ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 9 of 10
« First < 56789 10 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>The 5 stages of Homofascism
Merde Furieux 05:15 AM 08-16-2019
http://www.scottlively.net/2019/06/3...f-homofascism/


THE FIVE STAGES OF HOMOFASCISM
A Primer on “Gay Supremacy” in America
Comments of Dr. Scott Lively on the 4th Anniversary of Obergefell v Hodges, June 26, 2019, US Supreme Court, Washington DC

I am Dr. Scott Lively and I’m here to explain how the LGBT movement gained legal, cultural and political supremacy over Christianity in America in just 50 years. It advanced through five stages and four supreme court rulings.

The Five Stages of Homofascism are:

1. Tolerance
2. Acceptance
3. Celebration
4. Forced Participation
5. Punishment of Dissenters

The original goal of the LGBT movement in the 1950s was tolerance, what Dale Jennings of the Mattachine Society called “The right to be left alone.”

But exactly 50 years ago in the Stonewall riots, homofascism was born – when the movement set its sights on replacing family-centered society with sexual anarchy. Their detailed agenda was published soon after as “The 1972 Gay Rights Platform,” and they launched a united national campaign for “sexual freedom” to be recognized as a constitutional right.

In response, the pro-family movement arose during the Reagan administration in the 1980s to defend marriage and the natural family. In 1986, Justice Byron White (appointed by JFK) dealt a death blow to the LGBT “sexual freedom” strategy in the majority opinion of Bowers v Hardwick, expressly recognizing the right of states to regulate all sexual conduct in the public interest, but specifically homosexual sodomy.

Undeterred, the “gays” launched a new strategy in the late 1980s to characterize so-called “sexual orientation” as an immutable condition and to classify themselves as a civil rights minority. They made the “born that way” argument the centerpiece of their propaganda narrative, and then hijacked the Black civil rights movement to implement their political agenda, essentially stealing Jesse Jackson’s “Rainbow-Push Coalition” for themselves and adopting the rainbow flag as their banner.

All across America LGBT activists then used their growing power in the Democrat party to create “Human Rights Commissions” at the local and state level which in turn pushed for the passage of anti-discrimination laws in which sexual orientation was bundled together with established civil rights minority classes. Wherever resistance to normalizing homosexuality was strong, they followed a two step process, adding sexual orientation later, usually after a media campaign focusing on “hate crimes” reporting (most of which was unverified and almost certainly fraudulent). In all cases the Human Rights Commission tactic was driven by the “gays,” though rarely openly.

In response, the Oregon Citizens Alliance (of which I was Communications Director) pioneered the No Special Rights Act in 1992 to prohibit sexual orientation from being included in anti-discrimination laws. A version of our No Special Rights Act passed in Colorado as Amendment 2, becoming the basis for the supreme court case Romer v Evans in 1996.

Romer was the first of four major cases by which swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy (the worst enemy of the family in the history of the court) established “Gay Supremacy” in America.

Our pro-family movement had essentially won the culture war with Amendment 2, because the well established test for identifying a “suspect class” (civil rights minority) in constitutional law included two elements that the “gays” could not meet: political powerlessness and an immutable condition like skin color.

But Kennedy simply disregarded the law, saying that Amendment 2 was not a valid exercise of state power because in his opinion it was motivated by “animus” (hatred) – in one stroke both voiding Amendment 2 while simultaneously coaching the political left to cry “Hate” at any conservative policy they wanted to invalidate in the future.

Kennedy followed up on Romer with Lawrence v Texas (2003) in which he used the pretext of striking down Texas’ virtually unenforced sodomy laws to repeal Bowers v Hardwick. (Reportedly Lawrence and his sodomy partner staged the scene to ensure his arrest to create legal standing to sue the state.)

Killing Bowers was a necessary prerequisite to legalizing “gay marriage” which happened the following year in Massachusetts, thanks to the full and immediate acquiescence of fake conservative then-governor Mitt Romney.

In response to the inevitable wave of “gay marriage” laws that followed in liberal states, the pro-family movement created the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which quickly became law in 35 states and the federal government.

The supposed Catholic Kennedy again thwarted us in his ruling in US v Winsor, striking down the federal DOMA. Two years later he finished the job by creating a supposed constitutional right to “gay marriage” in Obergefell v Hodges by judicial fiat: icing the LGBT cake with a declaration in the ruling that homosexuality must now be accepted as “immutable.”

Having fulfilled his globalist mission to establish “Gay Supremacy” in America, Kennedy recently retired from the court after (I strongly suspect) assuring that his legacy would be preserved by the nomination of his former clerk Brett Kavanaugh to fill his vacancy. I sincerely hope I am wrong about Kavanaugh and will apologize profusely if in future cases he shows integrity in helping to reverse Kennedy’s errors.

So here we stand in 2019, four years after Obergefell and the LGBTs instant pivot to “transgenderism” (and pedophilia), watching small children being deliberately infected with hypersexual transgender insanity to the applause of the entire leftist bloc, and Congress seriously debating the so called Equality Act to criminalize Christianity in America.

Throughout this decades-long process America has been pushed inexorably by the leftist elites through the five stages of homofascism until today celebration of all things LGBT is the norm, forced participation in “gay” culture is increasing rapidly, and punishment of dissenters is a virtual mandate of social justice in the minds of the Millennials. God help us!

Can this process be reversed? I believe it can, but only if conservatives, including our presumed five member majority on the supreme court remember what it is that conservatism exists to conserve: the God-fearing, family centered, constitutional republic our founders fought a bloody revolution to secure for us.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 06:14 PM 08-22-2019
Originally Posted by Merde Furieux:
OBAMA JUDGE RULES MEDICAID MUST PAY FOR TRANSGENDER SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrup...nment-surgery/
I'd like to hear from someone who has argued passionately about 'our collective obligation to provide a safety net for when our productive citizens fall on hard times' about how it feels to see their passion fuel the government mandate to pay for someone to filet their dick into a Big Montana so they look cute in a sundress.
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 12:29 PM 08-23-2019
MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing referred to a Louisiana Republican's belief that there are only two genders as "incendiary" on Friday.

Jansing and her panel addressed the GOP's relationship with women and the LGBT community, in the aftermath of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national LGBT group, endorsing President Donald Trump for a second term.

"We've got an important question now," Jansing told viewers. "What does it mean to be a mainstream Republican? It is the question that some Republicans have been asking in the age of Donald Trump, and increasingly, it seems the answer might be to make incendiary comments about women and members of the LGBT community."

"In Louisiana, the Republican candidate for governor, Ralph Abraham, is out with a new TV ad this week making incendiary comments about gender," she added.

Rep. Ralph Abrahama (R., La.), who is seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D.), released a TV ad where he laid out a series of his conservative positions, among them his medical assertion there are only two genders.

"Here's the truth," he said. "Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders."

https://freebeacon.com/politics/msnb...rs-incendiary/
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 12:49 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by :
"Here's the truth," he said. "Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders."
Once again, a Republican politician is confusing his personal opinions for truths.
[Reply]
True North 01:56 PM 08-23-2019
Kind of like what you do with climate change.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:15 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by True North:
Kind of like what you do with climate change.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
Wrong. If you aren't listening to scientists, you're not listening to facts.
[Reply]
True North 02:23 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Wrong. If you aren't listening to scientists, you're not listening to facts.
There isn't a consensus of how much, if any, human activities are effecting the climate, among scientists.

Social scientists are currently claiming their are 70+ genders. Do you support that claim?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
[Reply]
True North 02:25 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Wrong. If you aren't listening to scientists, you're not listening to facts.
Again, appealing to "authority", is a logical fallacy.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:27 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by True North:
There isn't a consensus of how much, if any, human activities are effecting the climate, among scientists.

Social scientists are currently claiming their are 70+ genders. Do you support that claim?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
There is a consensus that human activity is having a dramatic impact on climate worldwide. There has been for years. The only disagreement is about whether we're ****ed, or if we're super ****ed.

As far as the gender thing, I don't pay attention to it because it has zero relevance in my life, and I don't care.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:30 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by True North:
Again, appealing to "authority", is a logical fallacy.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
I'm not "appealing to authority", I'm simply telling you where I get my information. Where do get your climate change-related information?
[Reply]
Imon Yourside 02:31 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by Merde Furieux:
OBAMA JUDGE RULES MEDICAID MUST PAY FOR TRANSGENDER SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrup...nment-surgery/
It's about time, I have the right to be a billionaire and have that lifestyle cuz I was ya know born that way. The government needs to supplement whatever i'm short on the taxpayers dime.
[Reply]
patteeu 02:40 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Once again, a Republican politician is confusing his personal opinions for truths.
Whatever he’s doing, it’s unobjectionable.
[Reply]
True North 02:56 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
There is a consensus that human activity is having a dramatic impact on climate worldwide. There has been for years. The only disagreement is about whether we're ****ed, or if we're super ****ed.



As far as the gender thing, I don't pay attention to it because it has zero relevance in my life, and I don't care.
Now you're trying to conflate the issue. We were talking specifically about anthropogenic climate change. Nobody is disputing pollution is a problem, or over consumption.

You can't possibly know what the future holds, neither do the supposed "climate scientists". Every predictive model has been wrong so far.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 03:00 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by True North:
Now you're trying to conflate the issue. We were talking specifically about anthropogenic climate change. Nobody is disputing pollution is a problem, or over consumption.

You can't possibly know what the future holds, neither do the supposed "climate scientists". Every predictive model has been wrong so far.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
I said "There is a consensus that human activity is having a dramatic impact on climate worldwide." I didn't mention pollution or over consumption. I couldn't have been more on-topic.

Again, where do you get your climate change-related information?
[Reply]
True North 03:04 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
I said "There is a consensus that human activity is having a dramatic impact on climate worldwide." I didn't mention pollution or over consumption. I couldn't have been more on-topic.



Again, where do you get your climate change-related information?
Human activity in regards to what? Emissions, pollution, strained resources.... Define dramatic. That statement is vague and meaningless without context.

The internet mostly.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
[Reply]
Sweet Daddy Hate 03:39 PM 08-23-2019
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Wrong. If you aren't listening to scientists, you're not listening to facts.
Depends on which scientists you are listening to. You DO realize that scientific studies are funded, yes?
[Reply]
Page 9 of 10
« First < 56789 10 >
Up