‘Transgendered’ Deviants Want Special Bathroom Pass in Cleveland

Secure the Restrooms!

Just when Cleveland was regaining a modicum of pride and respectability with the world’s greatest basketball player choosing to once again employ his craft in Northeastern Ohio. Just at a time when the ‘new’ Browns seem to be overcoming their loser mentality and status. Just at a time the city of Cleveland wins a huge prize in landing the 2016 Republican Convention. That’s when two clueless councilmen come up with the brilliant idea of fully implementing the depraved agenda of the godless Left thereby forcing the acceptance of double-minded, mixed-up men using women’s bathrooms, showers, and lipstick. You just shouldn’t be putting lipstick on a pig, should you?

I urge you to read the following press release from Tom Zawistowski, an advocate for sanity and reason, who really nails this issue squarely on the head!
 

... this is foolishness ...

Press Release   Contact: Tom Zawistowski, President, We the People Convention 1-330-592-1848 TomZ@WethePeopleConvention.org

 

Cleveland's Proposed "Transgender-friendly" legislation opening all restrooms to both sexes Defines the Depravity of Left.    Akron, OH - Tom Zawistowski, President of the We the People Convention, spoke out today about proposed legislation in Cleveland, Ohio that would allow people who "claim" to be transgender to decide at any time which public restroom or shower they wish to use at that moment. Furthermore, the legislation would provide fines of "not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or sentenced to not less than three (3) months imprisonment, or both" for any person or any business barring one gender from using a facility designated for the other that is a public restroom or shower.    The authors of the Legislation, Matt Zone from Ward 15 and Joe Cimperman from Ward 3 in Cleveland, claim that this is "common sense legislation" and that "the measure is designed to give transgender people the power to use whichever restroom aligns with their gender identity" in an effort to help transgendered people feel more comfortable using public restrooms. On Wednesday, November 12, at 1:30 PM there will be a committee meeting in Cleveland City Hall to discuss the proposed ordinance.   Zawistowski, responded to the proposal by saying "The fact that the radical regressive Democratic left, continues to use gay and transgender citizen's to advance their anti-American, anti-liberty, anti-religious agenda is just beyond the pale.  Like the phony "gay-marriage" fight which has nothing to do with gay rights or marriage, but is simply a well hidden attack on religious freedom for the vast majority of US Citizens as well as an attack on America's critical social institutions, this insane legislation, has nothing to do with helping citizens who "claim" to be transgender to be more comfortable in society. All this does is raise anger against transgender citizens, not because of prejudice, but because the radical regressive left goes out of their way to put them in a position of looking like they are attacking non-transgender citizens by asking for laws the are discriminatory to the majority. They don't want equal rights, they want "special" additional rights."   Zawistowski went on to give several examples, "Look at Councilman Zone and Cimperman's quotes. Clearly there is nothing common sense about letting men into women's bathrooms without the consent of those women. But that is not the half of the problem. They say the measure is designed to "give transgender people the power" to use which ever restroom they want. Power over whom? Over the 99.7% of all Clevelander's who are not transgender! They don't want transgender citizens to be treated equally; they want to give them more rights than you and I - even if you don't live in Cleveland. What if our are from other parts of Ohio, and you are a woman who goes to Browns game, do you want men in the restroom with you who you don't know and haven't agreed to let in there with you? How would you like to be fined $1,000 if you try to throw them out of the women's restroom? This legislation intends to take away your rights to be safe and secure when you go to the restroom or shower and will do so without your permission. Do you want your 14 year old daughter or granddaughter to go into a restroom at a park or restaurant and be followed in there by some creepy guy you don't know? What happens the first time someone "claiming" to be transgender assaults a women in your place of business? Who do you think is going to get sued? The result of this legislation will not result in an infinitesimal minority of citizens feeling "more comfortable", it will result in nearly all other American's feeling uncomfortable and will cause there to be less "public" restrooms for everyone. Exactly what the left wants - public chaos and the destruction of our civil society and the institutions that support it! These Councilmen are unfit for office and clearly do not represent the interests of 99.7% of the voters in their wards or in all of Cleveland for that matter."   Zawistowski concluded by saying, "This is another in a long line of attacks by the radical regressive Democratic left to break down the norms of our society using semantics, like "gay-marriage" and "social justice", and emotional appeals of "injustice" to hide their true intent. Which is to take away our liberty and individual freedom to make our own decisions, all the while claiming to do the opposite. The left's is trying to take away the right of the majority of citizens to decide what is "normal" in our society and instead have the state tell us what we must accept as normal. That is not how it works in our representative republic, which is a form of democracy where power comes from the people to its representatives in order to implement the wishes of the majority while still protect the rights of minorities. No one is denying Transgender citizens the right to use a bathroom now, but a "claim" that somehow this makes them "uncomfortable" does not rise to the level of violating their rights - so that they can violate ours.  I hope that the citizens, pastors, and business owners of Cleveland show up in droves at the Committee meeting on Wednesday, to protect their rights and make it clear in no uncertain term that anyone who votes to take your rights away to give to someone else will not be in office for long."

Perverting Cleveland's Public Bathrooms

'Progressive' perversion promulgated by unprincipled politicians - priceless! Just ahead of the 2016 GOP Convention! What are these idiots thinking?

A Facebook friend alerted the more sane among us of another culture-crippling proposal by politicians who should be worrying about filling potholes and clearing the streets, city, and bathrooms of drug gangs and dealers Instead they want to placate the minuscule deviate element of our society.

The Facebook friend wrote, "...On Wednesday, Nov 12 (1:30 PM) there will be a committee meeting at Cleveland City Hall to discuss an ordinance being presented by Cleveland City Council members Cimperman and Zone to make all restrooms and showers in public places in Cleveland open to both men and women. 
 

"What this means (for example) is that if you attend a ballgame downtown with your little children or grandchildren you will be in jeopardy of having men and women of the opposite sex walk right into your bathroom putting your modesty and safety at risk.

"Here's what we need to do: Get car-loads and bus-loads of people to attend this meeting and let Cimperman and Zone know they are out of bounds with introducing this type of legislation."

 The article referred to above is Cleveland's transgender-friendly legislation would open all public restrooms and showers to both sexes

 

NPR Pedals Perversion

Buried in a story about Derek Jeter’s last all-star appearance in his last professional baseball season (A New Act In Jeter's Last Season, Before Dwindling All-Star Audience), is some intriguing insight into the mind of National Public Radio. 14 time all-star Derek Jeter played 20 years and is a sure future hall of famer.  Well, the All Things Considered Radio Show host and perversion propagandist Bob Siegel just had to bring up the name of Glenn Burke, who apparently was the first admitted sodomite to play the game of baseball. Mr. Burke will apparently be ‘honored’ tonight for his open homosexuality. What a revelation. What an admission! 

A WikiPedia article reveals something that NPR’s Mr. Siegel does not, “Burke was the first and only MLB player to come out as a homosexual to teammates and team owners during his professional career and the first to publicly acknowledge it. He died from AIDS-related causes in 1995.”

First of all it is ludicrous for MLB to celebrate the first homosexual player. It would be like celebrating the first pedophile, the first rapist, the first wife beater, the first adulterer, the first arsonist, the first … (name any and all immoral activities.) Mr. Siegel, NPR, the broadcast networks, Hollywood, much of academia, the education system, our federal government, the Democrat Party and the majority of Leftists and Liberals are pushing for the ‘gaying’ of America. They are trying to equate and elevate this perverse lifestyle to a normal, natural, healthy, fully acceptable alternate lifestyle. It is not.

Second, it is foolish to give this second-rate baseball player 28% of the words in news segment about a baseball great just because of his sexuality. It is a slap in the face of a baseball icon and a blatant attempt and intent to push an agenda. This segment illustrates the gripping agenda of one of many advocates for homosexuality trying so desperately to destroy the American society and culture. They can call it a rights issue, but in the end it is a favorite Leftist issue.

....................................................JETER       BURKE..........................                                                                  

Batting Average:                         .311               .237

Hits:                                            3,408                124

Home Runs:                                  258                    2

Runs batted in:                          1,286                  38

Years Played:                                  20                    4

 

The Marriage Destroyers

Marriage is an institution, a sacred one at that. True marriage can only be between one man and one woman. This has been true in America since its founding. Only recently has a perversion of the definition of marriage been attempted and even permitted to occur in some states.
.

Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?  Same-sex individuals can marry without question, people of the opposite sex. It is a fallacy that same-sex individuals can't marry. However, the term or definition of marriage itself is under attack. The Left is well versed at twisting and perverting the definition of words, look at the hideous expression "a woman's right to choose" meaning a mother's absolute right to kill her unborn child!
.

Marriage between one-man and one-woman is the standard. Marriage is the exclusive domain of one-man and one-woman relationships; it has been since the founding of this nation. Only recently has this sacred institution been attacked and perverted in some places.  I reiterate, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a faux imitation of the real thing.
 .

The fraudulent same-sex 'marriage’ movement is clearly the result of an effective propaganda barrage by radical homosexuals and lesbians, their advocates, and other comrades-in-harm. These activists and supporters are intent on destroying the very fabric of American society and culture, the natural family. Those working against the culture include the media, the entertainment industry and many politicians, who seek to benefit from the filthy lucre of those who bankroll this vicious anti-marriage movement.

Why not call them what they really are?

This post is about semantics.  In particular, why is it that the names we use to describe political opponents and their ideologies are important? 

For years, we tended to call Democrats like Bill Clinton liberals.  To us, the word liberal was a negative term.  But actually, a liberal is someone who believes in liberty.  The word liberal can also be used to describe one who is generous.  But when we talk about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama as being liberal, this is hardly what we mean.  In fact, they are quite the opposite.  So I don’t think that we should use this term.

In recent years, the word progressive has perhaps become a more popular term for the type of political bent we are trying to describe.  There is even an auto insurance company which has taken on this name (and they are, in fact, very progressive in that sense).  But progressive really just means someone who is in favor of progress.  This is not necessarily bad.  Despite what Michele Bachmann says, the United States did start as a Republic in which slavery was legal (in most states, at least).  In other words, after winning the Revolutionary War, not everyone was instantly free.  Although other approaches to gain racial equality were actually detrimental to the cause of freedom, nonetheless there were beneficial progressive measures like the 13^th and 15^th Amendments.  In fact, the American Revolution itself and the adoption of the original Constitution and Bill Rights were, at the time, very progressive as well.  In a larger sense, positive progress can take place in areas other than political, such as science.  The word progress (in regards to science) even appears in the Constitution.  But “progress” is not good when it comes to mean legalizing murder and forcing people to support and condone degrading behavior such as homosexuality.  “Progress” which denies parental rights and accepts the neglecting of the parental responsibilities is also not beneficial.

Everybody has probably seen the bumper sticker “Socialism Doesn’t Work”.  If you are thinking that word Socialist is better to use for the type of people we are talking about, you are getting a lot warmer.  But here is why that word is still not quite right.  A socialist tends to want to take away all private property by means of government legislation.  In contrast, a fascist (or corporatist) is someone who wants all property to be confiscated by means of a corporate takeover of everything.  Same result, different means.  But modern leftists in America seem to be employing both tactics simultaneously.  So the distinction between “left” and “right” is now nothing but a mere illusion.  An umbrella term for this desire to put all property into a central ownership is called collectivism which is a form of totalitarianism or statism.  Another reason why Socialist isn’t quite right is because there is such a thing as voluntary socialism (i.e. utopian socialist societies).  But we are really talking about people who want to force this way of living onto everyone.  And thirdly, the words socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism or statism do not necessarily encompass things like abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues as the words liberal and progressive did (although sometimes erroneously). 

So what is the best word to use?  How about extortionist, murderer, kidnapper, thief, or pervert?  If you want to sum all these up into one word, that one word could be God-hater, criminal or lawbreaker.  Why not call them what they really are?

Argentina & Obama now have same same-sex agenda

Note: This is a correction of the blog article I originally posted today. I mistakenly accused Hugo Chavez's Argentinian Senate as having passed same-sex marriage. A commenter to this blog pointed out my error. Chavez is the ruler of Venezuela, not Argentina. I do apologize to Hugo Chavez for lumping him in with our radical same-sex advocate President. I do not know Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan position on same-sex marriage. I stand corrected. I rewrote this article to more fully comply with reality.

.

I recently posted this tweet on Twitter:
.

Ignorance is not bliss, it is ignorance

.

Ignorance. What is ignorant is the recognition of any marital relationship except the God-ordained, natural, normal, healthy heterosexual marriage .

.

In cross-checking some Twitter hashtages I found this tweet by newsfittags:

.

"Argentina Senate approves same-sex marriage ... http://bit.ly/cTYv8d"

.
My response the above tweet was:
.

@newsfittags same-sex marriage is a misnomer, it is a falsity, even Argentina cannot create a law that supersedes God’s law or natural law.

.
Isn't it interesting that Argentina seems to be pushing the homosexual agenda, too. And it is a supposedly Catholic country. It seems that our own Dear Leader, President Soetoro/Obama, is not the only one pushing the same-sex agenda in our hemisphere. More and more, President Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama is acting as a dictator-lite promulgating tyranny-lite in all of his policies and agendas including the same-sex agenda!

San Francisco's Queer Pet Ban

.

“The city of San Francisco may start banning the sale of pets.

“But, not to worry San Franciscans, you still will be able to ‘marry’ them!”

- - - NewsBusted, Episode 7/16/10

COMMENT

Sadly, in that den of decadence, San Francisco, this humorous item is probably not too far from reality. Frisco is a hot bed of people practicing homosexual and other perverse behaviors. Accepting same-sex relationships and lifestyle will lead to the proliferation of other perverse behaviors such as bestiality.

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

Street Preachers

Last week, a group of friends of mine had a discussion about certain street preachers who frequent the U.C. campus. The majority of the group spoke against them because of their offensiveness and ineffectiveness and because their message drives people further away from the truth and causes them to sin. I have never heard these particular preachers preach, so I cannot judge them one way or the other, but I took the opposite view, partly for the sake of argument, partly because I think that most preaching goes too far in the opposite extreme, and partly because I’m just plain ornery. There were two specific points mentioned about the preachers that the group found objectionable. They told specific people that they had committed certain sins and that they wore T-shirts which said “Repent Pervert”. (There may have been others which I don’t remember.) I will get to these objections later, but first I want to clarify my position.

It is wrong to rejoice in the fact that other people are going to hell. It is wrong to tell people that they are going to hell without explaining the reason why. (The reason is that they have committed sins which greatly offend God.) Those who preach just to be seen by men have received their reward in full. Accusing people of committing sins, not knowing that the accusation is true, is slander, which is a sin. It is also wrong to present God as only being a God of wrath, and leaving out the part about his goodness and loving nature. If these preachers are doing any of these things, then I totally agree that they are doing more harm than good.

But, on the other hand, if the only objection is that they exposed sinful sexual behavior for the filthy and shameful thing that it is, then I do not agree. This was done over and over throughout both the Old and New Testaments. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with preaching about hell either. Jesus did it. How can anyone understand the significance of the death of Jesus if they aren’t convinced that it saves people from shame and hell? If saving people from hell is one of the most important reasons for witnessing to someone, isn’t it being disingenuous to leave that out of the message? In his sermon on the mount, Jesus preached about both sexual sin and hell, but did not mention either his own death on the cross or being the Son of God. On many occasions Jesus actually told his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah (e.g. Matthew 16:20) or about him dying on the cross because the people weren’t ready for this message yet. This is also why Jesus had a forerunner who preached a message of repentance first.

Someone said that Jesus only preached that way to the religious leaders. I do not agree with that argument. Jesus often preached more harshly to “teachers of the law”, scribes, “experts in the law” and Pharisees, but they are not the only ones he preached convicting messages to. (Not all Pharisees were “religious leaders”.) Jesus preached against sexual sins and warned of hell several times in sermons addressed to general audiences.

I don’t agree with the argument that the “Repent Pervert” T-shirt is wrong because it would drive people away from the truth or that no one would ever come to Christ because of such a statement. I guess I’m just weird. I am actually attracted by provocative statements such as this. Even if I know that I disagree with someone’s point of view, I tend to want to listen them more if they display some evidence that they are passionate about what they believe in.

I pointed out that after Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53, KJV), many no longer followed him (John 6:66). Also, Jesus told the rich young man to sell everything he had and give the money to the poor. Jesus could have had more followers if he had attended a “Developing Interpersonal Relationships” seminar, but that isn’t the point. There are lot passages which teach that it is better to fail at making a true convert than to succeed at making a false one. The Canaanite woman said to Jesus, “Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.” (Mark 7:28, KJV) This beautiful expression of humility would never have happened if Jesus hadn’t called her a dog.

Quoting Matthew 18:6 (or Mark 9:42 or Luke 17:2), one person said that this type of preaching would cause people to sin. But these passages refer to “offending one of these little ones that believe in me”, not causing adult unbelievers to sin, which is what we were talking about. The same principle applies to a certain extent, but how does wearing a “Repent Pervert” T-shirt cause someone to sin? In order for this argument to be valid, you must give a Biblical proof of this or at least give an example of an instance in which this actually happened to someone. Even if making a statement about how God abhors sin causes someone to sin, this does not count as “causing someone to sin” in the sense Jesus was talking about. For Paul said:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead…But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”

Romans 7:7-13 (KJV)

I am assuming that no one believes that street preaching itself is wrong, but only the manner in which these particular preachers were addressing their listeners. (I think someone said that it is better to speak to someone you know in a one-on-one conversation. This may be better in some situations for some Christians, but there are many, many, examples of preachers addressing large crowds of people probably not known to the speaker in the Bible. So why not do it today?) I also want to point out that there is nothing wrong with showmanship in street preaching. Some preachers may do this to draw attention to themselves, but it can be done with pure motives and draw attention to Christ in way that is not sinful. Ezekiel laid siege to a brick, laid on his left side for 390 days, laid on his right side for 40 days, and baked bread over cow’s dung to send the people God’s message (Ezekiel 4). Ezekiel was only responsible for delivering the message, not for people accepting it.

Finally, I will address the point made about pointing out certain people in the crowd and saying that they had committed a certain sin (or was committing it). Generally this would be wrong because you couldn’t know that someone had committed that sin if you don’t know them. But if, for example, a young woman in the crowd was scantily dressed, then it would be entirely appropriate to call her a fornicator. This is a much more clearly appropriate instance in which you should criticize someone for causing someone else to sin. Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:27-30 (KJV)

In defense of the group, I would have to say that I tend to lean more the style of the Way of the Master than the preachers we were talking about. Instead of telling people they are sinners and telling them to repent, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort ask you if you have committed certain sins and then ask you how you think God (being just) will judge you. But this is a relatively subtle point and is not an absolute rule by any means. I also like Paul Washer.

In conclusion, I believe that the majority of preachers unnecessarily avoid controversial topics and effective teaching methods because they are so afraid of offending people. There are far fewer who are preaching a message which is too harsh. There is nothing wrong with preaching against sexual sins or about hell in a provocative manner. You shouldn’t worry for offensiveness about whether a message would drive someone further away from God if that is the only reason. The number of people who respond positively to a message in the short run is not the true measure of its success. Showmanship can be used in a beneficial way when preaching the gospel. You can’t fault someone for pointing out someone else’s sin if it is done in a loving manner and the sin actually happened.

Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Psalms 2:11 (KJV)

The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.

Psalms 147:11 (KJV)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:7 (KJV)

“That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”

Isaiah 30:9-11 (KJV)

And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Acts 24:25 (KJV)

And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.

2 Corinthians 7:15 (KJV)

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Philippians 2:12 (KJV)

Perversion Penetrates PCUSA

Hat tip to the AFR Sound Rezn Radio Show where I heard the following disturbing discussion of a recent news item coming out of one of America’s mainline denominations:

“Late Thursday (7/8/10) afternoon delegates (to the 219th Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America - PCUSA) voted to allow non-celibate [homosexuals] and lesbians to be ordained as clergy.”

--- Kare11.com News, 7/9/10

As evidence of further decay, decline, and abandonment of biblical standards and truth, the Presbyterian Church of America (PCUSA) joins other apostate ‘churches’ - like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the American Episcopal Church - in allowing homosexuals and lesbians to serve as official ordained ministers. Immorality and depravity reigns in what maybe should now be called the Perversiterian Church of America!

This is another shameful surrender to the intolerable politically correctness tsunami that is terrorizing and sweeping this nation. To make matters worse, it is fully supported and energized by the Soetoro/Obama Administration and Democratic leaders in Congress. It shows that socialists, humanists, have gained a foothold into another American institution.

This is another issue to remember when entering the voting booth in November. Remember in November that most Democrats in Congress fully support the implementation of the complete homosexual agenda in our culture.