Nikki Sinclaire

You might be surprised to know that most gay people steer well clear of these events. For example this weekend sees Birmingham Pride. My girlfriend and I have booked to go away. In recent years, especially London has seen more Hetrosexual attendees than gay. - True!

Of course anyone regardless of their gender/sexuality/creed/colour is able to have an event if they choose. Maybe you would like to instigate one and get the UK's leading companies to fund it.

Hartlepool

It should be obvious to all that Ms Sinclaire has absolutely no intention whatsoever of Standing as a Candidate for the UKIP Leaders position.

But,just in case she is intending to take part in this election I suggest that she first reviews all her posts on this Forum.

It seems quite evedent that she has lost it,before she even had it.

UKIP must get some good and serious Candidates to stand in this election,everyone is watching us on this one,thats for sure.

It will soon become free advertising for UKIP,the nearer the election gets.

White knight

Nikki Sinclaire wrote:

BREAKING NEWS!

Gay people do not care/bang on about hetrosexual people. We do not spend our valuable time writing on internet sites about how awful it would be if hetrosexual people were allowed to live lives unhindered by prejudice.

Gay Pride is a organisation that out to do one thing destroy the church and family values!

All churches who condemn us will be closed." That was what Michael Swift, a "gay revolutionary," declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.

"Michael Swift" was a pseudonym, and the first line of the now-infamous homosexual rant — which was even reprinted in the Congressional Record — claimed that the entire piece was a "cruel fantasy" that explained "how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

The "dream" was filled with a nightmare scenario that seemed like something out of a fascist coup d’etat: "All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. … [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men. … The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence — will be abolished. … All churches who condemn us will be closed."

As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.

Not many Christians, however, saw the humor in Swift’s sentiments, such as the following: "We shall sodomize your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together."

Identifying the opponent
Whether or not the ravings of this "gay revolutionary" were intended as satire, what is striking is the remarkable success of the plan found within the article. Who can doubt that the legal system — especially following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) striking down sodomy laws — has been brought to heel by gay activists? Or that Hollywood has freely committed its tremendous resources to the fight for homosexual legitimacy? Or that the family unit will virtually cease to exist in any traditional sense should gay adoption and same-sex marriage become legal everywhere?

While they claim to want only equal protection under law, the real agenda of homosexual activists is simple: the complete alteration of American society to fit the homosexual view of human sexuality, marriage and family.

This is not an overexaggeration. Paula Ettelbrick is former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Ettelbrick stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goal … of radically reordering society’s views of reality."

That is a pretty comprehensive goal, and activists face a daunting task if they hope to accomplish it. They must change the views of a culture that still remains somewhat anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which considers homosexuality unnatural and sinful. For Ettelbrick and her ilk to convince the American people to change their mind on this issue, the foundation of our culture must be shifted to a new way of perceiving reality that rejects the Judeo-Christian view.

However, that leaves one major institution standing in the way: the church. Christians who still hold to the Judeo-Christian views of human sexuality, marriage and family are called by religious faithfulness to resist the homosexual movement.

That makes Christians the enemy. In 1987 Steve Warren, a spokesman for the controversial homosexual group ACT UP, wrote an article for The Advocate, a magazine for the gay community. Titled "Warning to the Homophobes," Warren spoke of "the mean-spirited nature of Judeo-Christian morality."

Even in 1987, Warren felt that the homosexual movement could not be stopped. And as activists continued to find success, he promised that "we are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality."

Warren said the Bible, especially, would require a face-lift. "Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others," he said, "eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages."

Battle tactics
So a homosexual utopia awaits these activists, if only they can deal with those pesky Christians. But if removing the obstacle of the church is the strategy, what are the tactics through which this victory might be achieved?

That question was answered as far back as 1985, when in their article for Christopher Street, a gay magazine, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen caused a sensation with their blueprint to "persuade straight America" to accept homosexuality. Their article was expanded into a book on the subject, the national number one best seller After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.

Kirk and Madsen focused the heart of their strategy on using the media as a propaganda tool in persuading the majority of Americans that gay is OK. But they also addressed the question of what to do with the hardened opposition — that is, at least in institutional terms, those following the "religious authority" of the church. Gay activists, the authors said, should take a two-pronged approach to neutralizing the threat of a vigorous Christian-led opposition.

First, to "confound" what Kirk and Madsen called "the homophobia of true believers," they suggested that gays "muddy the moral waters." This would be accomplished in part by "publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches" and "raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings."

This has been done with amazing success in mainline Protestant denominations, such as in the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church USA. Homosexual activists in each of these major denominations have so clouded the issues regarding the Biblical view of homosexuality as to threaten each with schism and ruin.

For those churches which resist the siren call to complete moral relativism, Kirk and Madsen submitted a secondary strategy. They suggested that gays "undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times. …"

It should come as no surprise, therefore, when Christians see themselves portrayed on countless television shows as self-righteous bigots or hate-filled lunatics who simply refuse to accept the fact that things have changed in America.

Nevertheless, Kirk and Madsen knew that the religious authority of Christian denominations in the U.S. would be difficult to dispel; churches would therefore continue to act as a powerful braking mechanism on any momentum for the acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Kirk and Madsen understood, for example, that simply poking fun of "bigoted Southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred" would not be enough.

Instead, they said, "Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed ‘secular humanism’). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion."

Thus Christians involved in this theater of the culture war have become accustomed to defending the Judeo-Christian view on sexuality against claims that science has "proven" that homosexuality is genetic. The same is true of the claim that all major mental health and medical professional groups have declared that being gay or lesbian is as natural as being left-handed. Such "scientific" claims have no doubt been instrumental in the dramatic shifts of American public opinion on this topic.

End game
But beyond these tactics, Kirk and Madsen said plans must also be drawn up to deal with "the entrenched enemy," which might persist in resisting even in the face of the preliminary schemes. They said: "At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights — long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified."

Again, astute Christians who are paying attention to what is happening in our culture can already see this occurring. On high school and college campuses, for example, believers who dare to speak up against the homosexual agenda are being ridiculed and smeared. In corporations where they work, some Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the reigning pro-gay environment are reprimanded or fired.

Nor does it require prophetic insight to understand that churches will not be immune from coercion, either. In fact, gay and lesbian activists at the 1986 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights made this demand: "Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax exempt status."

Is it conceivable that in the near future, churches could be threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status if they refuse to hire a homosexual employee?

Some might scoff at such a threat, relying on the Constitutional protection of religion in the U.S. as a shield. But some homosexual activists seem to view religious liberty as an obstacle to be overcome. For example, lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay predicted that "the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation."

If sexual orientation is ever enshrined as a protected status in federal and state laws, which right will win that showdown?

For the time being, activists can simply attempt to suppress religious free speech whenever the mood hits them.

For example, when a church in Boston hosted a 2005 conference with a message that Jesus can free gays and lesbians from that lifestyle, they were harassed and terrorized by hundreds of homosexual activists and sympathizers outside — while Boston police stood by and did nothing. (See AFA Journal, 1/06.)

Finally, if activists ever achieve their goal of having sexual orientation included in federal hate crime statutes, many pro-family groups fear such a moment will be a beachhead on the way to criminalizing "anti-gay" speech and thought.

In his article, Warren’s final warning should cause wise Christians to accurately discern the times in which we live: "We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. And we have the spirit of the age on our side. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now."

GAY PRIDE 2006

They plan to travel to Jerusalem from San Francisco, New York City, and
cities from around the world. The most disturbing thing about this is that
most of the Jewish people in Jerusalem are very religious. That is why they
have gone to Jerusalem from all the nations of the world.

To have more than 100,000 homosexuals flaunting such decadent behavior in
this tiny, holy city where heaven and earth met, and will meet again, is
outrageous! They plan to fill the hotels and restaurants, and party like
Sodomites, while the world press takes pictures.

Even more outrageous is that the Jewish people will think the majority of
these people are Christians.because they will profess to be. There is no
doubt in my mind that this is an attempt to disgrace everything that true
Christians consider to be pure and holy.

It is being proclaimed the largest international gathering for gay pride
ever. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my dear friend, Jerusalem
Mayor Uri Lupolianski, a very Orthodox mayor, does not want this. There is
no way he can overcome the power of this group without your support.

It is vitally urgent that we mobilize one million Christians to petition
Mayor Lupolianski not to allow permits to be issued for the WorldPride event
in the tiny, holy city of Jerusalem. I want the Mayor to be able to go to
the city council and say, "Our strongest supporters are Bible-believing
Christians. There are two billion Christians in the world, and they are
outraged. We must not allow their holy sites, and this holy city to be
desecrated." If we remain silent, they will be baptizing hand-holding
homosexuals in the Jordan River. They will also fill the Garden Tomb again
and again, taking Communion, and shouting, "Hallelujah."



[/b]

Johnny Hates Jazz

I'd like to offer my full support for Nikki in her campaign to become Leader of UKIP.

The English Democrats would like to see a 6ft 4inch Lesbian leading UKIP.

Go for it !

__________________
English Democrats SAY NO To European Union

ENGLISH NOT british not EUropean
- It's time to decide at the 2009 European Elections

Benjaminw1

Hear, hear!

Seconded

andypandy

Nikki, after all that, I think myself and others have made that case over and again here, so If you are serious about standing, then you do so with immense dedication and optimism.

Mikeuk

I couldn't give a stuff what Nikki Sinclaire gets up to in private with her girlfriend.

What I am concerned about is what we are now seeing - the whole chip-on-shoulder anti-Christian gay agenda coming to the forefront. We used to call these people the 'Loony Left'. I still do.

The Gay Mafia wrecked the Conservative Party. Now we see they are trying to do the same to UKIP with the support of the usual metrosexual liberal suspects, all desperate to suppress free discussion of the issue.

But maybe that's not the main reason why Ms Sinclaire has been talked into standing...

Couldn't it have rather more to do with the spat between Petrina and Mr Natrass and the fact that Nikki works for the said gentleman? :twisted:

Mikeuk

I don't think that this kind of mud-slinging and 'cyber shouting' will do anything for the reputation of the leadership contest.

Spellcheck would not come amiss, either.

Millennium3

Particularly as Petrina has withdrawn from the contest.

Mikeuk

Oh right. I've just read that.

Presumably now Nikki has achieved her purpose, she will now gracefully withdraw to make way for a serious candidate.