What i’m thinking for a longer time. Now, i have a source for WP-Work..

WHY I REGISTERED DEMOCRAT

By Howard Ahmanson

About six weeks ago, I, a known leader of the Religious Right in California, decided to reregister in the Democratic Party. Why did I do this?

Well, I think I was reading about the budget struggles and threatened purges in the Legislature, and I was getting more and more tired and disgusted of it, and I realized that, had I been a Republican assemblyman, I could have hardly escaped being purged myself. The Republican Party of the State of California seems to have decided to narrow itself down to one article of faith, which may be described as NTESEBREE: No Tax Shall Ever Be Raised Ever Ever. Now, I’m concerned about this constant tax ratcheting, but I don’t think this is the answer. The Democratic Party in California, however, is now so big and diverse and all-inclusive that it has ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPLES WHATSOEVER. The Hollywood and San Francisco establishments within the Party may hold to some pretty detestable principles, but the party as a whole? I have not changed any of my opinions. There is not a single right-wing opinion I hold that some section of the Democratic Party doesn’t support it. Opposed to “marriage equality” and freewheeling abortion rights? A lot of Democrats of color will agree. And also many of them will agree on the importance and social justice of vouchers and tax credits for non-government schools. Opposed to fiscal irresponsibility? A lot of Silicon Valley Democrats will probably agree. Opposed to “urban redevelopment” schemes that run small business and residents out of the way for the benefit of the politically important? Got a high view of property rights? Lots of Democrats, including Robert Cruickshank and Senate President Darrell Steinberg, agree with me to a considerable degree.

I describe myself as a “social conservative, an economic moderate,” and to a considerable extent a property libertarian. By “economic moderate” I mean that the philosophy of “starve the beast” has failed. The beast will feed welfare and pork and starve infrastructure. If we want to confront irresponsible spending, we have to confront it directly. We have to confront directly the issue of the role of government and what we want it to do and not do. And when we do want government to do something, we want it to have enough money to be able to do what it does pretty well (at least considering it’s a government), but we have to fight the mentality of entitlement. The whole mentality entitlement is dangerous. The nearest thing we have to entitlements are property rights, and they are to defined things that actually exist. And all other rights, in the end, depend on property rights; freedom of speech, religion, and press is freedom in a place, or it is nothing. I am not one to radically abolish all welfare programs, as I was in my wild youth – and Social Security and Medicare are welfare, whether you like it or not – but the attitude of entitlement, especially to resources that may not even clearly exist, makes it impossible to pursue any kind of a rational fiscal policy.

I may have made a rash move, in that it will be hard for me to find Democrats that I can actually support – there probably are some, though; social conservatives in the inner city, Democrats with an open mind to vouchers and tax credits and in other ways willing to confront the public sector union beast (I don’t consider private-sector unions, for the most part, a serious enemy nowadays), Democrats open to fiscal sanity, Democrats open to property rights rather than “urban redevelopment” social engineering schemes out of City Hall. And by the grace of God, there probably are some!

Thanks for the education…participating here makes me grow. The bio on Schiermer I quoted comes from the Exodus website…odd that he would not mention the book at the site.

So…All three have publications…Ssempa may have read all three.

Has anyone read Schiermer’s book on “prevention?” Does it contain any of the errors similar to Cohen?

Big Question: “How Did Ssempa get Lively’s and Cohen’s name?” I’ll betcha, NARTH.

Hey, maybe they got Don’s name there too. They seem to think he’s a expert of sorts:

http://www.narth.com/docs/schmierer2006.pdf

You can also find Scott Lively if you need a good motivational speaker.

“Also during the luncheon, attorney Scott Lively noted that NARTH’s critics are supported by tens of millions of dollars from foundations on the left, …”

http://www.narth.com/menus/NARTHBulletinDecember2005.pdf

And lots of references to Richard Cohen. http://www.narth.com/menus/search.html?cx=007457206426124633447%3Adybvfspccfw&cof=FORID%3A11&q=richard+cohen&sa=go#1272

And of course, Lively gave rave reviews to Exodus and NARTH — second only to himself when it comes to expert knowledge of these issues. Just contact NARTH for all your anti-gay conference needs. Or Exodus. Or International Healing Foundation. Or Defend the Family. Heck, It doesn’t really matter. All roads lead to Uganda.

Don Schmierer …. “Never holds himself out as an expert on SSA…“?

The Ugandan conference organizers must have thought so. Maybe they were duped too.

.

He wrote the book, “An Ounce of Prevention: Preventing the Homosexual Condition in Today’s Youth.” In talking about this book Schmierer describes himself as an “author and seasoned counselor” who “provides a balanced perspective of this complex issue [ie. homosexuality].” The Howard Center listed Don Schmierer as representing Fieldstead & Company and a Christian Counselor & Author speaking on “Preventing Homosexuality” and also on “Preventing Homosexuality in Families.”

Warren ~ Mar 15, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Saul – Few things are all bad, so there may be some person who heard a good thing that Mr. Schmierer said. However, on balance, the message conveyed to the Ugandans was support for their oppressive impulse.

The conference was organized in response to calls to decriminalize homosexuality. If you do not believe in criminalization, then why go to a conference designed to fight the decriminalization of homosexuality?

Given the absence of any statements to the contrary of his speaking partners, I do not think that Mr. Schmierer provided a meaningful counterpoint for his Ugandan hearers.

If he had been a voice in the wilderness, then I could see your points better, but with the very slow response from Exodus, and the absence of any statement from Mr. Schmierer directly, any value to those in Uganda who will want to fight for decriminalization will be nil.

Why is Warren being so hard on him if all he did was get out of his car, say a few nice things, get back in his car and drive home? Why does Warren think he should say, “I was wrong in what I told you”? He claims he was duped.

If he was, that’s bad enough — in terms of what it says about his gullibility, poor judgement and lack of preparation. Makes you wonder what he brings to the Board besides a kind heart and perhaps some cash. You would think he would save Exodus more embarassment and just resign.

I don’t think he’s a Scott Lively or Caleb Brundrigde, but I just don’t buy it. Something doesn’t add up. Too many things don’t make sense — and when they don’t, it’s most likely not “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Too many missing pieces. I cannot believe, that with all his business, military, international and life experience that he is that naive. I think he’s trying to dupe us. There is a lot more to this story than is being told.