News from The Associated Press: Homosexual penguins weren't

I "tweeted" this on Twitter and posted it on my Facebook profile and the Christian Commons Facebook Page, but I wanted to blog it too because it deserves more attention for what the news article really imports after one gets beyond all of the ridiculous homosexual-spin given to the two penguins all in an effort to dupe others into the false belief that homosexuality is practiced by huge swaths of other creatures (other than human beings) out in nature and by many species. It's bunkum.

Here's what I said on my Facebook wall: "The so-called homosexual penguins weren't. It was always all a total fabrication, false propaganda, by homosexuals. I had people insisting to me that those penguins were homosexuals."

Here's the Associated Press with it's title obviously designed to continue ignoring the facts: Same-sex penguin pair find female partners. "Same-sex penguin pair" is an asinine way to refer to those two male penguins who were nothing more or less than good heterosexual friends. Homosexuals work overtime trying to twist all male friendships into sexual attraction. The terms in the title are true but only after filtering out the post-hypnotic-suggestion conditioning that all of those terms have been used to accomplish by homosexuals in mainstream media. You will notice that the article doesn't emphasize or state emphatically that the whole idea that those penguins were homosexuals was a typical psychological trick employed by the homosexuals to lull the masses to sleep so those homosexuals can slip into bed with others whose natural defenses are suppressed by doubt planted by those very homosexuals. It's very transparent if you will only open your eyes and stop suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I've been asking on this site and elsewhere for anyone to show me another species where as a natural occurrence (not contrived by humans), males of that species go off exclusively with other males and perform anal intercourse on each other to the point of ejaculation. I have yet to be shown even one instance. It must be so rare that any such occurrence would prove the rule that homosex is not found in nature. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't occur at all!

Homosex is not within the so-called normal range of behavior if normal is to be taken as healthy. There are plenty of misguided souls "experimenting" with it, but that shows that it is not forced via DNA/genetics (it's a choice). Even Alfred Kinsey, the father of "liberal" (actually illiberal when the word isn't twisted) sexology in many respects, showed that homosexuality is not a fixed behavior but that people change; and that came from someone with a clear agenda of promoting sexual libertinism (no rules; devoid of understanding).


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.