9/11 anniversary guest post by Dr Chuck Balwin, Montana
Big Government toadies can pooh-pooh the existence of a conspiracy by elitists to create a global government (aka a New World Order) all they want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are. Over the last several decades, proponents of global government have been quite outspoken about their intention to create a New World Order. In fact, former President George H.W. Bush (NOT so-called “right wing conspiracy nuts”) was the one who popularized the term “New World Order” in modern times.
For those who haven’t taken the time to educate themselves on the reality of the elite’s intention to create a New World Order, please take a few minutes to review this documentation:
A Chronological History: The New World Order
That pastors and Christians would question the existence of a modern conspiracy to construct global government is somewhat surprising to me, as such a conspiracy can be traced all the way back to the story of the Tower of Babel as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Plus, the Biblical record is replete with examples of ancient empires that embarked on world domination.
Affectionate parody of Westboro Baptist Church’s own witty parodies of popular songs.
I was on my cell phone to a journalist, trying to arrange media coverage of a certain court hearing a few days later, in an organised stalking case in which I had by then been involved for about 18 months, and in which I took the next step in the litigation last week. A “wrong number” call on my home phone, from an unknown stranger, interrupted me. I put the journalist on hold to take the land line call. The stranger asked very deliberately if this was the right number for “Sidney [pause] John A [pause] Gabriel“.
Stephen Fry once observed that the name of the British politician Virginia Bottomley was an anagram of “I’m an evil Tory bigot”. Fry went on to claim (tongue-in-cheek) that this comical coincidence amounted to proof of the existence of God. I continue this blog’s long and noble tradition of what I like to call “humorphobia”, by reminding readers that the title of the recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States that imposed same sex marriage throughout the entire U.S.A. was Obergefell v. Hodges.
I have noticed that “Obergefell versus Hodges” just happens to be an anagram of the title of this blog post: “U.S. begs God for severe hell“.
Need I say more?
Why Tesco should resist pressure to discriminate against Asher’s bakery
The old maxim, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, was intended to restrain the lust of the outraged for vengeance, in order to prevent an escalation of conflict.
Earlier today, 719 people had signed a petition at Change.org, urging Tesco to punish Asher’s Baking Co Ltd, for having discriminated against a Mr Gareth Lee (whose occupation is said to be being activistly homosexual), in the matter of the decoration of a certain cake.
One of a growing number of what the media have taken to calling “gay cakes”, mind you, so many of these “gay cake” staged court cases have there been, the world over.
Not only does the “support gay marriage” political lobby represent a belief that appears to pass the Maistry test nowadays, it also seems to pass the “pastry test”. It is good for earning a few bob of pocket money, provided a gay activist like Mr Lee can still find a baker somewhere in the world who is opposed to same sex marriage and who hasn’t yet wised up to this particular hackneyed method of ambush, so repetitiously deployed in today’s culture warfare.
The 719 petitioners implored Tesco to retaliate, by doing a bit of discrimination of its own, against Asher’s. Forever, if they had their way, I dare say. By not buying from Asher’s any of the thousands of cakes or other products that Tesco might otherwise continue to buy from Asher’s, if it didn’t start a bit of discrimination of its own. Not “a cake for a cake” proportionate vengeance. Every single potential future cake order not to be placed with Asher’s, as a punishment for Asher’s not having sold one particularly controversial cake, on one particular occasion!
Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse
In the experience of Gagged Dad and others, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse that they have survived other people want to hear.
Vitriolic verbal abuse is typically heaped (even some on this blog) upon those who out themselves as “ex-gay” as Gagged Dad and James Rhodes have done, even when (as for both men) their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and in any case were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps ongoing child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves.
Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimonies of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses, on an equal basis with those who remained in homosexuality. Many people HATE former victims of underage homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing them of “hate speech”, because they out themselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as James Rhodes and Gagged Dad have done.
Any ex-gay survivor who goes public can expect a lot of hate mail, if Gagged Dad’s experience is anything to go by. James Rhodes should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who wish to insist that James should tell his story, using politically correct language of which they approve, in order to document what he endured, and has survived.
Readers who appreciate this post may also appreciate:
Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”
The homophobic manifesto
What’s in a name? There’s LOTS in a name!
B*ggers CAN be choosers!
Why foster carers, but not natural parents?
Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
UK Human Rights Blog
Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court
James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another,  UKSC 32
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.
The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.
View original post 1,273 more words
Why the Ashers Baking Co Ltd were always doomed, and (I’m sorry to say) deserved, to lose their court case
The judgment handed down on Tuesday this week, in GARETH LEE -v- ASHERS BAKING, is attracting a lot of reportage and comment, much of it dumbed down, or even spiteful.
Yesterday, I was all fired up to take a strident pro-freedom of conscience stance on this case myself, putting me firmly into one of the two opposing camps battling it out in the comments following the various media coverages and blog posts. As I read the judgment, my heart was changed, and my entire stance changed by more-or-less 180 degrees.
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
The facts of the case are as follows: An individual ordered a cake, decorated with the slogan “support gay marriage”, from a baking firm whose owners supported the contrary “oppose gay marriage” political lobby. The bakers then reneged on the contract, because, they admitted, they wished (to use the appropriate term) to “no platform” the plaintiff, for reasons of their own lately-discovered consciences. (I have sympathy with them on this.)