← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 7179 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2003-06-06
2003-06-06 18:21 | User Profile
[url=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200306%5CCUL20030605c.html]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20030605c.html[/url]
'Gay Days' Flyover Seen as Outreach, Not Protest
By Lawrence Morahan CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer June 05, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - A Christian activist said he welcomes the annual "Gay Days" at the Walt Disney World amusement park in central Florida because it gives him an opportunity to show visitors to the event that there is a "way out of homosexuality."
Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network (FPN), is sending planes towing banners to the event reading "Jesus Christ: Hope for Homosexuals.com" despite a court ruling against him.
"It's really frustrating to see the word 'protest' being used in news reports about what we're doing," Glover said.
"We're actually grateful that these people have assembled this weekend because we have an opportunity to share the love and hope that Jesus Christ can offer them in the forgiveness of sins," he said.
In a setback for the FPN, a federal judge Thursday denied a bid by Glover to temporarily overturn a Federal Aviation Administration ban on flying below 3,000 feet within three miles of Disney World.
U.S. District Judge Anne Conway said the Virginia-based FPN did not meet the burden of proof necessary to temporarily overturn the FAA restrictions, which were adopted to prevent possible terrorist attacks.
The FAA ended such flights in March after Disney persuaded congressional leaders to grant them special protection after 9/11. The prohibition covers flying over the Disney parks in Kissimmee, Fla., and Anaheim, Calif., but not over other theme parks.
Glover fought the no-fly zone on the grounds that it violated his First Amendment right to proselytize. The ban is the result of effective lobbying by Disney for "selective prohibition" of flyovers, not security concerns, he charged.
"This isn't about terrorism. They've been trying for decades to get rid of aerial advertisers, and that's what this is about," Glover said.
The courts have consistently said that air space, especially above private enterprises, are free speech zones, Glover said.
Disney World disagreed. Rena Callahan, a spokeswoman for Disney, defended the flying restriction as necessary for security.
"We pursued this FAA restriction for the safety and enjoyment of our guests and those who visit the Walt Disney World Resort, and this is the same level of protection that sporting arenas have across the country," Callahan said.
"This added layer of protection is important, and we're not in favor of any temporary lifting of the restriction because clearly, safety comes first.
"In terms of freedom of speech, there are a lot of ways that one can express his or her thoughts and opinions, but in this situation, the FAA restriction is something we specifically pursued for our guests and casts," she said.
While Disney doesn't sponsor "Gay Days," it makes its facilities available to homosexual advocacy groups.
"We have a strong policy of non-discrimination," Callahan said.
Glover said his group also has plans to fly over Universal Studios, which also is holding "Gay Day" events Saturday, and other unrestricted areas around Disney World.
"If the court will not permit us to fly over the 'Magic Kingdom,' we're going to crisscross the interstate the morning before 'Gay Days' begin," he said.
"We're going to get our message out one way or the other."
The American Family Association Center for Law and Policy represented Glover in U.S. District Court in Orlando.
Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer kicked off the 13th annual "Gay Days" celebration before 700 people at the Orlando Museum of Art on Tuesday. The week-long event is expected to attract about 140,000 people to the Orlando area.
2003-06-06 19:47 | User Profile
The FAA ended such flights in March after Disney persuaded congressional leaders to grant them special protection after 9/11. The prohibition covers flying over the Disney parks in Kissimmee, Fla., and Anaheim, Calif., but not over other theme parks.
Funny how terrorism became such a concern 18 months after the event that supposedly prompted all this concern took place. I'm sure the timing didn't have anything to do with this guy's planned barnstorming.
It's also funny that Disney Corporation, which is so gay-friendly, doesn't put their money where their mouth is and feature ads with queer couples holding hands and dry-humping in the Pirates of the Caribbean line. Wouldn't want to lose that wholesome, family image you've worked so hard to fabricate, eh Eisner? After all, people still have the freedom not to go to the syrupy, overpriced theme park if they disagree with the queer nation philosophy Disney Corp promotes. So until disliking homosexuals is outlawed for real, I guess they've gotta hedge their bets.
2003-06-06 20:58 | User Profile
Gay Days? Oooooo.....
Let's see: Suitcase? Check. K-Y Jelly? Check. Pink sweater? Check. Pleated blue jeans? Check. Pinky ring? Oh, no -- where's my pinky ring??....guess I can't go... :lol: :lol:
2003-06-06 23:34 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][color=green]Nazi Blow-Job Machine[/color][/SIZE] [img]http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bilder/roehm-ernst.jpg[/img]
Back in days of yore, long before kiddy parks like Disney World existed and AIDS was yet to make kinky sex dangerously exciting, gay blades like Ernst Rohm, one of Adolf Hitler's top henchmen, managed to have lots of cheek-spreading fun anyway.
[url=http://www.q.co.za/2001/2002/06/05-pastout.html]More Here On Ernst Rohm[/url]
2003-06-06 23:49 | User Profile
Yeah, those "Lambda Award Winning Authors" like the one that wrote the piece on Rohm (and gay Adolf is mentioned, of course ...) are the people to go to for facts, hard hitting incisive reports, free of the ulterior motives and bias seen in the traditional media. Nope, no agenda here. :dung:
2003-06-06 23:59 | User Profile
**Yeah, those "Lambda Award Winning Authors" like the one that wrote the piece on Rohm (and gay Adolf is mentioned, of course ...) are the people to go to for facts, hard hitting incisive reports, free of the ulterior motives and bias seen in the traditional media. Nope, no agenda here. :dung: **
Well, what do you expect from Tom R., a man who worships that awful, overrated, pseudo-intellectual Jew hack Ayn Rand (Alissa Rosenbaum)?
2003-06-07 00:25 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][color=green]My Apologies For Pointing Out An Unpleasant Fact[/color][/SIZE]
Please accept my apologies for pointing out the unpleasant fact that one of Adolf Hitler's top henchmen was a rabid homosexual fudge-packer. Now, 'tis true that I, in my haste, grabbed rather imprudently at the most convenient and expeditious link about dear old Ernst (Ernestine to his "friends") that I could, one that Google dredged up in a wink. Again, please accept my apologies for that.
But one needn't go to a "Lambda Award Winning Author" (as Roy Batty put it) in order to substantiate the - again - unpleasant fact that Ernst Rohm was indeed a homosexual. This is documented in EVERY history of World War II that you can find, written by leftists, rightists, Jews and non-Jews alike. Hitler himself had this Brown-Shirted gay playboy murdered because of Rohm's em-BARE-ASS-ing shenanigans. And even David Irving - a darling of the pro-white anti-holocaust crowd - doesn't quibble about this. But if some choose not to believe it, who am I to worry?
Kurt: If you would, please quote anything I've said that supports your accusation that I "worship" Ayn Rand. Expect your search to be fruitless, however, but try if you must.
In truth, I merely pointed out that Ayn Rand believed that a white restaurant owner had the moral right to deny service to negroes and gays, if he so desired. Now, are you telling me that you don't agree with that "subversive Jewish" idea?
Tom
2003-06-07 00:49 | User Profile
Over the next four days, about 150 S.A. leaders were rounded up and shot by firing squads. In a radio speech, Goebbels announced that "a clean sweep is being made ... symptoms of moral degeneration that manifest themselves in public life are being cauterized." The following year, Nazi policy took a sharp turn toward a harsher interpretation of Paragraph 175, sending thousands of gay men to concentration camps.
:gun: :rock:
2003-06-07 01:25 | User Profile
** Kurt: If you would, please quote anything I've said that supports your accusation that I "worship" Ayn Rand. Expect your search to be fruitless, however, but try if you must.
In truth, I merely pointed out that Ayn Rand believed that a white restaurant owner had the moral right to deny service to negroes and gays, if he so desired. Now, are you telling me that you don't agree with that "subversive Jewish" idea?
Tom**
Ok, ok. So you don't worship Alissa Rosenbaum. I was just kiddin' with ya. :clown: All I know is [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7948]libertarians[/url] hate the idea of nationalism (bad for business, itz). In a White Nationalist society, a White restaurant owner wouldn't have to worry about serving anyone but Whites, since that's all there would be! No Negroes (or other non-Whites) to cause him grief. And a jew like "Rand" would not exist...she'd be, um, living in Israel or something. :lol:
2003-06-07 01:45 | User Profile
Actually, I was quoting from the notes about the author at the conclusion of the article. While you can find all manner of articles about gay Nazis in the Third Reich, many of the stories appear to stem from the same tired sources. I don't doubt some of them are true, however, we are continually bombarded with with stories that read either of two ways. 1) The vengeful jewish author, spitting bile all over the CRT as he types any lurid detail he can find - or imagine - regarding the bogie man of his tribe. Or we get 2) The homosexual authors, most of whom fire the same accusations and feign distaste, while coming across as if they actually wish they were there with the gay goose-steppers, "worshipping them", being their houseboys, wearing the same neatly pressed outfits, and hustling naked men into the "showers". They seem to revel in these stories.
Maybe we should concentrate on what's going on today. While priests are gracing the airwaves weekly with new accusations of improprieties with altar boys, the numerous incidences of sexual assault by rabbis goes on with barely a mention. Their tribal affiliation gives them immunity, but it probably also has to do with the scatological inclinations of jews as a whole. Their anti-white attitudes aid in this direction as well, that's why Disney is riddled from top to bottom with fruits. There have even been rumblings regarding the top man there cruising the other side of the highway after work. It all adds up.
2003-06-07 01:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 6 2003, 19:39 ** > **In truth, I merely pointed out that Ayn Rand believed that a white restaurant owner had the moral right to deny service to negroes and gays, if he so desired. Now, are you telling me that you don't agree with that "subversive Jewish" idea? **
Why did you chose to cite Ayn Rand for this? Freedom of association is hardly an idea that arose with Alissa Rosenbaum, so I don't see the point in citing her as some kind of authority on the subject or as an original thinker who came up with a novel concept. **
Oh, don't you get it, AY? She invented the very concept of liberty! Where would the world be without her profound and original insights? Sheesh. :P
2003-06-07 01:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Roy Batty@Jun 6 2003, 19:45 ** Actually, I was quoting from the notes about the author at the conclusion of the article. While you can find all manner of articles about gay Nazis in the Third Reich, many of the stories appear to stem from the same tired sources. I don't doubt some of them are true, however, we are continually bombarded with with stories that read either of two ways. 1) The vengeful jewish author, spitting bile all over the CRT as he types any lurid detail he can find - or imagine - regarding the bogie man of his tribe. Or we get 2) The homosexual authors, most of whom fire the same accusations and feign distaste, while coming across as if they actually wish they were there with the gay goose-steppers, "worshipping them", being their houseboys, wearing the same neatly pressed outfits, and hustling naked men into the "showers". They seem to revel in these stories.
Maybe we should concentrate on what's going on today. While priests are gracing the airwaves weekly with new accusations of improprieties with altar boys, the numerous incidences of sexual assault by rabbis goes on with barely a mention. Their tribal affiliation gives them immunity, but it probably also has to do with the scatological inclinations of jews as a whole. Their anti-white attitudes aid in this direction as well, that's why Disney is riddled from top to bottom with fruits. There have even been rumblings regarding the top man there cruising the other side of the highway after work. It all adds up. **
Well said, Roy. :th:
2003-06-07 02:18 | User Profile
Oh, please. Ernst Rohm sucked d**ks, end of story. What Rohm has to do with Disney World is beyond me, though.
As for Franco: maybe I'm out of the loop, but what exactly is queer about pleated pants and pinky rings?
2003-06-07 03:54 | User Profile
This might not have anything to do with Disney per se, but is there any doubt that if the "perp" were a priest instead of a cantor, we'd have Tom Brokaw solmenly leading into yet another sordid 'religious figure sodomizes youth story'? Sure, it makes the local papers ... You can bet the story has been cleaned up a bit. Dat's wut I'm talkin' 'bout.
[url=http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-cantor-arrested,0,7529117.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines]http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...ation-headlines[/url]
Cantor's Brothers Can Testify Against Him By Associated Press
June 5, 2003, 6:44 PM EDT
NORRISTOWN, Pa. -- Two brothers of a prominent New York City cantor accused of sexually assaulting his nephew can testify against him, a judge ruled Wednesday. Prosecutors said the two men are prepared to testify that as children they also were molested by their brother, Howard Nevison, who has led worshippers in prayer and song at New York's Temple Emanu-El since 1978. Nevison, 62, was charged last year with assaulting his nephew during family get-togethers between 1993 and 1998. One of Nevison's brothers, Lawrence, was convicted in 2000 of sexually assaulting the same boy and is serving a prison sentence. Lawrence Nevison and a second brother -- the boy's father, Henry -- both claim they were molested by Howard Nevison when they were young. ** Witnesses normally are barred from discussing a defendant's past crimes, but Judge Paul W. Tressler said their claims were distinctive enough to indicate a "signature of the same perpetrator" and could be heard by jurors. Defense attorneys said the old allegations were maliciously motivated and would prejudice a jury against their client. The boy making the accusations, now 13, may also testify. Temple Emanu-El is New York's largest Reform synagogue. Howard Nevison, who in 1994 became the first cantor to sing at the Vatican, is on paid leave from the temple and is free on bail. **
Copyright é 2003, The Associated Press
HE'S ON PAID LEAVE. ONLY IN 'MERICA.
(thanks for the kudos, Kurt)
2003-06-07 04:04 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][color=green]Why I Cite Ayn Rand - & Other Things[/color][/SIZE]
AntiYuppie said: > "Why did you chose to cite Ayn Rand for this? Freedom of association is hardly an idea that arose with Alissa Rosenbaum, so I don't see the point in citing her as some kind of authority on the subject or as an original thinker who came up with a novel concept."
That's true - freedom of association did not originate with Ayn Rand. However, Ayn Rand is cited here for two reasons:
1: She was the most outspoken and famous proponent of such rights in her day, and still remains so. However, if you can name someone today who is even more well-known, or who articulates the reasons underpinning the morality of why business owners should have the right to deny jobs or service to anyone they wish, based on race, sexual orientation, or whatever, please name him.
2: Unlike some white nationalists, I have no problem with citing anyone, if they have information I consider to be valid or true. In other words, I don't succumb to one of the pitfalls that so many pro-white people do, namely:
A: "I'm Ku Klux Klan, I hate negroes, therefore all negroes are stupid." B: "I'm a skinhead, I hate faggots, therefore all faggots are stupid." C: "I'm a Neo-Nazi, I hate Jews, therefore all Jews are stupid."
Or fill in the negative word of your choice; it doesn't really matter. I merely contend that nothing productive is gained by across-the-board vilification of minorities - Jews included. By way of comparison, the moment some Ku Klux Klan type starts frothing that "all coons are retarded" that's when I know that that particular individual is totally useless to our struggle. After all, denial of reality is something we simply cannot afford - and denying the reality that some negroes are intelligent and that some Jews aren't part of some "Zionist conspiracy" is a reality. Finally, I don't expect you to agree with me, just to understand that I do not make statements or believe the way I do without having lent much consideration to the matter. If you or others wish to condemn every Jew you run across, that's your prerogative. I simply choose not too.
il ragno said: > "Oh, please. Ernst Rohm sucked dks, end of story. What Rohm has to do with Disney World is beyond me, though."**
Ernst Rohm was only mentioned in regard to Disney World since the subject was homosexuals and how reprehensible they are. I agree - it is detestable that the homosexual agenda is being pushed in what was formerly a bastion of childhood innocence - the land of Snow White and Mickey Mouse. But as quick as most white nationalists are to condemn homosexuals on the outside of their movement, they weren't so quick to do so when it came to one of their own (Pym Fortuyn of Holland) who was an in-yer-face type of gay before he was gunned down last year. I know this to be true, since I visit many forums, and the fact that Pym Fortuyn WAS gay was seldom mentioned by white nationalists - or condemned by those who did bring up the subject.
I guess I smelled a whiff of hypocrisy, that's all....
2003-06-07 04:11 | User Profile
** Tom Rennick wrote:
and that some Jews aren't part of some "Zionist conspiracy" is a reality. Finally, I don't expect you to agree with me, just to understand that I do not make statements or believe the way I do without having lent much consideration to the matter. If you or others wish to condemn every Jew you run across, that's your prerogative. I simply choose not too. **
Tom, you and I are gonna hafta have a loooong talk. Listen to Uncle Franco. He knows The Jew. Why not start by visiting one of the websites shown below? It'll do ya good.... ;)
And afterwards, I'll answer any questions that you might have.
2003-06-07 05:27 | User Profile
But as quick as most white nationalists are to condemn homosexuals on the outside of their movement, they weren't so quick to do so when it came to one of their own (Pym Fortuyn of Holland) who was an in-yer-face type of gay before he was gunned down last year
Beggars can't be choosers, Tom. And - in light of your own reasoning -"I'm against nonwhite immigration, so was Pym Fortuyn who was gay, therefore all gay men are my ideological allies."
It ain't hypocrisy. It's shared foxholes making unlikely comrades.
2003-06-07 22:08 | User Profile
Ok, let me get this straight. Those "Zionist Jews" are bad, but the rest of the tribe is ok? Sorry no sale. All jews are the enemy, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have time to differentiate the "good" jews from the "bad" jews, any more than I would have the time to differentiate between a non-poisonous snake and a poisonous one, if I was ever confronted with one. Best to err on the side of caution, and avoid the damn thing.
Actually, I have some respect for Zionist Jews; they want a homeland for their people, I'd like a homeland for my people. Now, if we could just get all the jews to leave their host countries and move to Israel.
2003-06-07 23:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Kurt@Jun 7 2003, 18:08 ** Ok, let me get this straight. Those "Zionist Jews" are bad, but the rest of the tribe is ok? Sorry no sale. All jews are the enemy, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have time to differentiate the "good" jews from the "bad" jews, any more than I would have the time to differentiate between a non-poisonous snake and a poisonous one, if I was ever confronted with one. Best to err on the side of caution, and avoid the damn thing.
Actually, I have some respect for Zionist Jews; they want a homeland for their people, I'd like a homeland for my people. Now, if we could just get all the jews to leave their host countries and move to Israel.
**
My eyes (again)! First someone posts that Jewess lawyer's pic on the Star Trek thread, and now a pic of Ayn Rand here. Thankfully, I'd already eaten. Seems someone's hit all these Jewish women with an ugly stick.
These threads need to come with a warning label.
2003-06-07 23:36 | User Profile
**My eyes (again)! First someone posts that Jewess lawyer's pic on the Star Trek thread, and now a pic of Ayn Rand here. Thankfully, I'd already eaten. Seems someone's hit all these Jewish women with an ugly stick.
These threads need to come with a warning label.**
Sorry about that, PA! :lol:
2003-06-08 01:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Kurt@Jun 7 2003, 16:08 ** Ok, let me get this straight. Those "Zionist Jews" are bad, but the rest of the tribe is ok? Sorry no sale. All jews are the enemy, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have time to differentiate the "good" jews from the "bad" jews, any more than I would have the time to differentiate between a non-poisonous snake and a poisonous one, if I was ever confronted with one. Best to err on the side of caution, and avoid the damn thing. **
They don't differentiate among us whites. We're all goyim. Cattle. The enemy. Something to be used to further their goals.
Let them have their homeland. Make sure all of them go there.
2003-06-08 04:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Roger Bannister@Jun 7 2003, 19:12 ** They don't differentiate among us whites. We're all goyim. Cattle. The enemy. Something to be used to further their goals.
Let them have their homeland. Make sure all of them go there. **
Right Rog. I am so friggin' tired of all these damn jew-subdivisions: Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Khazar; Zionist, Neo-Con...who gives a :dung: ? They're all jews, dammit! Don't be fooled, White man! They are your enemy! :hit: