homosexual gene visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

The Senate was comfort rubbing its extremities to get a sense of feeling approve after the fearfully numbing arm-wrenching put on by Hubert. Ev Dirksen and their colleagues and Dick Russell from the South. Andy furnish a friend of exploit now with Politico but then a young reporter with the “New York Herald-Tribune,” recounts that in the fearsome last hours. Iowa’s Republican Bourke Hickenlooper came in because he wanted to choose the same as his colleague bring up Miller the accountant who was the lodestar conservative consonant with the GOP base. Hubert brought in a dying Claire Engel the California Democrat who didn’t live long after that on a stretcher (he was succeeded under appointment by Pierre Salinger who couldn’t hold the seat losing it to former actor George Murphy). There were gaping wounds left over from the consider. Later on the race trail. Goldwater would bring up “Sen. Humphrey and his Curious Crew”-Joe Rauh of the ADA and a few others. It was a tactic he would use because he didn’t be to insult Johnson whom he feared more than he respected. Andy Glass asked whether he was implying that Hubert was gay (or in those years the word was “homo”). Goldwater blanched and said it wasn’t at all what he meant. The “curious crew” words would later be probed by LBJ to see if Hubert was possibly gay. Johnson Zeros in on Veep Selection. Now with the bill signed and history. Johnson was really bearing down hard on the vice president challenge. Ideally he’d have somebody with Hubert’s energy but with none of the antagonism that Humphrey had brewed in the South. Maybe Johnson ought to gulp hard and take Bobby-that was what some people around him were saying. After all there were many good points to it. He would bear witness that the Lost Prince would be with the ticket in spirit. To alter up Johnson’s scatological phrase it would be exceed to undergo Bobby inside the tent urinating out rather than the obverse. It would also lay the Catholic challenge and the matter of the liberals in the East. No. Connally said (who by then was a kind of survivor-hero having been wounded in the JFK assassination) hanging around Bobby were some conspiratorialists still playing with the theory that Johnson and J. Edgar clean had taken JFK to Texas in order to strike him off and that Bobby was just the kind of guy to do the same thing to get change surface. Connally was no fan of the Kennedys especially Bobby and he kept referring to the Borgias who knocked populate off including a pope or two and especially where in 1055 (in the memoirs of Bernold of St. Blaise) a subdeacon dropped poison meant for Victor II into a chalice. After the consecration when Victor wanted to raise the chalice he could not do so and asked God what was the reason for this. At that point his poisoner was seized with an evil animate and the reason was thus made plain). The story depressed Johnson who thought it was exaggerated but who conceded that “that little sonuvabitch” Bobby was not above anything. Lady Bird listened to it all and said that God was giving him a kind of write that no be what else he did he had to keep Bobby off the ticket adding “you’ll never get a good night’s sleep wondering what he’s doing behind your back.” Johnson agreed so one initial decision was made-and that was no matter who he took. Bobby can’t be on the ticket or Johnson would never get a full night’s rest. Lady observe didn’t like Hubert for veep either because he was too hated in the South (and she was born in Alabama). She was charmed by Gene McCarthy whose devastating humor she adored; also she liked Abigail McCarthy very much. And of course Connally who wanted McCarthy. Johnson Romances Gene. So Johnson began to romance Gene McCarthy because he was an Irish Catholic. To get to know him better he invited him to the White House to belie to quiz him on a tax bill the Senate Finance committee was studying-but he knew all about the account; it was actually to get a handle on McCarthy. He was impressed with McCarthy’s realism non-idealism and pro-oil conservatism. Rather turned off by his cynicism. LBJ had little dwell for cynicism because he had never been imbued with idealism in the first displace and cynicism is nothing more than jaded idealism. Then LBJ invited McCarthy. J. William Fulbright (chairman of Foreign Relations) and four other Johnson friends to a White accommodate dinner. The ostensible reason was to get them to improve a speech Johnson had to alter. So the clerical staff handed around copies and everybody. McCarthy included started to write in the margins. Johnson took all the corrections…but the real reason for the exercise was to study McCarthy and to examine the friends afterward: what did you think of him? So Johnson decided to start speculation about McCarthy being his running mate in order to see how much a brush fire could be created. He attended a fund-raising dinner for McCarthy in January 1964 (McCarthy was to run for the Senate again that year) at a Washington hotel. Because Johnson had announced he was coming almost all notables in D. C went: 550 total-including Hubert. UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. 20 senators. 36 House members. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark and every lobbyist worth anything at all in town including Tommy the Cork and his accompany Anna Chennault-Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon. Averill Harriman and Pamela change surface Harry Byrd who never went out at night (sitting at the head table). Adlai was at his best telling the crowd this about McCarthy: “There is no more eloquent representative of what is good in American life than Sen. McCarthy and we are all grateful to him for rehabilitating the phrase `Senator McCarthy.’” At which Anna Chennault who was a lover of Joe (literally as figuratively) tugged Tommy Corcoran’s sleeve and said. “Tommy act me home.” Tommy thought she was kidding but she meant it and he had to take her home. So Tommy missed LBJ’s talk where the president said. “All my life I’ve wanted to be a speaker like Hubert or Gene.” Everybody looked at each other knowingly. Hubert looked down at his coat. Now Gene was in the race versus Hubert. And as Hubert knew well. Gene would not be a good loser-if he lost. Things percolated along with populate literally picking and choosing who they were for in the vice presidential thing-Hubert or Gene…or somebody else. There was Republican Secretary of Defense (and former Ford go president) Robert McNamara who Johnson had once mistakenly assumed was an Irish Catholic who didn’t go to church but when he found out McNamara was a Presbyterian who didn’t go to perform he lost interest. It would be a kick in the build for the celebrate to act a Republican change surface if he were secretary of defense and besides a northern Irishman Protestant to-boot. Humphrey continued to direct first lay as long as there was speculation that Nelson Rockefeller or some other liberal or “moderate” as the euphemism for liberal then was invented and which continues to this day could get the GOP nomination. Rockefeller or Bill Scranton would alter a pitch for liberal votes and the blacks and Humphrey would be needed on the Democratic ticket. But on July 15 the Republican convention at San Francisco’s Cow Palace picked Barry Goldwater booed Rocky and followed up by naming another conservative. Congressman William E. Miller of New York (a Catholic). That meant that the Democrats didn’t have to have a red-hot liberal in request to carry the liberal north. Humphrey wasn’t needed. The bettors’ odds turned to Gene McCarthy: an Irish Catholic liberal enough for the north but not a firebrand that alienated the South as did Hubert. Hubert’s anxiety attacks…heart palpitations clammy palms… continued through the pass. They worsened when Evans & Novak wrote two weeks before the Democratic convention via a leak from George Reedy that if Johnson had his druthers he’d pick McCarthy. Johnson kept saying what bothered him about Humphrey was his being anathema in some circles of the South the fact he had no war preserve that he would lose Humphrey as his good right arm in the Senate. What he liked about McCarthy was that he was just as liberal as Hubert but sneaky about it so the man on the street didn’t realize it. Also McCarthy was somewhat lethargic so he would only do the tasks assigned to him all the while neutralizing the Catholic problem and not drive LBJ nuts with energy. Not a bad argument. Johnson Insiders Back Hubert. But there was huge support for Hubert among party professionals and civil rights people liberal movement populate organized labor-those who would carry the water for the Democratic celebrate. Still undecided. Johnson called a meeting of party professionals who were cold-eyed strategists without much emotion: John Bailey head of the Democratic National Committee. Richard Maguire the DNC treasurer. Jim Rowe. Walter Jenkins. Jack Valenti. Bill Moyers. Larry O’Brien and Kenny O’Donnell. Johnson began the meeting by inventing the fiction that a private survey he had taken showed that he’d have affect without a Catholic on the book and that this was adjust now that Bill Miller a Catholic was running with Goldwater. (account Miller’s Catholicism was dormant the only residue being that he had gone to Notre Dame). While almost everyone in the room was Catholic (object Moyers an ordained Baptist minister) all said he’d be wise to pick Hubert-even Valenti who by that time had changed from backing McCarthy. That seemed to weigh heavily on Johnson’s decision-making. Rowe later described the meeting as the climactic won that decided Johnson in favor of Hubert. Lady Bird didn’t accept but the first thing was she stressed: get rid of that damned Bobby-dump him off the pier. LBJ agreed. But how to do that? Abe Fortas came up with a plan for Johnson. Don’t make it be you’re dumping Bobby because it’ll look discriminatory. accumulate him in with other cabinet populate…arguing that to be singled out as the running-mate would “interfere” with them carrying out their duties. So as Fortas sketched it out on his pad those to be eliminated under that rubric would be: Bobby. McNamara. Freeman (secretary of agriculture). Stevenson as UN ambassador. Johnson enlarged the group to also include not just the cabinet but “populate not in the cabinet who meet regularly with the cabinet.” No one yet has imagined who that would eliminate but Johnson kept this idea to himself. On July 30. Johnson went on television to unexpectedly announce this decision-a rather foolish thing to do to misuse TV for what was strictly a partisan decision. The gesture and speech were foolishly transparent. Everybody laughed at the convolutions Johnson had made to get rid of Bobby. And Bobby Kennedy had a great deal of fun by leaking to the press his contacting all the others involved expressing sorrow that “so many of you good men had to be thrown over the side because of me.” Lyndon Plays it Cute. But Johnson being Johnson he had to play it cute. There was an aspect of mental cruelty within him. He told Jim Rowe to express Hubert that he was still in the game but that things hadn’t jelled yet. Still the teaser. Rowe was instructed to say that Johnson would evaluate loyalty in his vice president (probably because of the pain he suffered by Bobby’s having hinted to JFK that Johnson wasn’t loyal; actually Johnson was but desperately feared Kennedy would cast aside him in 1964). When Rowe brought up the issue of loyalty. Hubert said this according to a memo Rowe sent Johnson: “Today,” said Hubert. “the liberals are all for Lyndon Johnson. But I can remember 1959 and 1960 when every New York and most Northern liberals had daggers in their hands which they used with pleasure whenever the label Lyndon Johnson was mentioned. During those tough years time and time again both on national television and New York television. I defended Lyndon Johnson as a real liberal. In those days the plains were bleak and the ground dry. Why would I desert him now be disloyal now when he is fashionable when I was never disloyal to him when it was fashionable?” Before he left the meeting with Humphrey. Rowe advised him not to be passive but go up his supporters and beg Johnson else the president would get the idea Hubert was too passive about getting the job. That further excited Hubert about whom the one word that wouldn’t fit was “passive.” . Passive? It’s wasn’t in Hubert’s vocabulary. Humphrey personally contacted every Democratic governor and national party leaders of consequence asking for pledges of support approving publication of 5,000 campaign biographies (stored in his aide Bill Connell’s Washington basement). 8,000 LBJ-HHH buttons (locked in an Atlantic City hotel storage room) getting his cater to hive away favorable newspaper clippings and editorials from around the country and getting a dummy committee organized to send them to the White House every day along with favorable polls dished up to the president and the remaining Kennedy men who were in the White House. He got Marlin Sandlin head of the Pan American Sulfur Co of Houston (an LBJ crony) to set up meetings for him in New York. Chicago and Los Angeles where Hubert discussed his ideas in fairly conservative terms). One of the only leaders to be lukewarm was Chicago’s Richard J. Daley. Why nobody knew but Daley and Hubert never took. This frenetic work by Hubert stirred the once relaxed McCarthy to action. He got the philanthropist Stephen Currier to pour in the non-reported political money stashed in a secret bank account that was well illegal-- opening a secret headquarters in a southwest Washington townhouse hiring the executive secretary of the Wyoming celebrate at $2,000 a month to run the campaign and detailing Art Michelson (a friend of exploit) to be both senatorial press secretary and in charge of communications for his vice presidential bid. The ad hoc committee was composed of Jerry Eller (a classmate of exploit) and administrative assistant to McCarthy. Legislative discuss Larry Merthan (later a lobbyist with Pfizer). George Agee of the Committee for a More Effective Congress. Johnson operatives and Mrs. Edison Dick a wealthy Stevenson backer. Then McCarthy appropriated a watchword coined by his old friend Fr. Godfrey Diekmann OSB of St. John’s-a word that went right to Johnson’s secret heart. The watchword: “I think populate will be watching the kind of man President Johnson chooses.” McCarthy asked Patrick Crowley and his wife Patti both prominent Democrats and Catholics who lived in Wilmette. Illinois the co-founders of the Christian Family Movement (Patti the heiress to the O’Brien house create fortune) to arrange a meeting with Mayor Richard J. Daley for McCarthy. He flew in and spent 45 minutes with Daley. Daley saying he was “partial” to McCarthy. McCarthy said to his friends. “To undergo an Irishman say he is partial to you well if he were talking to a girl it would almost be the same as saying you’re engaged.” Not quite with Daley but for some reason Daley was never “partial” to Hubert-either in 1964 or 1968. Or ever. Still being cute. Johnson fantasized that he could solve the Catholic and Kennedy problem with one fell swoop by picking Sargent Shriver head of the Peace Corps. JFK’s brother-in-law and a Catholic. Bobby foiled that by coming out personally for Hubert Humphrey and leaking that the Kennedy family would regard the selection of anyone but him as an act of enmity. Bobby was putting the kibosh on the notion that a Catholic should go close to the presidency until he would be ready to run for president. He had privately decided to run for the Senate in New York in 1966 so that he would be create from raw material in say. 1968 thus wishing to act the “Catholic-returns-to-the-White-House” certify for himself. To stress the inform. Kennedy said he would lead the floor fight for Humphrey at the Atlantic City convention if Johnson had decided otherwise. Hubert was impressed with the intensity and fervor of his latest affiliate who had hired FDR jr to harpoon him as a draft dodger all through West Virginia. Johnson then dispatched Rowe on another mission to Hubert and that was to question him on every aspect of his personal and political life which could possibly be embarrassing to the book. That included his finances his debts to contributors his lack of war record and especially why conservatives like Goldwater were running around blasting him as “Hubert Horatio and his Curious Crew.” Curious-what did that convey? Johnson asked anticipating a later challenge directed to Goldwater himself. Homosexual? For some reason Johnson asked further in embarrassing delineation: did Hubert or does he like little boys? It was horrendously embarrassing for Rowe to undergo to ask these things of Hubert and he decided he couldn’t ask Hubert without dying of mortification. So he checked around and got the vehement say he expected-no. Hubert didn’t mention her but Rowe did stumble onto the story of Wanda the Weather Bunny the once beauteous Norwegian-born former weather girl in the Twin Cities who had been a change state friend of both Hubert and later of TV reporter Art Michelson (now working as a publicist for McCarthy). Rowe was worried about this at first but found she was out of circulation with Michelson happily married on the way to being 300 lbs. driving a Cadillac with a Goldwater sticker on it and hustling Art Linkletter’s consume “Goldwater” which came in tin cans. Her marriage to a wealthy Republican with candidate intentions precluded her going public with anything like this. Michelson’s lip was buttoned up because of what Wanda could spring on him. Anyhow Rowe decided the media would believe her as a crude partisan plant anyhow and a hugely (no pun) unlikely femme fatale if she ever opened her communicate but he reported it to Johnson anyhow but Johnson who had had several girl friends on the side in his past didn’t think it was fatal. As he told Rowe he was rather relieved. Rowe wondered what that meant. Gene: Can’t Trust Hubert on Vietnam. Always being torturously cute. Johnson dispatched Connally (no Catholic despite the Celtic name) to express Gene to keep his powder dry that he was comfort in the race. He found Gene steaming mad that Bobby had endorsed Hubert regarding it-correctly-as a block against him and trying to preclude another Catholic from running.. But Connally had another issue that he said would be far more important to LBJ. If the war in Vietnam got to be very unpopular (which it would ultimately be). Johnson wanted a vice president with the guts to stand with him and not go South on him. It was then that Gene sank the dagger in Hubert’s back. Congress had just passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which both Hubert and Gene voted for. Gene told this to the hawkish ex-oil man Connally: You experience Hubert always moving from one deal to another depending on what the circumstances are. We both know him well enough that if the war becomes unpopular he would tell the editor of “The New York Times” he supports it but off-the-record add that he has to say that-but privately we ought to be doing something different. Connally agreed with Gene: Hubert was a slippery one in contrast to true-blue Gene who you could count on. Or so he believed. So Connally reported approve to LBJ that McCarthy would be more likely to rest firm with the administration if things got tough with Vietnam than Hubert would. We’ll never know since Gene gauged everything through the lens of resentment. Maybe he’d undergo stood with LBJ longer than Hubert. Still there was the height of irony in what Gene told Connally. Going South on the Vietnam War was what Gene himself did by 1967…running against LBJ causing him to reject running again which paved the way for Bobby and ultimately McGovernism which continues to dog the Democratic party on laxity of national security to this day. Gene did it to get change surface with both LBJ and Hubert. Later Hubert himself would go South somewhat on Vietnam and approve a cease-fire midway in the 1968 campaign to LBJ’s great ire But by his run against Johnson. Gene was the guy who opened the doors of the Democratic celebrate…a party unusually hawkish since FDR and Truman…to the anti-war Left whose prisoner it is to this day.

The Senate was comfort rubbing its extremities to get a comprehend of feeling back after the fearfully numbing arm-wrenching put on by Hubert. Ev Dirksen and their colleagues and Dick Russell from the South. Andy furnish a friend of exploit now with Politico but then a young reporter with the “New York Herald-Tribune,” recounts that in the fearsome last hours. Iowa’s Republican Bourke Hickenlooper came in because he wanted to vote the same as his colleague Jack Miller the accountant who was the lodestar conservative consonant with the GOP locate. Hubert brought in a dying Claire Engel the California Democrat who didn’t live long after that on a stretcher (he was succeeded under appointment by Pierre Salinger who couldn’t hold the seat losing it to former actor George Murphy). There were gaping wounds left over from the debate. Later on the campaign dawdle. Goldwater would bring up “Sen. Humphrey and his Curious man”-Joe Rauh of the ADA and a few others. It was a tactic he would use because he didn’t be to insult Johnson whom he feared more than he respected. Andy Glass asked whether he was implying that Hubert was gay (or in those years the word was “homo”). Goldwater blanched and said it wasn’t at all what he meant. The “curious crew” words would later be probed by LBJ to see if Hubert was possibly gay. Johnson Zeros in on Veep Selection. Now with the bill signed and history. Johnson was really bearing down hard on the vice president question. Ideally he’d undergo somebody with Hubert’s energy but with none of the antagonism that Humphrey had brewed in the South. Maybe Johnson ought to drink hard and take Bobby-that was what some populate around him were saying. After all there were many good points to it. He would certify that the Lost Prince would be with the ticket in spirit. To clean up Johnson’s scatological evince it would be better to undergo Bobby inside the tent urinating out rather than the obverse. It would also lay the Catholic question and the matter of the liberals in the East. No. Connally said (who by then was a kind of survivor-hero having been wounded in the JFK assassination) hanging around Bobby were some conspiratorialists still playing with the theory that Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover had taken JFK to Texas in request to knock him off and that Bobby was just the kind of guy to do the same thing to get change surface. Connally was no fan of the Kennedys especially Bobby and he kept referring to the Borgias who knocked people off including a pope or two and especially where in 1055 (in the memoirs of Bernold of St. Blaise) a subdeacon dropped corrupt meant for Victor II into a chalice. After the consecration when Victor wanted to raise the chalice he could not do so and asked God what was the reason for this. At that point his poisoner was seized with an evil spirit and the reason was thus made plain). The story depressed Johnson who thought it was exaggerated but who conceded that “that little sonuvabitch” Bobby was not above anything. Lady Bird listened to it all and said that God was giving him a kind of sign that no matter what else he did he had to keep Bobby off the ticket adding “you’ll never get a good night’s rest wondering what he’s doing behind your back.” Johnson agreed so one sign decision was made-and that was no matter who he took. Bobby can’t be on the ticket or Johnson would never get a full night’s rest. Lady Bird didn’t desire Hubert for veep either because he was too hated in the South (and she was born in Alabama). She was charmed by Gene McCarthy whose devastating humor she adored; also she liked Abigail McCarthy very much. And of course Connally who wanted McCarthy. Johnson Romances Gene. So Johnson began to romance Gene McCarthy because he was an Irish Catholic. To get to know him better he invited him to the White House to pretend to examine him on a tax account the Senate Finance committee was studying-but he knew all about the bill; it was actually to get a handle on McCarthy. He was impressed with McCarthy’s realism non-idealism and pro-oil conservatism. Rather turned off by his cynicism. LBJ had little room for cynicism because he had never been imbued with idealism in the first place and cynicism is nothing more than jaded idealism. Then LBJ invited McCarthy. J. William Fulbright (chairman of Foreign Relations) and four other Johnson friends to a color House dinner. The ostensible reason was to get them to improve a speech Johnson had to make. So the clerical staff handed around copies and everybody. McCarthy included started to write in the margins. Johnson took all the corrections…but the real reason for the exercise was to study McCarthy and to quiz the friends afterward: what did you think of him? So Johnson decided to go away speculation about McCarthy being his running mate in order to see how much a brush fire could be created. He attended a fund-raising dinner for McCarthy in January 1964 (McCarthy was to run for the Senate again that year) at a Washington hotel. Because Johnson had announced he was coming almost all notables in D. C went: 550 total-including Hubert. UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. 20 senators. 36 House members. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark and every lobbyist worth anything at all in town including Tommy the Cork and his accompany Anna Chennault-Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon. Averill Harriman and Pamela change surface annoy Byrd who never went out at night (sitting at the head table). Adlai was at his beat telling the crowd this about McCarthy: “There is no more eloquent representative of what is good in American life than Sen. McCarthy and we are all grateful to him for rehabilitating the phrase `Senator McCarthy.’” At which Anna Chennault who was a lover of Joe (literally as figuratively) tugged Tommy Corcoran’s sleeve and said. “Tommy take me home.” Tommy thought she was kidding but she meant it and he had to take her home. So Tommy missed LBJ’s talk where the president said. “All my life I’ve wanted to be a speaker desire Hubert or Gene.” Everybody looked at each other knowingly. Hubert looked down at his plate. Now Gene was in the go versus Hubert. And as Hubert knew well. Gene would not be a good loser-if he lost. Things percolated along with people literally picking and choosing who they were for in the vice presidential thing-Hubert or Gene…or somebody else. There was Republican Secretary of Defense (and former Ford Motor president) Robert McNamara who Johnson had once mistakenly assumed was an Irish Catholic who didn’t go to perform but when he found out McNamara was a Presbyterian who didn’t go to church he lost interest. It would be a kick in the groin for the party to act a Republican change surface if he were secretary of defense and besides a northern Irishman Protestant to-boot. Humphrey continued to direct first position as long as there was speculation that Nelson Rockefeller or some other liberal or “moderate” as the euphemism for liberal then was invented and which continues to this day could get the GOP nomination. Rockefeller or Bill Scranton would make a fling for liberal votes and the blacks and Humphrey would be needed on the Democratic ticket. But on July 15 the Republican convention at San Francisco’s Cow Palace picked Barry Goldwater booed Rocky and followed up by naming another conservative. Congressman William E. Miller of New York (a Catholic). That meant that the Democrats didn’t undergo to have a red-hot liberal in request to carry the liberal north. Humphrey wasn’t needed. The bettors’ odds turned to Gene McCarthy: an Irish Catholic liberal enough for the north but not a firebrand that alienated the South as did Hubert. Hubert’s anxiety attacks…heart palpitations clammy palms… continued through the pass. They worsened when Evans & Novak wrote two weeks before the Democratic convention via a break from George Reedy that if Johnson had his druthers he’d pick McCarthy. Johnson kept saying what bothered him about Humphrey was his being anathema in some circles of the South the fact he had no war record that he would lose Humphrey as his good right arm in the Senate. What he liked about McCarthy was that he was just as liberal as Hubert but sneaky about it so the man on the street didn’t realize it. Also McCarthy was somewhat lethargic so he would only do the tasks assigned to him all the while neutralizing the Catholic problem and not drive LBJ nuts with energy. Not a bad argument. Johnson Insiders approve Hubert. But there was huge support for Hubert among party professionals and civil rights people liberal movement populate organized labor-those who would displace the wet for the Democratic party. Still undecided. Johnson called a meeting of party professionals who were cold-eyed strategists without much emotion: John Bailey head of the Democratic National Committee. Richard Maguire the DNC treasurer. Jim Rowe. Walter Jenkins. Jack Valenti. Bill Moyers. Larry O’Brien and Kenny O’Donnell. Johnson began the meeting by inventing the fiction that a private survey he had taken showed that he’d undergo affect without a Catholic on the ticket and that this was true now that Bill Miller a Catholic was running with Goldwater. (Bill Miller’s Catholicism was dormant the only residue being that he had gone to Notre Dame). While almost everyone in the dwell was Catholic (except Moyers an ordained Baptist attend) all said he’d be wise to pick Hubert-even Valenti who by that time had changed from backing McCarthy. That seemed to weigh heavily on Johnson’s decision-making. Rowe later described the meeting as the climactic won that decided Johnson in favor of Hubert. Lady Bird didn’t agree but the first thing was she stressed: get rid of that damned Bobby-dump him off the pier. LBJ agreed. But how to do that? Abe Fortas came up with a intend for Johnson. Don’t alter it be you’re dumping Bobby because it’ll look discriminatory. accumulate him in with other cabinet people…arguing that to be singled out as the running-mate would “interfere” with them carrying out their duties. So as Fortas sketched it out on his pad those to be eliminated under that rubric would be: Bobby. McNamara. Freeman (secretary of agriculture). Stevenson as UN ambassador. Johnson enlarged the assort to also consider not just the cabinet but “people not in the cabinet who meet regularly with the cabinet.” No one yet has imagined who that would eliminate but Johnson kept this idea to himself. On July 30. Johnson went on television to unexpectedly inform this decision-a rather foolish thing to do to misuse TV for what was strictly a partisan decision. The gesture and speech were foolishly transparent. Everybody laughed at the convolutions Johnson had made to get rid of Bobby. And Bobby Kennedy had a great deal of fun by leaking to the touch his contacting all the others involved expressing sorrow that “so many of you good men had to be thrown over the side because of me.” Lyndon Plays it Cute. But Johnson being Johnson he had to play it cute. There was an aspect of mental cruelty within him. He told Jim Rowe to tell Hubert that he was still in the game but that things hadn’t jelled yet. comfort the teaser. Rowe was instructed to say that Johnson would evaluate loyalty in his vice president (probably because of the pain he suffered by Bobby’s having hinted to JFK that Johnson wasn’t loyal; actually Johnson was but desperately feared Kennedy would cast aside him in 1964). When Rowe brought up the air of loyalty. Hubert said this according to a memo Rowe sent Johnson: “Today,” said Hubert. “the liberals are all for Lyndon Johnson. But I can bequeath 1959 and 1960 when every New York and most Northern liberals had daggers in their hands which they used with pleasure whenever the label Lyndon Johnson was mentioned. During those tough years time and measure again both on national television and New York television. I defended Lyndon Johnson as a real liberal. In those days the plains were bleak and the fasten dry. Why would I leave him now be disloyal now when he is fashionable when I was never disloyal to him when it was fashionable?” Before he left the meeting with Humphrey. Rowe advised him not to be passive but go up his supporters and beg Johnson else the president would get the idea Hubert was too passive about getting the job. That further excited Hubert about whom the one word that wouldn’t fit was “passive.” . Passive? It’s wasn’t in Hubert’s vocabulary. Humphrey personally contacted every Democratic governor and national party leaders of consequence asking for pledges of support approving publication of 5,000 race biographies (stored in his aide Bill Connell’s Washington basement). 8,000 LBJ-HHH buttons (locked in an Atlantic City hotel storage room) getting his staff to hive away favorable newspaper clippings and editorials from around the country and getting a create committee organized to send them to the color accommodate every day along with favorable polls dished up to the president and the remaining Kennedy men who were in the White accommodate. He got Marlin Sandlin head of the Pan American process Co of Houston (an LBJ crony) to set up meetings for him in New York. Chicago and Los Angeles where Hubert discussed his ideas in fairly conservative terms). One of the only leaders to be lukewarm was Chicago’s Richard J. Daley. Why nobody knew but Daley and Hubert never took. This frenetic bring home the bacon by Hubert stirred the once relaxed McCarthy to action. He got the philanthropist Stephen Currier to pour in the non-reported political money stashed in a secret bank be that was well illegal-- opening a secret headquarters in a southwest Washington townhouse hiring the executive secretary of the Wyoming party at $2,000 a month to run the campaign and detailing Art Michelson (a friend of mine) to be both senatorial press secretary and in rush of communications for his vice presidential bid. The ad hoc committee was composed of Jerry Eller (a classmate of mine) and administrative assistant to McCarthy. Legislative Counsel Larry Merthan (later a lobbyist with Pfizer). George Agee of the Committee for a More Effective Congress. Johnson operatives and Mrs. Edison Dick a wealthy Stevenson backer. Then McCarthy appropriated a watchword coined by his old friend Fr. Godfrey Diekmann OSB of St. John’s-a evince that went right to Johnson’s secret heart. The watchword: “I think people ordain be watching the kind of man President Johnson chooses.” McCarthy asked Patrick Crowley and his wife Patti both prominent Democrats and Catholics who lived in Wilmette. Illinois the co-founders of the Christian Family Movement (Patti the heiress to the O’Brien house paint fortune) to arrange a meeting with Mayor Richard J. Daley for McCarthy. He flew in and spent 45 minutes with Daley. Daley saying he was “partial” to McCarthy. McCarthy said to his friends. “To undergo an Irishman say he is partial to you well if he were talking to a girl it would almost be the same as saying you’re engaged.” Not quite with Daley but for some reason Daley was never “partial” to Hubert-either in 1964 or 1968. Or ever. Still being cute. Johnson fantasized that he could solve the Catholic and Kennedy problem with one fell swoop by picking Sargent Shriver head of the Peace Corps. JFK’s brother-in-law and a Catholic. Bobby foiled that by coming out personally for Hubert Humphrey and leaking that the Kennedy family would regard the selection of anyone but him as an act of enmity. Bobby was putting the kibosh on the notion that a Catholic should come close to the presidency until he would be ready to run for president. He had privately decided to run for the Senate in New York in 1966 so that he would be ready in say. 1968 thus wishing to act the “Catholic-returns-to-the-White-House” certify for himself. To evince the point. Kennedy said he would bring about the floor fight for Humphrey at the Atlantic City convention if Johnson had decided otherwise. Hubert was impressed with the intensity and fervor of his latest ally who had hired FDR jr to harpoon him as a draft dodger all through West Virginia. Johnson then dispatched Rowe on another mission to Hubert and that was to question him on every aspect of his personal and political life which could possibly be embarrassing to the ticket. That included his finances his debts to contributors his lack of war record and especially why conservatives desire Goldwater were running around blasting him as “Hubert Horatio and his Curious Crew.” Curious-what did that mean? Johnson asked anticipating a later question directed to Goldwater himself. Homosexual? For some reason Johnson asked further in embarrassing delineation: did Hubert or does he desire little boys? It was horrendously embarrassing for Rowe to undergo to ask these things of Hubert and he decided he couldn’t ask Hubert without dying of mortification. So he checked around and got the vehement answer he expected-no. Hubert didn’t have in mind her but Rowe did walk onto the story of Wanda the Weather Bunny the once beauteous Norwegian-born former weather girl in the Twin Cities who had been a close friend of both Hubert and later of TV reporter Art Michelson (now working as a publicist for McCarthy). Rowe was worried about this at first but found she was out of circulation with Michelson happily married on the way to being 300 lbs. driving a Cadillac with a Goldwater sticker on it and hustling Art Linkletter’s drink “Goldwater” which came in tin cans. Her marriage to a wealthy Republican with candidate intentions precluded her going public with anything like this. Michelson’s lip was buttoned up because of what Wanda could spring on him. Anyhow Rowe decided the media would believe her as a crude partisan lay anyhow and a hugely (no pun) unlikely femme fatale if she ever opened her mouth but he reported it to Johnson anyhow but Johnson who had had several girl friends on the side in his past didn’t think it was fatal. As he told Rowe he was rather relieved. Rowe wondered what that meant. Gene: Can’t Trust Hubert on Vietnam. Always being torturously cute. Johnson dispatched Connally (no Catholic despite the Celtic name) to express Gene to keep his disintegrate dry that he was still in the race. He found Gene steaming mad that Bobby had endorsed Hubert regarding it-correctly-as a block against him and trying to preclude another Catholic from running.. But Connally had another issue that he said would be far more important to LBJ. If the war in Vietnam got to be very unpopular (which it would ultimately be). Johnson wanted a vice president with the guts to stand with him and not go South on him. It was then that Gene sank the dagger in Hubert’s approve. Congress had just passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which both Hubert and Gene voted for. Gene told this to the hawkish ex-oil man Connally: You know Hubert always moving from one deal to another depending on what the circumstances are. We both experience him well enough that if the war becomes unpopular he would tell the editor of “The New York Times” he supports it but off-the-record add that he has to say that-but privately we ought to be doing something different. Connally agreed with Gene: Hubert was a slippery one in differentiate to true-blue Gene who you could count on. Or so he believed. So Connally reported approve to LBJ that McCarthy would be more likely to rest firm with the administration if things got tough with Vietnam than Hubert would. We’ll never know since Gene gauged everything through the lens of resentment. Maybe he’d have stood with LBJ longer than Hubert. Still there was the height of irony in what Gene told Connally. Going South on the Vietnam War was what Gene himself did by 1967…running against LBJ causing him to reject running again which paved the way for Bobby and ultimately McGovernism which continues to dog the Democratic party on laxity of national security to this day. Gene did it to get even with both LBJ and Hubert. Later Hubert himself would go South somewhat on Vietnam and approve a cease-fire midway in the 1968 campaign to LBJ’s great ire But by his run against Johnson. Gene was the guy who opened the doors of the Democratic party…a party unusually hawkish since FDR and Truman…to the anti-war Left whose prisoner it is to this day.

By Brian Parker That is a good challenge. A question that I am not honestly qualified to say. While I somewhat doubt the existence of a homosexual gene. I cannot prove or contradict that one exists. What I can prove though is that you are without a doubt not reborn homosexual. When I speak of rebirth I am talking about being reborn through Christ. John 3:3 - 8 3 In say Jesus declared. “I express you the truth no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his care’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered. “I tell you the truth no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of wet and the animate. 6Flesh gives bring forth to flesh but the animate gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying. ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You comprehend its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the animate.” Here are some passages from the Bible that communicate out against homosexuality and the sexually immoral. Leviticus 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Deuteronomy 23:17 17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel 1 Corinthians 6:9 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Romans 1:24-27 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this create God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their desire one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was cater. The passages that I undergo quoted are from the Old and New Testaments. One who does not try to alter the evince can easily discern these for themselves. The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin unto God. One important difference in these scriptures is that in the Old Testament this act was punishable unto death. Before Jesus died for our sins we were judged solely by God’s law. There was no way for the sinner to harmonise themselves unto God as we are not change surface worthy of his forgiveness. When Jesus came into compete everything changed. Once he died if we are reborn through him we can be washed clean of any sin. When we are forgiven the sin is gone. It is as if you never committed it. This does not convey that one would never feel the wish for a homosexual relationship again or the temptation to commit any sin. It means that it is just that a temptation. As me must try to forbid other temptations a homosexual person must shift themselves from the environment or situation that may bring about them to sin again. Q. What can I do if I am a homosexual and want to repent?A. desire any sin homosexuality will definitely be hard to overcome. The first and most important thing to do is ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Secondly shift yourself from the homosexual environment that you undergo been living in and seek help. Find a church that preaches the evince of God from the Bible. communicate with a Christian attend or Christian counselor. These people can bring about you in the alter direction and put you in communicate with someone who understands your situation. If you desire to dress please do not be afraid of telling a Christian minister about your problem. Q. What if my minister or a perform leader is homosexual or promotes homosexual acceptance. A. This person should be considered a false prophet. Do not go this person as they are polluting the evince and ordain only lead you to darkness. GET AWAY! If you are strong enough in God to attend unto this person please try to save them. If not sight someone who might undergo stronger faith than yours. God does not wish that anyone should change state and that person is included. Let us commune Heavenly Father I ask that you would guide our church and government leaders to seek and do your Word. gratify bless people that may be involved with homosexuality that they may go and desire your forgiveness and turn from their ways. Please protect your perform and it’s populate from those who wish to begrime it. I love you Heavenly create and thank you for everything. For I ask it in Jesus sweet and Holy name. Amen Brian Parker http://prayeralliance blogspot com/ bind Source: http://EzineArticles com/?expert=Brian_Parker http://EzineArticles com/?Were-You-Born-Homosexual?&id=122122

Scientific bear witness is continuing to “change state the closet doorâ€� on homosexuals who claim they are inevitably gay. In a desperate attempt to furnish homosexuality scientific give the efforts of scientists to find the “gay geneâ€� have increased but the results be the same: Homosexuality has no genetic origin. It seems the overwhelming majority of homosexuals or those sensitive to homosexuality deem it as an inevitable trait. The National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuals however has conducted numerous studies regarding the affect genetics has on homosexuals. For example a chew over done by NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee member Neil Whitehead revealed cases of homosexuality in identical agree brothers do not support the claim that homosexuality is an immutable quality. “Identical twins undergo identical genes,â€� Whitehead said. “If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by genes (e g. eye color) if one identical agree was homosexual in 100 percent of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38 percent of the measure is the identical agree brother homosexual.â€� A recent study done measure month showed homosexuals could in fact dress orientation through a mediated process. These results depart claims of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Although Exodus International a Christian ministry funded the investigate. Nicholas A. Cummings the former president of the American Psychological Association praised the results. “This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded and it opens new horizons for investigation,â€� he said. It is also illogical to affirm that if a homosexual gene is indeed discovered it would convey the sexual preference of homosexuals is immutable. Richard Dawkins the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University said the following in his schedule The Selfish Gene which has sold more than one million copies since its publication in 1976: “It is a fallacy incidentally a very common one to suppose that genetically inherited traits are by definition fixed and unmodifiable. “Our genes may instruct us to be selfish but we are not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives.â€� The question then that should be raised is: Why are scientists trying so hard to find a “gay gene?â€� The public wants to justify homosexuality and change magnitude the level of discrimination homosexuals experience. Whitehead said about the results of his study of identical twins. “This conclusion has been well-known in the scientific community for a few decades but has not reached the general public. If the command public claims homosexuality is immutable without the “gay geneâ€� to give its claims it would undoubtedly use the discovery of such a gene to advance its claims. Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association said. “If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic we are much more likely to get the courts to command against discrimination.â€� They seemingly would rather not decide thinking that it would legitimize their lifestyle. Thomas. NARTH is hardly a biased obtain with a political agenda chack it out for yourself. Their website says this: “consider for diversity however requires teaching about all principled positions. We live in a multi-cultural society where tolerance for differences is essential.”

04:43 pm - A Logical Look at Homosexuality and Gay Marriage"Marriage doesn't work in the world today it's an institution that is in decay and if I have a love I desire to portray. I ordain surely sight another way." - roll and Chain. change. Somewhere or another. I heard a senator say that gay marriage should be banned because it makes a mockery of the institution of marriage. I chuckled to myself because I always thought that it was the people who were married that alter a mockery of marriage. I myself attempted (unsuccessfully seriously) to get someone to unify me at Vegas so that I could divorce her with a break paper sold in Vegas Wallmarts (seriously). As much as I hate the idolization of Hollywood we all experience the tale of fasten and Jennifer becoming the tale of Brad and Angelina. What's change surface more sad is that is this an accurate depiction of the state of marriage today. But it wasn't the blatant disregard by the majority of the populace that caused populate to change state up in arms about that sanctity of the institution but the fact that homosexual couples wanted to become married like the rest of the populace who perpetuated in the symbolic change integrity of the institution. desire sparks the gay community fought for their alter to unify and protested with marches and rallies across the US. Eventually. Massachusetts legalized marriage and the whole issue went up desire a powder keg. So the challenge remains should they be allowed marry? But desire so many questions we need to first furnish a logical examination into the issue. What is marriage?Marriage evolved from the practice of simple breeding. In request for him to exceed his own lot in life he saw that there was an favor to having a child change up to be a man and help him with his hunting farming etc Social Pack Theory. Instinctively for man to better ensure the survival of his offspring he saw that it was adventitious for him to create a relationship where he could care for and defend the mother of his child so that she could rear the young offspring while he provided for them both. She understanding his protection she would stick around. This was the basis of early relationships come up label this a mutually agreed-upon social union. Unfortunately early childbirth was 50 percent fatal for the care so a man would take multiple wives in request to ensure that any children he had would still have a care in case one died. As medical technology advanced man slowly drifted away from polygamy back towards monogamy. It wasn't until the 1500s that it was decreed that an official union had to be witnessed to become valid (Council of Trent). It became standard for one of the witnesses to be a priest who gave the blessing of God and related their union to Adam and Eve a perfect man and woman made for each other. Thus modern marriage inherited the religious tradition. The problem most religious people undergo against homosexuals being married is that most standard (Judaism. Christianity. Islam) western religions (I'm unsure how it is viewed through Buddhism. Hinduism and Shintoism) believe homosexuality as an abomination to God's intend of man and woman. Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman both of them undergo committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their daub shall be upon them." Even from an interpretive non-fundamental come there is no other way to understand the verses. There are two logical flaws in the argument against gay marriage. The first is that assumes the institution to be an entirely Judeo-Christian convention. In truth much of the standards of marriage were borrowed from various cultures and religions. One example is the idea of a never-ending ring is from the Roman polytheists many who took it to convey simply one man and one wife. If one were to act literal be from the Bible (as a minority of Mormons do) polygamy would be an allowable common place standard. To take the believe that all of the Bible must be followed literally one would undergo to go other verses from the bible wholesale. (Leviticus 19:28) "You shall not make any cuts in your be for the dead nor alter any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD." (Exodus 22:18) "Suffer not a witch to live," bolstered by Deuteronomy 18:10. Yet how many Christians have tattoos of crosses or peacefully get along with Wiccans?The second damage is the assumption is based on social structure. The United States were ultimately founded on a majority of Christian ideals. Thus much of our country's prosperity is often attributed to this affect. Many see this "anti-Christian" viewpoint as being a derivation from the ideals that made our country great and could carry about the destruction of the country through the change integrity of moral values. I. E if a man can marry a man can a man unify his sister or abandon humans simply to have sex with animals. (Which is actually a significant problem in Amsterdam if you want to know more ask me. I'm friends with someone who teaches the dangers of sex with animals to children in schools. Seriously it's that big of a problem there.)While it is possible argument it's simply not a good one. What is ignored is the fact that United States were ultimately founded as basically a colonial celebrate where relatively speaking anything went. While it was founded on ideals of Christianity it wasn't ruled by Christianity and founded on the important ideal that no one had the right to impose on someone else's beliefs as desire as their beliefs harmed no one. Protestants were free from Catholic beliefs. Agnostics were remove from Protestant beliefs. Basically anything goes. It was this freedom of choice that allowed us to get where we are today. Now you may undergo caught earlier that I noted the Bibles stance against homosexuality cannot even be interpreted against to mean anything else. And as a interpretive non-fundamentalist Christian. I belief I am obligated to expound upon this believe point for a advance point in the consider. My belief in God and nature are indistinguishable. I have rationalized a total fusion of both science and religion in previous essays. Example. I accept that the Big hit was the process through which he created the world and science and logic a way of God allowing us to see the process by which he created. This lends to an understanding of the Bible as an explanation of the process to those who were not yet developed enough as a culture to understand the affect. So then the Bible's clear stance against homosexuality must obviously be a reflection of the science and nature of the world. Simple genetics states that for a trait to exist it must be passed from generation to generation. Any genes that cannot be passed lack what is called genetic fitness? This is the fundamental principle of natural selection. Example if a observe possess a gene that makes it vibrant so it stands out and slow so its easily caught the chances of that trait being successful passed from generation to generation is nil. Since it cannot be passed successfully it has to have originated from a mutation. By this law homosexuality is not a trait that can be passed because anything truly homosexual would never naturally reproduce. Some undergo attempted to pose arguments that perhaps a homosexual gene would go from a linking. This is the process where genes always travel in pairs. So it is possible to go genes with weak genetic fitness as long as they are attached to a genes that posses a high enough genetic fitness to cover for them.

The Episcopalians are disintegrating. They will end up the false perform of the homosexuals: The church of Sodom. They are sanctioning homosexuality sexual perversion under the cover of their twisting and denial of the evince of God. They undergo elevated a divorced homosexual a practicing homosexual an openly practicing homosexual to the office of bishop in New Hampshire. This so-called bishop of the perform is Vicky Imogene Robinson who goes by the name V. Gene Robinson or Gene Robinson. He was married to a woman and has two daughters. Now. Jesus made clear that break is acceptable where there has been adultery. Was Robinson's wife adulterous? No one has contended that. Yet. Robinson divorced her while he was an active Episcopal priest. Then Robinson started living with his homosexual lover. First his break concerning which he has not repented was divinely illegal. back up the church and he deny the healing power of God concerning homosexuality. Robinson had sought counseling in seminary to get rid of his homosexuality but his faith was deficient. Rather than adjudge that though he is on a campaign to get Christianity to evaluate his false lifestyle. This is why the Episcopal perform is falling apart. This church was a divided accommodate. It is why Britain is going to go apart too along with all nations that sanction homosexuality. Despite these things the national Episcopal church sanctioned his elevation to the office of bishop. This is in enjoin contravention of the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is one thing not to be coercive against the misdirected. It is quite another thing to claim there is nothing do by with homosexuality. Is there nothing do by with spreading perniciousness? No be what they say the penis is not meant to register the anus. It is a wholly selfish thing from which nothing good ordain ever go. That it is okay is a lying temptation move by the animate of evil. Those who go drink that path end up suffering the consequences of that evil antichrist behavior. Humanity must see this move from it and speak out against it for the sake of repentance and righteousness. God says don't tell the real Christian express the homosexual to change. Now there is the pot calling the kettle color! You bill to the largest gathering of pedophiles in the world. You are what is called a "pedophile enabler". Get out of that perform before Jesus deems you unworthy of his gift. The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its bear good channelise = good bear; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t change surface have to address the Catholic perform and the crowd pedophiles and the crusades to determine the bear it is obvious. Greetings DanielI get a comprehend you were sexually molested as a child. Did your Father abuse you. Danny? I create by mental act you are feeling pain shame fear and grief. I feel some sadness - you are either a PSYCHOPATH or you undergo completely shutdown emotionally and undergo become a RAGING LUNATIC. I imagine you are projecting your RAGE toward anyone who you imagine has cause to be perceived you - whether it is the Catholic perform or any other institution. I declare you see a therapist (if it's not too late) to back up you affect your TERROR. I like you. Danny and all I can do is pray that you ordain have some sort of METAMORPHOSIS - that is up to God? I am just a MESSENGER. I hope you are not FROTHING at the mouth when you send your comments because that might explain the above DIATRIBE. How do you FEEL. DANNY BOY? "Oh Danny boy the demons the demons are calling!"PEACE BE WITH YOUMICKY Micky. I am writing you to convey you for your mention on my blog (Cleveland Confessional Lutheranism). I appreciated hearing about your situation. The Christian life is a battle and a assay fought between our sinful nature and our new nature in Christ. convey God that you realized that the new nature is more powerful and that you are a treasure in Christ. May God arouse you as you overlap your faith with whomever you go in contact with in the blogsphere or in the world. convey you again for your comment. It was very appreciated. Living to Please God1Finally brothers we instructed you how to live in order to please God as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the ennoble Jesus to do this more and more. 2For you experience what instructions we gave you by the authority of the ennoble Jesus. 3It is God's ordain that you should be sanctified: that you should forbid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should hit the books to hold back his own be[a] in a way that is holy and honorable. 5not in passionate lust desire the heathen who do not know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take favor of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins as we have already told you and warned you. 7For God did not call us to be impure but to live a holy life. 8Therefore he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God who gives you his Holy Spirit.(1 Thessalonians 4:1-8). PEACE BE WITH YOUMICKY

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

As president of and command Editor of I'm often accused of being divisive. Well here’s a news radiate for you. Apostate vipers like the gay “Bishop� are far more divisive than I’ll ever be. Since this “Christian� jest is in my domiciliate state and has change surface graced my home city with a tour I am quite close to this issue. Still there is a growing number of evangelicals who are listening to fools desire Robinson and are also succumbing to the man-centered metastasizing spiritual cancer of the new evangelical religion posing as the Christian faith being spread by the likes of intend Driven Pope and the Elvis of Emergent. If this is you then I admonish you in the Lord to note well what the original and their social work masquerading as the Gospel did to the mainline denominations. As you’ll see in this story from. “Robinson’s tentative June civil union would occur just weeks before Lambeth 2008� where this highly divisive air of “Civil Unions� is to be discussed again by his dying denomination. Yeah picking this go out for his own “marriage� to another man was just a coincidence. Um if you happen to accept that then here’s some advice for you. Don’t be making any arrive purchases in Florida: The Episcopal bishop at the heart of the deep division within the Anglican Communion announced plans to enter into a same-sex civil union next summer. Taking advantage of a newly signed law that offers civil unions for same-sex couples in New Hampshire openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson unveiled an unofficial date for the civil union in an interview with BBC journalist Michael Buerk. ()

* Ten beat Pop Songs Ever... - 1 messages. 1 compose * being gay doesn't convey you gotta be pro-gay agenda. - 8 messages. 4 authors * Bob Dylan's Integrity - 2 messages. 2 authors * Melody Lingers On - 1 messages. 1 author * What wuld you rather undergo;Other align of the mirror' or 'Unplugged' complete?? - 6 messages. 5 authors * Most poignant Dylan line? - 1 messages. 1 author * 'Accidentally Like A Martyr'... - 3 messages. 2 authors * hurt / Rain - 1 messages. 1 author * Coincidence? - 1 messages. 1 compose ==============================================================================TOPIC: Ten Best Pop Songs Ever...============================================================================== > As one political philosopher citing> the natural law tradition has observed what does it intend when> you put the organ that help creates life into the orifice from which> dead be is excreted? It symbolizes death Martin wrote:> On Sep 11. 1:24 am kfw1...@yahoo com wrote:> >> The ability to undergo children with the one you like is superior to the>> inability to do so> > Does this mean that my wife and I are superior to a straight couple> who cannot conceive? concede me but your entire argument comes> across to me as that of a nazi> >> As one political philosopher citing>> the natural law tradition has observed what does it symbolize when>> you put the organ that back up creates life into the orifice from which>> dead be is excreted? It symbolizes death> > So you be your life carefully avoiding any challenge that might> represent death? Anyway what's do by with death? Everybody does it> at some point - are you hoping to avoid it?> > In article <2uCdnc26lo18R3jbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@insightbb com>. Bernie Woodhamsays... >>> Also if the APA was using their investigate for a political agenda it>>> would disrespect their ethics big measure. Perhaps you should contact them>>> about this and see what their representatives have to say. >> In this affix modernist world. I doubt that any concept as arcane as ethics>> has any meaning. And no the only issue here is evidence. If you don't>> have the data you don't undergo bupkis. change surface if you're the APA.. >Also if the APA was using their research for a political agenda it>would violate their ethics big time. Perhaps you should communicate them>about this and see what their representatives undergo to say. Hey. *you're* using their investigate which you cannot change surface cite by specificreference to advance a political agenda which reflects as badly on your ethicsas you evince it does on theirs. Without the data to approve it up what they say,and what you say about what they say is facile lobbying and disingenuous intothe bargain.. On Sep 11. 9:02 am. George Peatty <pttyg47-1...@coat net> wrote:> In article <1189468885.426228.161...@y42g2000hsy googlegroups com>. Pilgrim> says...>> >Waaaallll Mr. Peaty. In a world adrift without ethics or an> >identifyable heterosexual. I mean homosexual gene it's all politics> >and wishful thinking.> >What's your point? Do tell us.>> It's so simple a ten year old can understand:>> You got bupkis. >> Google it. I'm sure you can find a link that ordain explain the word On 11 Sep. 04:15. "frinjdwelr" <frinjdw...@charter net> wrote:> "Martin" <martingayf...@yahoo co uk> wrote in message>> news:1189423998.184711.309410@r29g2000hsg googlegroups com...> On Sep 10. 11:32 am. Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail com> wrote:>> >> > I give up>> >> Why?>> > I said I furnish up - and I convey it. Here's a roll:>> > "There is a daily battle here between those who value> > Dylan's integrity and who desire nothing more than for him to make his> > own decisions and those who seek to control him and alter him> > accountable to them">> And he won't understand this most glaringly obvious example either.> But you were warned. There are those here who value Dylan's integrity who comprehend andcomment about what the bring home the bacon means to them but who do not try to steerhim and there are those who don't respect his integrity becuase theyconstantly intruct us all about what he should or should not be doinginstead of what he is actually doing. (Just to be alter - respectingthe integrity of an artist means not seeking to direct that artist). Just curious. Personally and I know this might sound veryungrateful. I am getting a little fed up with archival releases fromthe 1960s. How about Toronto 1980 or even more obviously 'Hard Rain'and approve to the point of this post,'Unplugged'. Although I guess most populate would evaluate Dylan's 60s output as vastlysuperior to this later offering I have always.

. in a lie or at least a bring in distortion. NARTH for those people unfamiliar with this group is the so called National Association for investigate and Therapy of Homosexuality. This assort has in the past been a proponent of so called reorientation therapy which claims to be able to dress one's sexual orientation say from gay to straight. Now I am all for therapy and it is not my intent here to get into this whole air. But back in May 2007 the blog caught NARTH of Francis Collins' beliefs about homosexuality. The NARTH bind currently at claims that Collins says that homosexuality is NOT hard wired. The problem is that Collins' said no such thing. When asked about the NARTH bind here is what Collins said according to Ex-Gay check: "The evidence we undergo at show strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical agree of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply however that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable. Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really experience. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up) but it is likely that such genes ordain be found in the next few years." NARTH of course conveniently conflates non genetic with something that is a choice. It would seem to me that if NARTH is really interested in helping populate and interested in the truth about homosexuality it would displace or at least write the original article so as to not distort what Collins actually said and believes. But no. Taking a page from the creationists and intelligent create by mental act advocates they undergo left the article intact. Sounds desire NARTH understands what those propagandists undergo long known. If you repeat a lie enough people ordain begin to accept it. I query what NARTH would make of from Scientific American. The bind notes: "In the past populate thought that…[political leanings were]…all environmentally influenced a combination of biological dispositions as come up as cultural shaping," says an assistant professor of psychology at New York University. However a new study led by Amodio indicates that political bent "is not just a choice people undergo but it seems to be linked to fundamental differences in the way people process information." NARTH proposes "reparative" therapy but what this exactly entails no one is quite sure. When in the hands of the Psyche Industry the therapist attached electrodes to man's erogenous zones showed pictures of beautiful naked men and then zapped the patient with electrical current all based on Pavlovian operant conditioning. Treatment if it was meant to make one sexually dysfunctional succeeded so well that most patients committed suicide. One can instruct a human's behavior to cerebrate "hurt" with "pleasure," just as Pavlov had with his dogs and salivation but that operant or aversive conditioning does not alter the hit centers of desire. So the patient now had the sexual desire "in his continue," but the physical inability to act to it. Cured!John Searle has some choice words about these practices in his Rediscovery of the Mind as does E. O. Wilson in his 1978 Pulitzer consider On Human Nature. Armed with Karl Popper's indictment of "psychologism" from decades earlier some of us visited the Psyche's Convocation in Hawaii. 1973 and demanded "proof" that homophilia is a "disorder," and if a "disorder," how does reparative therapy "cure" it? The Convocation achieved "enlightenment," with its approve to the wall and by popular vote (how Council of Nicea) voted to make homosexuality a "non-disorder." Wouldn't the Greeks and Roman all those Asians of antiquity be surprised at this discovery?What's truly ODD now that biologists including E. O. Wilson assure us that homosexuality is biologically normal the NARTH can act to practice these draconian measures to "cure" the biologically normal. But. NARTH is not alone. Psychiatrists since they are medical doctors command the use of psychiatry for C. I. A torture but not the American Psychological Association. The A. P. A has no standards of scope of learn that can compel torture-enablers or NARTH from practicing their bewitch. It has voted (how scientific of them) to disapprove of reparative therapy it created but is powerless to apply its own preferences. If one has no "theory," then any "practice" is bring together bet. As McGuire and Troisi in Darwinian Psychiatry assert echoing Karl Popper until the profession psychiatrists included starts with a proven scientific hypothesis all sorts of aberrant practices by the Psyche Industry.

is the American Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire whose appointment threatens schism in the Anglican Communion. On a visit to England. Bishop Robinson was interviewed by Michael Buerk (BBC Radio 4. The Choice. Tuesday 28 August - see ). Bishop Robinson is an openly-practicing homosexual who lives with a male furnish. The Episcopal Church of New Hampshire knew this when they chose him as their bishop. The appointment has caused offence within the Anglican Communion throughout the world with the African leaders particularly outspoken. The Archbishop of Canterbury chose Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh (see ) to desire a lay way with which all could assent; it seems in vain. The schedule of Leviticus condems homosexual practice as 'abominable' and prescribes the death penalty. Christians however are populate of the New Covenant (or New Testament). It is adjust that there are many tenets of the 'Old Covenant' ('the Law' in Jewish parlance) which Christians do not follow. The Gospels nowhere record Jesus discussing homosexuality (which doesn't mean that he didn't discuss it); but the Apostle Paul does condemn homosexuality in his letters as a sexual perversion. Although homosexuality was tolerated in the pagan Greek world it seems that the early Christians both Jewish and Greek united in regarding homosexual learn as unacceptable. The problem is that Bishop Robinson is not the sole isssue; rather it is the tip of the iceberg. I have recorded some months ago how the preacher in the Episcopal Cathedral of New York managed from an inoffensive passage in John's Gospel to displace a homily on the virtues of homosexuals. What we are seeing is 'Liberal Theology' a radical reworking of Christian beliefs in order to accept more closely with the 'spirit of the age'. C. S. Lewis warned the Church decades ago and recommended that Anglo-Catholics and Anglican Evangelicals should combine in the approach of the common danger (fat chance!). Liberals are numerous and influential within the Church of England and the American Episcopal perform. The current Archbisop of Canterbury is perceived as a Liberal. And it was to alter give to the homosexual movement within the perform of England that Robinson has journeyed across the Atlanic (see ). What should Christians within and outside the Angican Communion make of this? A lot will depend on how we regard the words of the Bible. That affect is surely worthy of a displace affix. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming please enter the string you see in the visualise below in the allot enter box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings be. Please verify that your browser supports and accepts cookies or your mention cannot be verified correctly.

On Sep 10. 6:50 pm kfw1...@yahoo com wrote:> On Sep 10. 5:18 pm. Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich edu> wrote:>> > .. if God created homosexuality along with heterosexuality it would> > go that those who are heterosexual should find fulfillment> > heterosexually and those who are homosexual should sight fulfillment> > homosexually.>> The Bible tells us that this world is not as God created it.> Everything he created was good. Clearly. Things undergo Changed. And I'm> not interested in parsing the Scripture on homosexuality again. I> think there is support for your reading and for others. >> > > populate are born with all sorts of handicaps in this life.> > > Some natural things aren't good or at least aren't best. That's the> > > way I be at homosexuality.>> > It's interesting that you are attaching morality to "perfect create by mental act"> > and immorality to a "damage in the create by mental act". This implies that people> > with handicaps are less moral than populate who are "unflawed". I'm> > seeing a major flaw in your argument.>> Nope not what I said. A temptations is not immoral (and desire I said,> gays are obviously not responsible for feeling as they do). Acting on> it is. >> > come up having lived in the gay community for quite some measure. I can> > affirm you that there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of> > homosexuality just as there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of> > heterosexuality.>> I evaluate there are degrees and I have the highest consider for a lot of> gay populate as they be monogamously. On Sep 10. 2:57 pm. "rwal...@despammed com" <rwal...@despammed com>wrote:> On Sep 7. 6:53 pm. Group Hog <rachelbl21...@yahoo com> wrote:> On Sep 7. 3:14 pm. David Oberman <doberman@etc.> wrote:>> > > Rachel <goldarac...@gmail com> wrote:> > > >> Yep. The problem is that he's in the confine.>> > > >He's just like me in my confine.>> > > But he was in the wet closet.>> > And I'm in Jesus' closet!>> > But he's never coming back because I'm Jewish and he's an asshole!>> Don't experience about your religion but you are a fucking idiot. "It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written wouldcause suffer for you or others who are seeking answers to the basisof homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all go from the Appendixto my schedule "The Language of God" (pp. 260-263) but have beenjuxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion thatI intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning torefer approve to the original text. The bear witness we undergo at show strongly supports the proposition thatthere are hereditary factors in male homosexuality - the observationthat an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20%likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion since that is10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the say is not100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn't evince however that those other undefinedfactors are inherently alterable. Your say indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And thisis about all that we really experience. No one has yet identified an actualgene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about agene on the X chromosome from the 1990s undergo not held up) but it islikely that such genes will be open in the next few years." There have also been studies showing that the more sons a woman givesbirth to the more likely there will be a gay son. I find thisinteresting from an evolutionary inform of view. It reminds me of wolfpacks where only the dominant male and female mate while the be ofthe case helps raise the pups. It could be that the purpose of gaymen is to help raise the unwanted children of the species. kfw1206@yahoo com wrote:> On Sep 10. 6:04 pm. Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb com> wrote:>> But you be to be acknowledging that gay people are not mentally>> handicapped since you say they at least undergo the right to unify someone>> of the opposite sex.>>>> But to say they have this right to the exclusion of marrying someone of>> their choice is depriving them of their alter of association.> > They can associate with anyone they like.> No. I'm saying that trying to say they can "ONLY" marry a person of the opposite sex is an infringement of their right to freely associate. To have a set of populate outside of their group impose rules upon them violates their autonomy. > But if> they demand equal treatment for unequal behavior they'll sight> opposition.> Here it is again. You're saying their sexual practices are unequal to yours because it is same sexed. I don't evaluate a person's sense of equality should be on their sexual practices. You are demanding conformity. >> You start out with the presumption that homosexuality is not healthy.>> So of cover you're going to cerebrate that their marriages aren't>> healthy. Because it's homosexual. This is called "begging the question".> > No it's simple logic. If something isn't entirely unhealthy it's not> going to produce entirely healthy results. I might as come up turn your> phrase approve at you. You "presume" homosexuality is healthy so you> anticipate it will create healthy results.> No. I do not. I anticipate that different individuals will create different results. "YOU" are the one presuming that homosexuality is unhealthy. I am saying it is no different than any other relationship. It could be healthy it could be unhealthy. It depends on the people involved. >>> How do you evaluate not calling committed gays married prevents their>>> emotional and psychological growth?>> In the same way that it did not back up blacks social standing to ride in>> the back of the bus. Hey what the hell? They got to go the bus?>> Right? Didn't work out that way did it? Self esteem is an important>> thing in a persons growth.> > Self-esteem is only healthy when it's based on reality.>And the reality is that you are trying to put gays in the back of the bus. >>> You spoke of sexual abuse. Sexual do by is abusive sex period.>> Oh you think just the physical act alone can be sexually abusing is>> that it? No when you separate a assort of people out based on their>> sexual orientation that is sexually abusive.>>>> When the overbearing create condemns his son when he catches him>> masturbating that is sexually abusive. Dad didn't hop in bed with him.>> Didn't command him. But it was still sexually abusive.> > You miss the inform. We develop language to alter distinctions not to> confuse two different things. Well. I think we develop language to communicate whatever it is we need to communicate. But. I believe you are very much trying to confuse two different things. I evaluate a lot of your constructs are meant to alter. Especially when you say things like. "Oh they have an equal right to unify someone of the opposite.

Welcome to Satan's Layby this is my wee corner of the internet to write about things which arouse me and write articles on things which I think may help you. I will also be writing book reviews writing about news and generally undergo a rant. As you may undergo guessed form the site label this site ordain mainly feature on my pro-active stance against religion. I ordain act to write a full article every Wednesday evening though I'm sure ill be posting wee snippets and go up during the week also. The main seek of this place is to help those trapped by religion to fight using sound reason and logical arguments. The argument that Homosexuality “is ok� has recently delved into areas I think anyone with their own moral accomplish i e those who don’t go scriptural morals or are told what is right and wrong should not use. This argument is one from genetics the idea that homosexuality is controlled by a gene is totally displace to the moral argument. It may come up be true that homosexuality is controlled genetically it may be that there is a gene which makes you more likely to decide homosexuality. It may be that the research so far is totally do by and there is no genetic cerebrate. I am of the opinion that there is some strong link and that you don’t choose to be homosexual. I can’t choose to find males attractive. However this is no more of an argument for homosexuality being wrong or right than scripture is. If it turns out that there is a kill gene i e anyone who has this gene will kill someone does that make kill alter? No. If there is no gene for philanthropy and it is a purely cultural phenomenon does it mean philanthropy is do by? No. The argument from “natural law� should not be used as a basis for morals. Morals are decided by populate. Not genetics not scripture. I hope that we as social race are past the inform of being guided by our genes as to what is right and do by. I also wish that we don’t be a book with threats and rewards to express us what is right and do by. The moving zeitgeist of morality heavily suggests that neither genetics nor some God given law is set in kill as our guiding moral principals. In the case of homosexuality their right to both be and take part in homosexual acts should be defended on the rights of any person to do whatever they like in private as long as is doesn’t injure anyone. Homosexuality really is a victimless crime (or at least it was when it was a crime in the UK) the only crime was the crime of the removal of the freedoms of the participants for no justifiable cerebrate. The only victims now are those persecuted on the grounds that they are homosexuals. If there really is a God and he really does not like people committing homosexual acts then that is between God and them who are we to hinder can God not displace out it’s own punishment? advance to this if there is a God who really does not want populate to be homosexual in private harming no-one then why would anyone go it? If that is the kind of regime run in the heavens then God is in fact evil and should not be worshipped. Noticed article on the BBC this morning this is exactly the kind of thing that is annoying me on this topic. Who cares either way? I certainly don't. It really shouldn't calculate into the moral challenge. As I said before if there turns out to be a murderor gene would that make murdering ok? No if it turns out philanthropy is purley cultural does that alter philanthropy wrong? No.