Random header image... Refresh for more!
Javascript DHTML Drop Down Menu Powered by dhtml-menu-builder.com

Posts from — February 2010

Sodomy both a sin and a crime.

Not all sins are crimes, but some sins are indeed crimes. If the sin puts in peril the life, liberty and property of others, it is indeed a crime. Sodomy is one such sin. Below is the best explanation of sodomy as both sin and crime against society.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point
Why Homosexual Behavior Should Be Against the Law
Date: 2/3/2010 11:46:39 AM

I received a phone call this morning from a reporter for NBC Action News in Kansas City by the name of Josh Luch. He contacted me in response to my blog entry of last Friday, in which I suggested that it is proper for our culture to impose legal sanctions on homosexual behavior for health reasons alone.

The leftwing blogosphere has virtually lost its mind in response to my Friday post. Many of them falsely accused me of saying that I wanted all homosexuals to be locked up, and the response of many of these voices of tolerance was to declare that they wanted me locked up instead and locked away from civil society so my voice would be silenced.

Josh asked for some more information from me, regarding my position, including links to relevant FDA and CDC websites, and below if the email I wrote to Josh this morning.


Thanks for contacting me for clarification, and demonstrating journalistic integrity by reading my blog entry for yourself rather than forming your judgment based on what the left wing blogs have claimed I said.

I nowhere in my blog said we should lock homosexuals up in prison. What I said is that our public policy toward homosexual conduct should be the same as our public policy toward intravenous drug abuse.

My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.

FDA: “Men who have sex with other men … are currently deferred as blood donors”

The Food and Drug Administration is hardly a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and is not the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family. Yet the FDA will not allow a male to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.

Why? For the simple reason that the FDA cannot afford to adopt political correct postures with regard to homosexual behavior because it is entrusted with protecting the purity of the nation’s blood supply. They understand that to allow homosexuals to donate blood is to put the nation’s health at risk.

The FDA states quite explicitly that “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.”

In fact, the FDA goes on to state a staggering fact: men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an “HIV prevalence” that is “60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

And further cementing my argument, the FDA will not allow “intravenous drug abusers” to donate blood either, for exactly the same reason: “Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population.”

The FDA flatly declares that this policy is not discriminatory, since it “is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.”

I argue that my position, since it is identical with the FDA’s, is no more “discriminatory” than theirs.

CDC: At least 60% of HIV/AIDS victims are men who have sex with men

The Centers for Disease Control is likewise not a part of the vast right wing conspiracy, nor is it the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family.

On its website, you will find a page devoted to “Basic Statistics,” and one set of statistics has to do with the total number of persons who have received an AIDS diagnosis from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007, the last year for which information is available.

The CDC’s own statistics indicate (see table below) that, among males, over 60% of the victims of AIDS over the entire course of the epidemic acquired the disease through “male-to-male sexual contact.”

The next highest risk category was “injection drug use,” through which just under 22% acquired AIDS.

The third category consists of those who engaged both in male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, meaning the CDC could not assign transmission definitely to either category, and this category represents just under 9% of all AIDS cases.

A miniscule 8% acquired the disease through “high risk heterosexual contact.”

The bottom line here is that “male-to-male sexual contact” is far and away the riskiest kind of behavior for contracting AIDS, and IV drug abuse is a distant second. When you add these two categories together, a staggering 91% – 91%! – of all AIDS sufferers acquired the disease either through homosexual behavior or shooting up with drugs.

The neutral observer must conclude that homosexual behavior is extremely risky, dangerous and unhealthy, and represents an even greater risk to public health than intravenous drug abuse. This is highlighted by the fact that male homosexuals comprise perhaps 2-4% of the American population.

It is obvious, then, from the information gained from the FDA and the CDC that homosexual behavior represents and enormous threat to public health. Quite simply, if intravenous drug use is against the law, homosexual behavior should be too. It’s a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health.

Now once we have agreed that we have a serious health problem on our hands here, the best public policy will contain the same kind of sanctions toward homosexual behavior that we have established toward intravenous drug abuse. Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct. And that’s the place for the discussion to begin.

What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

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. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.

Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?

Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population.


CDC website on HIV statistics by mode of transmission:


Bryan Fischer

Director of Issues Analysis and host of “Focal Point”

American Family Association


February 25, 2010   4 Comments

Cap and Trade–Not just Tax, but Liberty Issues

I saw the article below this week. Your house is going to be inspected by agents of the federal government under “Cap and Trade.” It does not appear the Congress is listening to any Constitutional ideas. The Bailout, the Stimulus, Hate Crimes, Cap and Trade and the up coming Copenhagen Treaty are all violating our compact. Take note of those Reps and Senators who vote against liberty and throw them out. j.beller

(Go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454 and look at sections 204 and 304)
the article
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home
Frank M. Carrio, CMI
ESOP Committee Member

Thursday, Nov 19th, 2009
We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!
This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….
A License Required for your house
Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.
No one is excluded.
However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:
A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.
However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.
You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.
And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.
Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

February 7, 2010   Comments Off

A warning for 2010

Friends and observers of Chain the Beast
This is worth listening to:

Gerald Celente gives a warning.

James Beller

February 7, 2010   1 Comment