Charmaine on MSNBC: Homosexuals Want Married Childless Couples To Split


Be sure to see Charmaine’s debate with Evan Wolfson. Homosexuals want heterosexuals humiliated.

More at Mobile

Babies Required.

See comments at Pam’s House Blend who wants to (Google) bomb Romney and abort babies — but does not want Peter LaBarbera murdered. Thank goodness.


You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Jane says:

    I am SO glad you posted this clip. Your comments were right on the money. The agenda of those who embrace homosexual ‘way of life’ is to force their ideas on the rest of us. I appreciate your very public voice of reason.

  2. They dont want to force their ideas on you. They want to stop you from forcing your ideas on them. Though sometimes the line can be a little blured.

  3. Laurie says:

    Why does it always seem like the interviews you want to hear are much too short and the ones where people are screaming at each other seem to go on forever?

  4. Pat Patterson says:

    I think we can safely “…prompt a conversation…” on capital punishment by bringing back drawing and quartering.

  5. John Wilkinson says:

    Jack Yoest writes, “Homosexuals want heterosexuals humiliated.”

    No, Jack, the purpose of the Washington state initiative is to highlight inconsistency in the state supreme court decision and to encourage reasoned conversations. Count on anyone associated with the FRC to make the most extreme possible argument.

  6. In my experience, the FRC and all those associated with them have extremally low standards of intellectual honesty – and of honesty in general. They do not just bias their reports as should be expected of them, but deliberately omit vital elements, replace facts with speculation, and sometimes tell outright lies. The current annoyance for me is their labeling of the HPV vaccine in texas as ‘manditory’ when an opt-out provision exists, albeit with an over-complicated set of paperwork to work through.

    Twice I have seen the FRC news-emails cite studies, describing them as ‘scientific,’ without mentioning that in both cases the studies were carried out by non-trustworthy sources.

    The first related to abortion and was co-written by two biologisys, both of whome the FRC failed to mention were on the board of directors of a pro-life organisation. The second, more recent, was on abstinance-only education and was produced by a lobbying group which openly stated that one of its objectives was to promote abstinance-only programs. I can find more information if anyone wants, but I will have to search the FRC website archives.

    There are also many small things… assumptions made, details left out, conclusions drawn without supported. Little things individually, but they add up. Just small phrases. Look at the HPV story again, and see the words ‘protect the constitutional rights of parents to make medical decisions affecting their children’s health.’ There is nothing wrong with arguing for that right, but… which ammendment or court decision? I dont know of any ammendment refering to the medical rights of parents.

    As VP of communications, I think Charmaign must be considered responsible for many of these incidents. Perhaps you should run future press releases and statements past me, so I can inform you of any misleading elements :> Email if you want, I will give you IM details :>