of the "free love" movement from the sixties right up to our time, what you will discover is a heartbreaking chronicle of damaged lives, deadly diseases, and a level of cultural confusion and emotional despair that is unprecedented in history. And no component 32 of this breakdown of the moral order is more conspicuous or more dangerous to our future than unrestrained dissipation and the aberrant sexual recklessness of the homosexual movement.
In and , Dr. Paul Cameron conducted an important study of the mortality rates of homosexuals. He recorded the age of death for homosexuals as reported in death notices of eighteen homosexual journals over an eleven-year period, and what he found was that the median age of death was the late thirties for those with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome AIDS. For those who had not developed AIDS, the median age of death was only slightly longer, in their early forties. Statistics for lesbians indicated an average life span of less than fifty years.
At the end of the study, Cameron concluded: Evidently long life is not much of a factor in the homosexual "lifestyle" But what makes these results all the more disturbing is the fact that longevity has been on the rise in the general population in this country for most of the last century. Life expectancy for males has increased from about forty years in the mid-nineteenth century to more than seventy-five years today. For females, life expectancy is now at least seventy-nine years for those with normal health and lifestyles, and even longer if the individual has already reached middle age.
By any measure, homosexuals and lesbians have a substantially shorter life expectancy than heterosexuals. Another study released in suggests that young men who engage in homosexual relations before age twenty are unlikely to reach retirement age. The incidence of not just AIDS and HIV, but also of more than thirty highly infectious sexually transmitted diseases in this group, has reduced life expectancy by as much as thirty years.
And "quality of life" for practicing homosexuals is practically nonexistent whenever symptoms of illness and disease are detected. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals in Canada, as just one example, concluded that life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for other men. If current patterns continue, the researchers said: Under even the most liberal assumptions;" scientists added, "gay and bisexual men in this urban centre 33 are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year Even when AIDS is not present, fewer than 12 percent of homosexual men will ever reach old age.
Even Alfred Kinsey's research in the s and '40s, although he strongly supported homosexual and lesbian relationships personally, indicated that fewer than 1 percent of homosexuals could expect to live to age sixty-five or older. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Jun 13, Manny marked it as not-to-read Shelves: If you're a gay American, or even better a gay Hispanic American, remember that only the Republican Party will save you from the Muslims!
I mean, sure, we think you're a piece of Satanic scum who's doing his level best to destroy our society by marrying each other and using the wrong bathroom, but we almost certainly won't come into a nightclub and shoot you while you're committing unnatural practices on the dance-floor. No, let me strengthen that.
Not only will we not shoot you, we'll make sure If you're a gay American, or even better a gay Hispanic American, remember that only the Republican Party will save you from the Muslims! Not only will we not shoot you, we'll make sure you have the freedom to buy your own assault rifle so that you're able to defend yourself against Barrack Hussein Obama's crazed Islamicist hordes. He should resign immediately for not having said whatever it was that flashed through my mind when I read about this shit earlier today and thought, holy moly, this is going to be pretty useful for my campaign.
View all 27 comments. Jun 17, Jennifer Jacobs rated it did not like it Shelves: A horrible mundane Homophobic book! View all 4 comments. Oct 09, Kevin Quixotic added it Shelves: Wow, it is always good to hear what the other side has to say Mar 05, Patricia Roberts-Miller rated it did not like it. It's useful if you want to read the homophobic talking points, and see just how bad their evidence is. The authors cites long debunked studies, doesn't seem to understand anything about biology, is appallingly ignorant about history, and makes a lot of claims that are patently false--it even cites Paul Cameron as an authority!
It shows how insular that world is. There are some funny aspects to it, largely because the author is so clueless. Sep 17, Scott Myers rated it really liked it.
- Full text of "The Agenda - The Homosexual Plan to Change America"?
- Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam!
- The Divine Shot.
- .
Nov 04, Shaidornell Swer rated it it was amazing. Hard hitting, to the point and revelatory! A great book and one that must be read by everyone, especially the men and women of this generation. Michael Murphy rated it it was amazing Mar 05, Bob Sharpsteen rated it really liked it Feb 15, Aaron rated it did not like it Jan 08, Temple Obe rated it liked it Dec 08, Gretel rated it did not like it Jun 13, Robin rated it did not like it Sep 12, Mistress Simbala rated it it was ok Sep 04, Meg Elison rated it did not like it Sep 12, Samuel Santana added it Feb 13, Rem marked it as to-read Sep 16,