Friday, February 20, 2009

Speechless: Silencing Christians; 12-yr-old Pro-Life Speech; CNN Rejects Pro-Life Ad; HR5 Makes Waves; Jonathan Lopez Sues LA City College Over Same-Sex Marriage Speech

Attacks on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, and family are heating up. We live in increasingly troubled times. Are you prepared for what’s to come if you fail to speak up and stand out?

Watch Speechless: Silencing Christians. This new TV special has yet to find a home on-air as station after station refuses to allow it. In today’s atmosphere of media bias and betrayal, if you discover that a station doesn’t want you to hear something, I’d suggest you actively seek it out as it is probably something worth hearing that contains something worthy of awareness. This is long, but not too long. Grab some popcorn, a soda, and your significant other. Cuddle by the computer. Make it a date and stick it out. It is well worth watching if you’d like to be educated about the gay agenda that homosexuals eternally and sarcastically claim does not exist. (For more on the gay agenda as outlined in After the Ball, click here, here, and here).

Watch this 12-year-old, 7th grader speak out on the issue of abortion. She is a superb advocate for life.

And in another case of screaming media bias, CNN has now joined the ranks of TV stations boycotting the amazing Pro-Life ad. Again, if the media doesn’t want you to hear it, you’d better tune in, because it’s probably something important for the regular, Joe-shmoe, American public to hear. What was CNN’s reason for rejection, you ask? Here’s a direct quote: “Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved.” The only thing is, it’s not true. It’s a blatant lie as exposed by CatholicVote. See here:

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics. described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

So, what do we do? Write to CNN President Jonathan Klein at And, of course, watch the ad again! :0)

HR 5 is making waves among supporters of democracy. Watch our non-democratic, love-touting California legislators in action right here! (And don’t forget to hone your ears for the lovely derision with which opponents of HR 5 are treated by member of Equality California (EQCA) – psst, it’s not that hard to catch).

And last, but certainly not least, is the case of Jonathan Lopez who is suing his city college over his stumped 1st Amendment rights to free speech. Reports the LA Times article:

Student Jonathan Lopez says his professor called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to "ask God what your grade is," the suit says.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups.

[hat tip: Kingfisher Column]

Well folks, that’s quite the line-up if you ask me. Religion, speech, democracy, and family; they’re all being attacked with increased fervor. We would be wise to be aware. Is awareness enough, though?



Dr B said...

That ad by doesn't portray Obama as pro-life at all! What a dirty excuse by CNN to censor conservatives!

Beyth-'el [house of God] said...

Fantastic blog!

Here's a brief view shared from my blog at

Role model Pro-family born again worship banning unmarried couples practicing pro-fornication worship as bad examples. Beyth-'el (House of God) is "Safe for the whole family."

We will be glad to have our blog viewers retain insight from your blog by adding your link to our blog and exchange links.

The.Rainbow.Reclaimed said...

This comment is in reference to SR 7, so the sister resolution to HR 5

I just called leno's office to make sure he was the author of sr 7. He is.

I couldn't help asking the staffer: Why does senator Leno think prop 8 violates the equal protection clause?

She mumbled off some answer.

I said: "The prop 8 definition covers everyone regardless of sexual
orientation, race, gender, etc.

Then I asked: How come siblings can't get married, but it's okay for
same gender couples?

She laughed.

I said: Really, why don't we let siblings get married?

She said: Well, I think it's unhealthy.

I asked: Why?
Then I started to explain, that measures could be taken to prevent the
birth of children with birth defects.

Then she went on a rant. And then she hung up.

I plan on telling my own reps this story, and asking them to ask Leno and other Dems why this resolution is even taking up CA legislature time.

If you'd like to ask Senator Leno the same question (or different):