Posted on Sunday, 1/04/2009 - 2:28 p.m. PST — by Ohso
Dawn of the Abomination
According to election results, 93% of the Federal Welfare Island that is Washington DC voted for the Abomination. The Obamacon says that DC should become the 51st State. Just how much longer the Republic can hold together during this Orwellian Nightmare will be the Central Issue of the Abomination to come.
Consider the following facts - reported through WND:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the
territory won by Republicans was mostly
the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens
living in government-owned tenements and living off
various forms of government welfare....
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between
the "complacency and apathy" definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
6 out of 10 servicemen wary of Obama in charge - Survey: 'Nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief'
Posted: January 03 © 2009 WorldNetDaily - A recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members found 6 of 10 U.S. soldiers polled said they were "pessimistic" or "uncertain" about Barack Obama serving as commander in chief of America's armed forces.
In follow-up interviews reported by the Army Times newspaper, respondents cited Obama's inexperience in leading soldiers, his plans for accelerated removal of troops from Iraq and his pledge to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service members as reasons for their cautious outlook.
"Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers," said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified, "nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief."
"How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?" asked Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron. "And if you're pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what's left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?"
Duke political science professor and civil-military relations writer Peter Feaver, however, says concerns about a new administration's leadership are to be expected.
"What [Obama] is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office," Feaver told Army Times. "It's sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him.
"They respect the office of the commander in chief," Feaver said. "As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem."
The sixth annual Military Times survey asked over 30,000 subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers, "How do you feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief?"
A total of 5,181 active-duty, National Guard and reserve and retired military subscribers responded to the email invitation issued from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8.
Of the 1,947 active-duty soldiers that responded, a third answered that they are "optimistic," while 25 percent answered "pessimistic" and 35 percent admitted to being "uncertain." The "uncertain" response differs from "no opinion," which garnered 8 percent of the vote.
Other survey results found that nearly 80 percent of the respondents support the war in Afghanistan and nearly the same amount favor increasing troop strength there, though 30 percent believe it may take more than 10 years of military presence in Afghanistan to achieve American goals.
The majority of active-duty service members also oppose Obama's campaign pledge to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly in the armed forces. 14 percent said they would consider ending their military career after serving their obligated tours of duty if the policy was repealed.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
SECRETS OF THE LEFT (WND)
What's in store for America now that the most left-wing major-party presidential candidate in modern history has won the White House – particularly since the other two branches of the federal government are also largely in the hands of the left?
Barack Obama, if true to his record and rhetoric, will be the most pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights," pro-gun-control and pro-socialist U.S. president ever. From taxes and the economy to border security and foreign policy, Obama's values and instincts consistently run to the radical left.
Thus, Whistleblower decided to take readers on a guided tour inside the mind of the "ruling elite," in an eye-popping issued titled "SECRETS OF THE LEFT."
Rather than a tedious history of communism, socialism and the radical left, this issue instead provides a refreshing and unorthodox – and at times shocking – look at the strange psychology of the liberal-left, and especially the audacious tactics it employs day in and day out in the raging cultural and political war that is modern America.
Issue highlights include:
"To oppose any adversary effectively, you obviously first have to understand him," said WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. "This issue of Whistleblower goes a long way toward explaining what really animates the left. And it ain't pretty."
Added WND Editor Joseph Farah, "This issue capsulizes the clever modus operandi of power-hungry leaders everywhere, and in so doing provides the insight necessary to take America back."
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Shortage of Intelligence characterizes Obamacon HomoSociliast 4th Reich... Ohso.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama's intel picks short on direct experience
WASHINGTON—President-elect Barack Obama's decision to fill the nation's top intelligence jobs with two men short on direct experience in intelligence gathering surprised the spy community and signaled the Democrat's intention for a clean break from Bush administration policies.
Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, an eight-term congressional veteran and administrative expert, is being tapped to head the CIA.. and Obama's own policies and priorities.
Neither Panetta nor Blair are tainted by associations with Bush...Panetta could face tough questions at his nomination hearing about his background in intelligence. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Monday she was surprised by the pick, and neither was informed nor consulted.
"I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," she said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant. The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence...He said he was selected for his administrative, management and political skills
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Center for Military Readiness: the most serious challenges we have ever faced are approaching fast, starting today.
President-Elect Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are about to be sworn in. Within weeks, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) will re-introduce legislation to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military (Section 654, Title 10).
Last week came news that the law enjoys widespread support—especially among our men and women in uniform. The newly-released 2008 annual Military Times Poll of active duty personnel reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal the 1993 law, mislabeled as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” This level of support has remained virtually unchanged in annual survey results dating back to January 2005.
The Military Times Poll also asked a new question that produced astonishing results. If Congress votes to repeal the law, 10% of respondents said they would leave the military, and an additional 14% said they would consider ending their careers. I analyzed details in my article for National Review Online:
Military Times Poll: Troops Oppose Gay Agenda for the Military
Contrary to several misleading news reports, activists for gays in the military are not letting up in their drive to impose their agenda on our military. A reporter for a liberal news organization told me that this cause is the #3 Goal on the agenda of liberal activists.
Leaders of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) Left have been meeting with high-level members of President-Elect Barack Obama’s Transition Team and pushing hard for the appointment of people who support their causes. The Washington Times recently reported that some activists want the administration to appoint the first Secretary of the Navy who is openly gay:
Military Nominees and the Homosexualist Agenda
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Panetta has unusual portfolio to be CIA chief
WASHINGTON—Leon Panetta, Barack Obama's surprise choice to head the CIA, clearly isn't someone with much hands-on national security or intelligence experience.
"It is true that he doesn't have an intelligence background..
A former Republican... A lawyer, Panetta became a Democrat in 1971...
Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said Panetta's selection was an invigorating gamble by Obama.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 56
It's a conspiracy, I tells ya! Sumpin' oughta be done.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
Durn right by golly them there nutty libs is destroying this here country.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Change Watch: Perrelli Edition (www.frc.org)
In some of his final Cabinet selections, President-elect Barack Obama dipped into the well of recycled Clinton appointees to help round out his Department of Justice leadership team. Pending their confirmations, four of the top DOJ posts will be filled by attorneys that served the last Democratic president. How's that for "change"?
One of those nominees, Thomas Perrelli, is best known as the right-to-kill lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo's husband pro-bono in his suit to euthanize his wife.
In a leadership position for the Justice Deparment, Perrelli's anti-life stance could be devastating. As the third in command, he is certain to play a key role in a number of cases, some of which could include end-of-life issues. In an interview with the Washington Times, FRC's Tom McClusky outlined how Perrelli's appointment as associate attorney general was "detrimental" to the pro-life movement.
In the media world, however, Perrelli seems to have at least one staunch ally. Wild liberal Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's "Countdown," highlighted Tom's quote on yesterday's show and named him "the worst person in the world" for criticizing Perrelli's nomination. In my opinion, if you're on Olbermann's hit list, then you must be doing something right.
For a balanced take on Perrelli's background, stop by www.frcblog.com for the latest in our "Change Watch" series.
On Friday, check back for analysis on Education Secretary-designate Arne Duncan.
Additional Resources
FRC's Tom McClusky: for better or worse
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Plot to Infiltrate and Taint Social Conservative "Team Sarah" Network Exposed
WASHINGTON, D.C. , January 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Yesterday leaders of the Susan B. Anthony List responded to the recent discovery of a plot by liberal internet activists to attack http://www.teamsarah.org, a community dedicated to advancing the values that Sarah Palin represents in the political process:
“Team Sarah recently uncovered a plot by liberal activists to frame our community for harboring hate speech and bigotry,” said Emily Buchanan, Executive Director of the Susan B. Anthony List and Team Sarah Site Administrator. “Liberal extremists at http://www.somethingawful.com concocted a plot to join Team Sarah under false pretenses and intentionally provoke our members by posting incendiary and bigoted remarks that violated our terms of use.”
Susan B. Anthony List President and Team Sarah Co-Founder Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement, “Two weeks ago, the Huffington Post published a story criticizing Team Sarah for the supposed racist behavior of its membership – yet had they exercised even the most basic of fact-checking, we could have informed them of the recent escalation in bigoted postings from liberal impostors, not from our bona fide membership.”
“Clearly Governor Sarah Palin’s influence has irked the Left. Here we are months after the election, and liberal extremists are still doing all they can to tear her down. Fortunately the truth will prevail. Team Sarah will continue to grow and its membership will continue to advance the values represented by the trailblazing governor.”
The coordinated attack by liberal bloggers was discovered on Friday, January 2, 2009. The Weekly Standard covered the incident on January 7, 2009. Over ninety impostors were banned from http://www.teamsarah.org last weekend after bona fide Team Sarah members reported violations to community moderators. Interlopers continue to be banned daily.
One of the attackers explained their goal: "What I hope is that the fake posters eventually number the actual posters so it would be impossible to tell who is real and who is fake."
After a cease and desist letter was sent by Team Sarah to the site administrator of http://www.somethingawful.com on Friday January 2, 2009, the offending forum was removed from the website, but new forums have since been posted. Attacks have continued, most recently including yesterday’s planned 2:00A.M. mass posting of pornography photos in Team Sarah forums.
Team Sarah is a coalition of women dedicated to advancing the values that Sarah Palin represents in the political process. Its political networking website, http://www.teamsarah.org, has grown to over 60,000 activists in the last four months. Co-Founders of Team Sarah include Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, and Jane Abraham, the organization’s General Chairman.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
The Truth Comes Out--Obama Backed Homosexual Marriage (www.frc.org)
When Barack Obama was running for president, he said he opposed same-sex "marriage," favoring civil unions instead. But in 1996, when he first ran for the Illinois state senate, a Chicago "gay" newspaper reported that Obama supported same-sex "marriage." This week a successor paper, the Windy City Times, published specific documentation regarding Obama's earlier stance.
A candidate questionnaire by IMPACT, a homosexual political action group, proposed a resolution that "the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage." Obama wrote, apparently in his own hand, "I would support such a resolution." A month later, Obama sent to Outlines a typed letter, over his own signature, stating, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Obama's professed opposition to redefining marriage was never very credible, given his much stronger opposition to every effort to defend marriage.
If American voters had understood Obama's real views, his candidacy for president might have gone the way of other open supporters of same-sex "marriage"--like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. Does concealing one's real beliefs to gain political advantage represent "change we can believe in?"
Additional Resources
FRC Action: Obama Backs Same-Sex Marriage
Politico: Windy City Times Cover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
States Try to Beat the Bush on Conscience Regs
January 20 may be recognized as the date of Barack Obama's swearing-in, but American health care workers will be celebrating it as a landmark for workplace rights. In what pro-lifers will see as a sweet irony, the nation's most pro-abortion president will take office on Tuesday, the same date that his predecessor's conscience protections kick in.
The rules, which the Bush administration released last month, deny federal funding for federally funded entities that force their staff to take part in morally objectionable practices like abortion. As part of the regulations, each medical facility must promise--in writing--to abide by these conditions. FRC had lobbied HHS for this change for years, arguing that health care workers shouldn't have to choose between their personal beliefs and their jobs. Most liberals disagreed, saying that a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child should trump any moral objections by clinic staffers.
Yesterday, as expected, a tiny fraction of state attorneys general took the Bush administration to federal court over its decision. Seven states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island) were represented in the suit to stop the regulations, as were Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. Although the rules would give health care workers more freedom, this suit proves that abortion moguls only respect the "choice" of people who pad their bottom line. Rather than wait on the Obama Administration to reverse the rules, which could take up to six months, these impatient liberals are relying on the old strategy of fast-tracking their agenda through the courts. According to a poll by HCD Research, the regulations are also supported by physicians. When asked, only 33 percent of 1,736 doctors opposed the new conscience protections.
Additional Resources
The Washington Post: Lawsuits Filed Over Rule That Lets Health Workers Deny Care
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
"Not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character"... Ahem.
MLK Day certainly has an ironic, nay Orwellian, Twyst this year.
The Dawn of the Abomination at least proves that the Democrap Party, and the bought and paid for 'free press' that rigged the election - is just as Racist as it was in the days of Woodrow Wilson.
That they changed the Color of their Racism - in now way changes the Harm resulting from their Racism.
Pray for America - Before the 'tolerance police' Outlaw that too.
Ohso
Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. George Orwell - 1984 On the Thought Police
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Will Obama seek repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 1/19/2009
A former evangelical Navy chaplain says there would be serious national security consequences if Barack Obama follows through on his pledge to allow homosexuals to serve in the military.
According to Fox News, last week incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a startling pronouncement last week -- the president-elect will allow homosexuals to serve in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy put in place by Bill Clinton. The Obama transition team declined to elaborate on a timetable for repealing the policy, and would not explain which lawmakers or Pentagon officials would attempt to repeal it.
Gordon James Klingenschmitt is a former Naval chaplain who is absolutely opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. He fears it would negatively affect America's battlefield successes.
"How can we expect God's blessing on our arms when we openly embrace sodomy?" he asks. "[That's] the same sin that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for committing. When we embrace that in our military...[we] will the lose the blessing of God upon our troops and we will lose wars -- it will cost us wars. America will be destroyed if we allow them to be openly embraced by our military."
According to Klingenschmitt it would also introduce a health risk...
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Pray that Barack Obama will repent (Randy Thomasson CCF)
As the media celebrates President Obama, it's almost like a fantastic wedding party where people hope the marriage will last. Will it? And some in the media are acting like Obama is the new Savior of the world.
Yes, history is being made, but what kind of history? Barack Hussein Obama has the most anti-family policies of any president we've ever had. Does it bother you that President Obama is more pro-abortion, more pro-homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality, more anti-parental rights, more anti-religious freedom, and more of a judicial activist than any of his predecessors? You need to know what you're getting from your new president. And if you voted for him, you need to repent and encourage others to repent from anti-family voting habits.
When I pray for Barack Obama, I pray that God would pressure him to repent of his anti-family policies, so that Obama won't promote immorality and punish moral citizens, so that we will be able to "live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" without government interference or retribution.
But in order to lead peaceful lives, where family values and religious freedom thrive, we need to pray hard to God and lobby Obama even harder. Because if you voted for Obama, you need to know what you're getting. Here are the facts:
* Barack Obama wants to use taxpayer dollars for abortions, both on U.S. soil and overseas. He is a strong advocate of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eliminate all state laws requiring parental consent or notification for abortion. He wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal tax dollars from being spent on abortions. And he is expected to repeal the Mexico City Policy, which forbids U.S. tax dollars being spent on abortions outside the country.
* Obama says he is a "fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans." He has pledged to sign ENDA, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will force Bible bookstores and business owners with moral values to hire homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals. When this happens, Obama will expand California's sexual anarchy into all 50 states, squashing religious freedom mightily.
* Obama has pledged to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, thereby importing homosexual "marriages" into all 50 states. And Obama wants to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The result will be open homosexual, bisexual and transsexual behavior and forced acceptance of all sexual lifestyles in military barracks and showers. Talk about a disincentive to serve your country!
* Obama supports legalizing homosexual adoptions nationwide, placing young children into the arms of homosexual role models.
* Obama will appoint, and the Democrats in Congress will confirm, liberal activists to be federal judges for life. These kind of judges will attack religious freedom, Judeo-Christian values, parental rights, property rights, personal responsibility and all that is good and sacred. On July 17, 2007, Obama promised Planned Parenthood abortion activists that he does not support constitutional judges as judges: "But it's those five percent of the cases that really count. And in those five percent of the cases, what you've got to look at is -- is in the justice's heart. What's their broader vision of what America should be. Justice Roberts said he saw himself just as an umpire but the issues that come before the Court are not sport, they're life and death. And we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges. Alright?" Source: Barack Obama answering a question at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event, July 17, 2007
* Obama would sign a broad "health" exception to the partial-birth abortion ban, thus opening up the door for infanticide for any and all reasons. In his July 2007 speech to pro-abortion activists, Obama strongly opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the ban, saying, "To appreciate that, all you need to do is review the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time, in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women's health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the court, not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong." Source: Barack Obama speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007 and the Q&A that followed
* Obama's support of infanticide was confirmed on nationwide TV when he said women should get and abortion doctors should perform partial-birth abortions. NBC's Brian Williams asked, "Senator Obama, on this same topic, what about your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion, and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?" Obama answered, "I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy." Source: South Carolina Democratic Presidential Debate, April 26, 2007
* Obama wants schoolchildren to think favorably about homosexuality and would sign laws mandating this. At the Democratic presidential debate in September 2007, Obama made clear that he supports teaching schoolchildren as young as second grade to support homosexuality and homosexual "marriage." Here's the transcript:
MODERATOR: Gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a "prince" who marries another "prince"….Would you be comfortable having this story being read to your children as part of their school curriculum? I'm going to start with Senator Edwards.
JOHN EDWARDS: Yes, absolutely….I want them to be exposed to all the information even in -- you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough -- but even in second grade (MODERATOR: Well, that’s the point. It is second grade)…to be exposed to all, to all those possibilities.
MODERATOR: Senator Obama, you have young children at home. How do you feel about this?
BARACK OBAMA: You know, I feel very similar to John. That…you know, the fact is my nine year old and my six year olds, I think, are already aware that there are same-sex couples. And my wife and I have already talked about it.
MODERATOR: Quickly, have you sat down with your daughters to talk about same-sex marriage?
OBAMA: My wife has.
-- Source: Democratic Presidential Debate held at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire on Sept. 26, 2007, sponsored by MSNBC
These are the moral standards, or more accurately, the immoral standards of new President Barack Obama. More abortions, more perversion, more immorality, more attacks on all that is good and sacred are coming.
Are Obama's anti-family values your values too? Do you want marriage and babies and religious freedom attacked? If not, and if you voted for Obama, I encourage you to repent in regards to voting and the desires of your heart...
And don't blink at Obama's anti-family values because you expect him to be "good" on the economy. In my 15 years of pro-family leadership, I have never seen a politician who is bad on moral issues to be good on fiscal issues. Yet I have often noticed that when elected representatives are good on moral and family issues, most of the time they're good on the economy too.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Obama's New Family Values
Obama White House Calls for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama’s swearing-in ceremony.
The site’s “Civil Rights” section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled “Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community,” the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
“President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” the Web site says.
“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.” the Web site says.
Among those federal legal rights are the ability to file joint tax returns, own property, and buy health insurance together.
Obama also favors granting adoption rights to homosexual couples, saying that children benefit from a healthy home, regardless of whether the “parents” are homosexual or not.
“President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation,” the site said. “He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not,” the website reads.
Obama further promises to distribute contraceptives through the nation’s public health system, saying the move is vital to combating HIV and AIDS – and the new president wants contraceptives to be distributed in federal prisons.
“The president will support common-sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system.”
Obama renewed his pledge to expand federal hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation – an effort he spearheaded as a freshman U.S. senator. The bill that Obama introduced in the Senate, the Matthew Shepard Act, would make it a federal hate-crime to commit violence against someone because of their sexual orientation.
“President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, (and) expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act,” the site says.
Obama also wants to lift the federal ban on needle exchanges, which provides intravenous drug addicts with free, clean needles in an effort to ensure they abuse illegal drugs safely.
“The president also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”
The new White House site confirms that Obama plans to work towards his desire to repeal a federal law that prevents homosexuals from serving in the military. Obama says that the only test for military service should be patriotism.
“The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited,” the site says.
“The president will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.”
Whether homosexuals are ever allowed to serve in the military won’t be Obama’s call, however. Only Congress can enact such a policy affecting the military.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42233
Be One, or Begone!
RealAmerica
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
First day in office, Obama begins deconstruction of society and traditional values. (www.massresistance.org)
If anybody actually believes that Obama isn't really an ultra-leftwing radical, get ready for a rude awakening. The Obama administration is wasting no time with its plans to change America.
Within an hour of his swearing-in, the following was posted on the official White House website, as Obama's immediate "civil rights" goals.
* Protect cross-dressing and transgenderism in workplace (including schools) through federal law: Pass "Employment non-discrimination Act" [EDNA] to prohibit "discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression".
* Expand hate crime statutes, including the radical "Matthew Shepard Act" which would allow the federal government to prosecute and punish if the crime was perceived to be "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived . . . gender, sexual orientation, gender identity" of the victim.
* "Reinvigorate" the federal Department of Justice to pursue prosecution current hate crime laws against citizens.
* Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]
* Push for full civil unions and federal recognition of homosexual couples, with benefits equal to actual marriage. (This appears to be leading up to full federal recognition of same-sex "marriage".)
* Allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military - repeal "Don't ask don't tell."
* Use the federal government to expand adoptions of children by homosexuals.
* Using the federal government to push for more sex-education and contraception in schools and throughout society (especially in light of the goal to repeal DOMA).
* Lift the federal ban on needle exchange -as a "politically correct" way to attempt to combat AIDS without being highlighting the real cause homosexuality and drug use. According to the website, Obama wants to "confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS."
Entire "civil rights" list from White House web site
And as we've already reported, Obama is helping the homosexual movement target the schools, having appointed his buddy Arne Duncan as US Secretary of Education. This past October, Duncan recommended that the Chicago Board of Education approve a special homosexual/ bisexual / transgender public high school. But there was so much outrage that even the pro-homosexual Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, backed away from the idea. Now, he'll have free reign.
Wall Street Journal: Duncan Caused Stir With Plan for High School for Gays
It's gotten to a point where the homosexual blogs are keeping a scorecard of the various homosexual activists that Obama is bringing into major positions in the US government.
And of course, Obama had a Gene Robinson, the homosexual activist Episcopal bishop, give a major prayer during inauguration week. And he had a "proud" homosexual band march in the inauguration parade.
And we're just one day into the new administration. . .
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
24 Hours -- A World of Difference (www.frc.org)
Americans watched on television as President Bush's jumbo jet soared out of sight yesterday--and with him, a long record of protecting the unborn. Although the Obama administration is a little over 24 hours old, the new President has already set to work undoing years of pro-life and pro-family policy.
Minutes after Obama took the oath of office, the transfer of power was made complete on the White House website. The page, once home to a host of family values, now welcomes an extreme collection of anti-life, anti-woman, and anti-family agendas.
Under the caption "civil rights," Obama pledges to fight for nationwide civil unions, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, homosexual adoption, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expanded "hate crimes," and over 1,100 costly same-sex benefits. He promises to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as well as block a federal amendment to preserve marriage.
In exchange for the support of groups like Planned Parenthood, the abortion business is also due for a rich payoff from the 44th president, including his support of abortion-on-demand, more funding for "family planning" programs, embryonic stem cell experiments, and tax-funded abortion.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Change we never imagined
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 1/23/2009
Matt BarberWell, the high-sheen veneer and cult-of-personality euphoria surrounding America's new oratory endowed president looks to be dissolving rather quickly. While millions had hoped for a political "messiah," it's fast becoming evident that, instead, we've stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of "change we can believe in" is, in fact, "change we never imagined." (Sorry to burst the Barack bandwagon bubble, but I say it like I see it.)
The examples are piling up in terms of the radical pro-abortion polices he's planning to implement, the many-times-failed Marxist fiscal policies he's promised to test yet again, and – relative to his national security goals – the noxiously naive peacenik policies that have Mahmoud and Osama giggling themselves to sleep at night.
But on issues involving marriage, family and sexual morality, Obama's been even more brazen than some of his most ardent detractors could have expected. (See related article) Literally within minutes after he took the oath of office, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of "The Agenda: Civil Rights" – to detail his wholesale "support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community." His stated plans include the following:
*
Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by "gay marriage" activists.
*
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called "same-sex marriages" from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
*
Repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy despite the fact that the vast majority of military commanders and personnel say it will dangerously disrupt unit cohesion and troop morale.
*
Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral.
*
Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law.
*
Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding "gay adoption."
The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the chute, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.
homosexual flagThe radical homosexual agenda and religious/free-speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It's a zero-sum game. When 1-2 percent of the population is granted exclusive rights based on the aforementioned deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors – to the detriment of everyone else – that's called tyranny of the minority.
Obama recently said, "I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America." Well, Mr. President, remember that whole actions versus words cliché? Your words ring hollow and your actions speak volumes. Every policy you promise to implement does exactly what you've denounced. Both your actions and your words very much pit Red America against Blue America.
For all the talk of "hope," "change," and "coming together," it's becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama's administration will be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory. I suspect the immediate, stark and in-your-face revisions he's made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of broader policy, from his administration.
Obama said in an August 19, 2008 speech: "Change doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." Well, radical change in the form of Barack Obama has certainly come to Washington. Not just in terms of the man's skin color – which is historic and most encouraging – but in terms of his exceptionally extreme and demonstrably dangerous liberal policies (not so encouraging).
So it would seem that change does in fact "come from Washington." Change more radical than our nation has ever seen. Change our founders could have never imagined.
People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years.
Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. This column is printed with permission.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Dear Mr. President – I Hope You Don’t Succeed
By W. Michael Kilgore
Since the election it seems that every liberal with a microphone is shoving it in the face of any conservative they can find, asking, in quite the victimized and accusatory tone, “Don’t you want the President to succeed?” My answer: No. To the extent that the success of President Obama is necessary for the survival of our nation, then yes, I hope he succeeds. But in most cases (if not all), I believe that President Obama’s “success” means the demise and destruction of our nation, which is why I am praying that his agenda is defeated.
“Success” for the President and his Democrats has already meant:
1. Gitmo will close. That’s right, President Obama has already signed an executive order stating that Guantanamo Bay will close within 1 year. Can’t you just hear those civil liberty bells a ringin’? He has endangered our country and has essentially called an end to the War on Terror in this act. Bringing those prisoners to the states will guarantee that the prisoners receive the same due process rights that any other citizen would get. This will mean that over the course of their trial, sensitive intelligence, and also our methods for obtaining such intelligence, will be made public and will threaten our national security.
2. The Mexico City Policy is repealed. Just this week, our nation’s President has lifted a ban on spending your tax dollar on abortions overseas. In other words, your tax dollar is now being spent in other countries to fund the murder of unborn babies.
3. The systematic dismantling of our intelligence capabilities. Through the appointment of Eric Holder to Attorney General and Leon Panetta to the CIA, President Obama is surely positioning himself to destroy the CIA. Mr. Holder will be poised to arrest any CIA agent who fails to bring an iced tea (with a lime!) to a terror suspect for torture. His definition of torture, punishable by law, will be so expansive that it will include being forced to watch reruns of Home Improvement. Mr. Panetta, with zero intelligence experience will no doubt continue what he did under Clinton – decrease the CIA’s budget to where it is two men talking through a tin-can phone.
4. Calling “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” off. Let’s just see what this does to the enrollment numbers of our armed forces. Now, our soldiers will be fighting off guys with “guns” in the field...and in the trenches. Our armed forces truly will be “the few...the proud.” Not to mention the fact that green camouflage will be replaced with a lovely pink and blue leisure suit.
“Success” for the President and his Democrats will mean in the future:
1. . The Federal Defense of Marriage Act insures that no state is required to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. For example, Mark and Rick get married in Massachusetts, but decide they want to settle down and install track-lighting in North Carolina. When Obama repeals DOMA, North Carolina must, under federal law, recognize their marriage from Massachusetts. (DOMA was enacted by both Dems and Republicans, and signed into law by Clinton himself. That’s what you call a bipartisan piece of legislation. To repeal it doesn’t get anymore liberal. How’s that for those who said Obama will govern from the center?)
2. Enacting FOCA. The Freedom of Choice Act’s pretty little name is likely to give goose bumps to people by its patriotic title. Too bad millions more children will never live to know what goose bumps actually feel like. FOCA will murder (excuse the pun) all abortion regulation in the country. Even partial-birth abortion will be fair game. Partial-birth abortion is where the baby (at full term) is partially delivered, then while the baby’s head is still in the birth canal, his brains are sucked out by a vacuum until he is dead. Then the delivery is completed.
3. Further socialization of our country. As if hundreds of billions weren’t enough under TARP, now Obama and Princess Pelosi want almost a trillion more dollars to waste on a non-solution for re-starting our economy. Once our government has complete ownership of the banks, it will move on to our healthcare system. This will be a welfare state before the end of Obama’s first term.
4. Another imminent terrorist attack. Obama’s closing of Gitmo and his policy of sitting down with the likes of Iran and others without preconditions (as he has stated himself) will most certainly lead to another terrorist attack. Of course, Obama won’t know we’ve been attacked until he watches it on CNN, because he doesn’t have the intelligence beforehand (please refer back to #3).
If you helped elect President Obama, you are responsible, either by intent or by ignorance, for: the murder of countless unborn babies, the destruction of the traditional marriage, the death of capitalism in the United States and another terrorist attack. Half of these items have already been accomplished, and Obama’s own mouth has indicated that the other half are soon to follow. I pray to the Lord that President Obama is not “successful” with this agenda.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Vatican Strongly Critical of Obama
by Marcia Segelstein
In an interview published over the weekend, a Vatican official was strongly critical of President Obama’s decision to end a ban on U.S. funding for overseas groups that perform abortions.
“This deals a harsh blow not only to us Catholics but to all the people across the world who fight against the slaughter of innocents that is carried out with abortion,” said a top official of the Vatican’s Academy for Life.
The official went on to say that instead of choosing from among the many good things he could have done, Obama chose the worst.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
White House promoting 'anti-Christian' policies?
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 1/23/2009
Barack Obama 2A leading conservative activist says President Obama has already signaled, during his first days in office, that his administration will be the most "extreme, left-wing, and discriminatory" in American history.
President Obama's plans to cater to the priorities of homosexual activists are laid out under a section called "Civil Rights" on the website WhiteHouse.gov. (See earlier story)
The website makes clear Obama's intention to expand federal hate crimes statutes to include extra punishment for crimes that are deemed to be motivated by bias against one's sexual orientation or gender identity. The site also stresses Obama's support for homosexual civil unions and expanded adoption rights for homosexuals, as well as his desire to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (a.k.a., DOMA).
Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, believes many Americans will be shocked to find out just how radical some of Obama's positions are on social issues.
Matt Barber"I certainly cannot judge whether or not Barack Obama has a relationship with Christ. That's between him and God, and only they know that. However, scripture tells us that you will be known by your fruits, and here Barack Obama is promoting counter-biblical, anti-Christian policies," he contends. "[These are] policies that elevate deviant sexual behaviors and dangerous sexual behaviors that are destructive spiritually, physically and emotionally, and certainly -- when embraced as Barack Obama has embraced them -- are destructive societally."
Barber adds that "for all the talk of hope, change and coming together, it's becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama's administration will be the most leftist, divisive, and discriminatory in recent memory."
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
The Audacity of Hype (www.frc.org)
The new President has stated that he wants to promote good science, but he must have meant political science.
Under President Obama, the administration has promised to spend even more money on embryonic stem cell research. The technique destroys human embryos, emphasizes unethical and poor science, is least likely to help patients, and wastes both human lives and dollars. Regardless, the FDA has just approved the first experiments using embryonic stem cells in patients. FRC's Dr. David Prentice will deliver a Policy Lecture at 11 a.m. on Thursday, February 12 at our headquarters called "The Audacity of Hype: Wasting Taxpayer Lives and Wasting Taxpayer Dollars," to discuss the real science of stem cells and its policy implications.
Register online at www.frc.org/events to join us. As part of our outreach to homeschoolers, FRC will be webcasting the seminar live. If your students would like to watch, please sign up online so that we can email details about the event. Meanwhile, our policy experts have just released the most recent edition of Adult Stem Cell Success Stories. Download a free copy today.
Additional Resources
FRC: Homeschool Sign Up
FRC: ADULT STEM CELL SUCCESS STORIES - 2008 UPDATE:
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 34
The far left planning an Obama win earged and worked for the collapsing economy through their influence in Fanny May and Freddid Mac pushing the housing market over the edge. As planned the blame was squarrly placed on the ruling Prez (with no small input from the press) and in walks the savior commie Obama. It's the lefty version of the 911 Bush conspiracy.
They knew they would never be able to get the huge push into socializm they are now railroading through without this type of finacial climate. Now in what looks like a economic plan to help the buisness climate rebuild we are taking a step so far into socialism that Stalin has a hard on in his grave.
Yet all I hear is the crickets chirpping.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
Based on the really funny paranoid statements you made you must be hearing all kinds of words floating around in the ether all around you.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
People of faith may be target of 'stimulus' package
Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 2/5/2009
The administration's economic stimulus bill needs a fix to avoid a courtroom confrontation.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, tells OneNewsNow there is a provision of the act that actually allows for funds to be given by the federal government in the form of grants for renovation of existing colleges and universities.
"But when you read a little bit further into this legislation, there's a specific prohibition on two things," the attorney explains. "One, if the university itself is a religiously based or faith-based institution, it does not qualify. And if the facility that is being renovated allows religious worship to take place, it also does not qualify."
Specifically, the provision reads that stimulus funds may not be used for "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities -- (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."
Under that provision, according to Sekulow, many schools would bar on-campus worship or even Bible study because it will put federal funding in jeopardy. That, he says, should raise a warning flag in a federal courthouse.
Jay Sekulow (Amer. Ctr. for Law & Policy)"It is unconstitutional -- and while I'm prepared to challenge it in court, and we're already working on a possibility, it really needs to be handled in the legislation," the ACLJ leader suggests. "That needs to be job one...remove this provision and get it out of the legislation."
Sekulow states that a "troubling pattern" is developing regarding the use of taxpayer money -- and that this provision is the latest example. He contrasts it with the new administration's swift move to make federal funds available for abortion-providers overseas.
"There is a priority problem in Washington," he says in a press release. "This is not what 'economic stimulus' is about. We know that the American people don't want their tax dollars used for discriminatory measures. That's why this provision must be removed now."
The attorney says if the discriminatory provision is not removed from the stimulus package and is approved and signed into law, the ACLJ will challenge it in federal court.
Stimulation of discrimination?
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, agrees that the "anti-faith" language of the provision will censor and force people of faith from the public square.
"In order to receive stimulus money our public schools will have to expel after-school Bible clubs and weekend religious meetings," says the Christian attorney. "People who want to speak about their faith will be unwelcome in public places."
He adds that President Obama's idea of faith-based initiatives apparently is to "remove faith from all initiatives."
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 27
He adds that President Obama's idea of faith-based initiatives apparently is to "remove faith from all initiatives."
---------And behind this is "Satan" - Satan is out to, steal, kill and destroy.
Jer 51:6-9
6 Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the LORD's vengeance; he will render unto her a recompence.
7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.
8 Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed: howl for her; take balm for her pain, if so she may be healed.
9 We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies.
KJV
1 Tim 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (knowledge) falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
KJV
2 Thess 2:7-10
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
KJV
BEHOLD WE ARE SEEING THE BEASTS OF REVELATION COME INTO SHAPE AND FORM WITH GOV'T. JOINED UP WITH THE EMERGENT AND PURPOSE DRVIEN CHURCHES.
COME OUT OF THE WHO****RE (THE FALSE CHURCH) MY PEOPLE SAITH THE LORD OF GLORY.
Rev 18:3-5
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
KJV
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
Here we have a ranting homophobe and a religious far right wing extremist sharing their paranoia for the world to see. From a false claim regarding President Obama and Washington D.C. to a litany of irrelavant quotes from a book of fables used by people with various mental illnesses to justify their deteriorating mental conditions.
This is really not a waste of time. It is a peek into the twistd minds of those who used to stand in Hyde Park in London and deliver their paranoid delusions to all would stop and listen to them. Basically they turn the internet discussion groups into huge Hyde Parks full of very ill people shouting their mental illnesses to the world.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 27
Honesty3,
I know your doctrine: "Ridicule, Ridicule, Ridicule..." It doesn't work.
True Christian's are build on A ROCK! They can't be moved nor shaken, they Stand and Change not - just like THE GOD WHO SENT HIS SON JESUS CHRIST.
Turn fully to the Saviour of your soul, for hell is permanent. For God sent not His Son into the World to condemn the world but that through Him the world might be saved.
Consider your ways and seek fully Salvation for your soul.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
One-Lamb-of-God, I do not wish to ridicule people who are so obviously ill; they do this all too well all by themselves. I do try to get them to wake up and realize that they are spouting the words that were put in a book of fables by men who wanted to control other men between two and three thousand years ago. The success of their control endeavor is proven every time someone says that "my church/religion is better than your church/religion" and when they say, "everyone who does not act as I say they must act will spend an eternity in some kind of terrible place and manner".
The error of evangelical ways are rarely understood by various religious folk even when they send their children off to fight in a war caused by conflict between their religion and another belief. I highly recommend you double check the fine print in the insurance policy you think you have between you and your religion because when you pass on as we all must and you discover there is no heaven or hell and that you just wasted all of your time and money supporting something that never existed and that your beliefs have destroyed man's opportunities for success in this troubled universe....it will be too late and you will not get a refund as the Hindus believe.
Consider your ways and seek wisdom for your mind before it is too late to know any real truths.
Joined: Sep 2007
Current Posts: 100
Welcome "one lamb of God" it's great to see another brother in Christ here, maybe we'll bring them all to Christ, we need to call on all our brothers and take over this forum!!! Some of the lost people need Christ in their lives before it's to late, he's coming soon!!! All God's prophecy's are coming fast, I'm waiting for the 7th trump myself, can't come too soon for me!!! God Bless you!!! as I know he has.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Gays and The Military: A Bad Fit
By James J. Lindsay, Jerome Johnson, E.G. "Buck" Shuler Jr. and Joseph J. Went (4/15/09 Wa Post Op-Ed)
With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.
Are Gay Activists Too Wedded To the Cause?
The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations issued by President Bill Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."
While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.
ad_icon
In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not reenlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.
If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people -- more than the total of today's active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.
And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived."
Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.
We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways.
Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations. There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.
Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries -- not the other way around.
As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.
Consequently, our recent open letter advised America's elected leaders: "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."
Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.
Retired Army Gen. James J. Lindsay was the first commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. Retired Adm. Jerome Johnson was vice chief of naval operations. Retired Lt. Gen. E.G. "Buck" Shuler Jr. was commander of the Strategic Air Command's 8th Air Force. Retired Gen. Joseph J. Went was assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. They are founding members of Flag and General Officers for the Military.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
Never have so few with so little to say written so much and so many lies as one can find in this thread. I tried to find a shred of truth in any of the multitudinous statments made here and in other threads by all of the radical right wingnut propagandists here and found nothing but hot air and lies.
Soso and the only Real American here are good bedfellows. I'll bet they are dating.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 277
Lots of help and someone to take his PC away from him! Even the Religious Wrong think he's a nut.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
Anyone can see from all of the thousands of ravings posted here by Soso that the computer in his law office needs to be given a rest. Good catch Grape.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
The Speech I Never Gave
By Don Feder http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CD196558-FrontPageM... 31 March 2009
Author's Note: I was invited by the UMass Republicans to give this address
at a forum at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on March 11. Due
to an organized and highly disruptive demonstration by a mob of socialists,
"peace activists," and homosexuals, I was unable to deliver the speech.
More on this in a future commentary.
When asked if fascism could ever come to America, Huey Long (the
Depression-era governor of Louisiana) replied, “Sure, only here they’ll
call it anti-fascism.”
Hate-crimes laws are fascism in the guise of protecting minorities. They’re
fascism in crime-prevention drag. They’re fascism in the name of combating
bigotry and hatred.
Truly, we live in a blessed land. What I’m doing here, this evening –
expressing my ideas, not those of the government, not those of the media,
not those of the powerful, but my own opinions - is unheard of in much of
the world, even at the dawn of the 21st century.
In the 18th century, at the time of the American Revolution, Thomas
Jefferson noted that in most of Europe, the views of the king were the
views of the kingdom. To express a contrary opinion was to risk life and limb.
In America, freedom of expression and belief includes the freedom to
believe things that are manifestly wrong - the freedom to believe things
that are dangerous, the freedom to go against public opinion.
Excepting laws against libel and slander, we have the freedom to say things
that are hurtful and even hateful. We have the freedom to say things that
enrage those who would suppress speech in the name of tolerance.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it rightly in 1919, when he
wrote in his dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States: “The best test
of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
competition of the market.” Holmes added, “I think we should be eternally
vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we
loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”
In the 1943 Supreme Court case of West Virginia State Board of Education v.
Barnette, the majority opinion explained: “If there is any fixed star in
our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty,
can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or
other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their
faith therein.”
What is a hate crime?
According to a federal law enacted in 1990, a hate crime is one in which
there is “manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate
the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and the destruction, damage
and vandalism of property.” This statute requires the FBI to compile
hate-crimes statistics, and nothing more.
Federal involvement here is governed by a 1969 law which allows authorities
to prosecute a crime that was motivated by the victim’s “race, color,
religion or national origin,” and then only if the offense involves
interstate commerce or if the feds act to secure the victim’s rights to
certain “federally protected activities” – such as voting, enrolling in a
public school or traveling on a common carrier.
Lastly, a 1994 law changes federal sentencing guidelines to require
enhanced sentences for hate crimes.
In 2007, there was an attempt to amend the law to add “gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity or disability,” to the category of protected
persons.
Additionally, under this legislation, the federal government would have
been free to prosecute such crimes at its discretion, whether or not they
interfered with a federally protected right or involved in interstate commerce.
Enhanced sentences for those convicted of such crimes would have included
up to an additional 10 years in prison if the defendant “willfully causes
bodily injury to any person or through the use of fire, a firearm or an
explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person.”
The “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2007” was passed by Congress
but, fortunately, vetoed by then-President Bush. Like The Terminator, it’ll
be back.
Are hate crimes a serious problem? According to Sen. Edward Kennedy, they
are “domestic terrorism” (this from a man who’s never seemed overly
concerned about foreign terrorism).
In sponsoring his own legislation, our Senator-for-life informed us that
there is a national epidemic of hate crimes against homosexuals and the
transgendered. Ladies and gentlemen, there is more of a national epidemic of dengue fever
in this country, than there is a national epidemic of hate crimes of all kinds.
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2007, the last year for
which statistics are available, there were 16,929 murders and 855,856 cases
of aggravated assault in the United States.
By comparison, there were 7,624 hate-crime incidents, involving 9,006
victims. Moreover, of all hate crimes, 32.4% were property crimes, such as
vandalism.
Of “crimes against persons,” 47.4% were intimidation – in other words,
words alone - and 31.1% were simple assault, where no weapon was involved
and there was no serious injury. This would include pushing or almost any
other physical contact. And so, the vast majority of hate crimes affecting
persons (roughly 78%) involved only words or an assault in which there was
no serious injury or weapon involved.
Of the rest, 20.6% were characterized as aggravated assault, defined by the
FBI as “an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of
inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury.” Rounding out the hate-crime statistics, 0.2% (2/10ths of 1%) of hate crimes involved murders or forcible rape – of which there were 9 murders that year.
To put Senator Kennedy’s alleged epidemic in perspective, of all aggravated
assaults in 2007, it’s estimated that .0013% (roughly 1/100th of 1%) were
hate crimes. Of murders, .00053% (roughly 5/1000th of 1%) were hate crimes.
Your chances of being the victim of a serious hate crime are comparable to
being struck twice by lighting and run over by a high-speed train while
skate-boarding on a national holiday. There’s a greater chance of drowning
in the backseat of Senator Kennedy’s car than becoming a hate-crime statistic.
Hate-crimes laws violate the 14th. Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, in
that they favor one class of victims over another. The same crimes are
treated differently based on the victim’s group-identity and the perp's
motivation.
Thus, if a man is assaulted because of his race, his assailant will get one
sentence.
If the same man is attacked in exactly the same way, with the same outcome,
because of his political views, or because he has the misfortune of being a
Yankees fan in Massachusetts, his assailant is treated more leniently. If
something like the 2007 bill passes, that will also be true of what’s
termed sexual identity and transgenderism.
At the conclusion of my remarks this evening, if you beat me, shoot me,
stab me, or attempt to blow me up because of my views, you get one type of
punishment. However, if you commit exactly the same offense against my
person because I’m a Jew or a Caucasian, you are punished more severely.
Is that fair?
Yes, proponents of hate-crimes laws say, because you have attacked me for
what I am. As the American Psychological Association ominously explains, a
hate crime is “not only an attack on one’s physical self, but is also an
attack on one’s very identity.”
This is identity-politics applied to the administration of justice. For the
Left, an attack on a representative of a group (especially a group
sanctified as a persecuted minority) is far more serious than an attack on
an individual – because, in its worldview, groups count for more than
individuals.
Thus, Matthew Shepard becomes far more important than the victims of
Jeffrey Dahmer. Shepard’s killers “hated,” whereas Dahmer was merely hungry.
Along with “the attack on one’s very identity,” there’s a related argument.
An attack on a member of group X is somehow an attack on all of X, and
results in the intimidation of the entire class.
Let’s test the proposition. If you’re in a wheelchair and someone 500 miles
away is attacked because they’re disabled are you intimidated? Angry,
perhaps. But intimidated? Will the assault cause you to alter your behavior
in any way? Doubtful.
Many of us - we’re called grownups - have reconciled ourselves to the fact
that there will always be people who hate us because of the color of our
skin, the way we pray, our ethnicity, etc.
Humanity being flawed and given to senseless hatred, that’s a sad reality.
We can admit it and deal with it, or sit in a corner sulking about it and
demanding that government do something. That something usually entails
punishing thoughts or expression, as well as conduct.
Hate crimes are thought crimes.
If a perpetrator gets five years in prison for aggravated assault, but ten
years for hating the person he assaults (if that person is a member of a
protected class), clearly, the additional punishment is for his motivation
– what he was thinking or believed when the crime took place, the thoughts
behind the crime.
It’s an attempt to punish ideas – bad ideas, possibly reprehensible ideas,
but thoughts, often accompanied by speech, nonetheless.
In hate crimes, motives are all-important, and motivation isn’t always what
it seems.
Take the 1998 homicide of Matthew Shepard. Was Shepard murdered because he
was a homosexual? Possibly. But it’s equally plausible that he died because
his murderers wanted drug money, and Shepard (weighing in at 105 pounds)
was an easy mark. According to a 2004 report by ABC’s “20/20,” that’s what
many close to the case believe.
Thomas Jefferson declared: “The legislative powers of government reach to
actions only, not to beliefs.”
There is a well-founded fear that hate crimes -- which are, for the most
part, based on actions and words -- will eventually mutate into crimes
based on words alone.
Witness the case of a group of Christians in Philadelphia who protested a
gay pride event in October of 2004.
The incident occurred at Philadelphia’s Coming Out Day Celebration, held in
a public place, to which Philadelphia taxpayers are forced to contribute
$10,000 annually. The “celebration” was picketed by 11 members of a group
called Repent America.
These desperate characters, ranging in age from 17 to 72 (the youngest and
oldest were women) did no more than peacefully protest. They weren’t
disruptive. They didn’t attempt to block access to the event.
There was no physical contact between the protestors and those attending
the event. One demonstrator held a sign that read “Truth is hateful to
those who hate truth” – not exactly a lynch mob.
The protestors were themselves harassed by a group called the Pink Angels,
who screamed obscenities, blew whistles and held large pink signs in front
of them to block their messages.
The police did not interfere with the counter-demonstrators. Instead, they
arrested the Christians, a number of whom were charged under Pennsylvania’s
hate-crimes law called “Ethnic Intimidation.”
The Philadelphia District Attorney - who fairly salivated at the prospect
of having these miscreants drawn and quartered – got really creative.
The defendants were charged with a number of felonies and misdemeanors,
including the aforesaid “ethnic intimidation,” criminal conspiracy,
possession of instruments of crime (it’s unclear whether those were
placards or Bibles), reckless endangerment, riot, failure to disperse and
disorderly conduct. The D.A. inexplicably overlooked kidnapping, forgery,
and jaywalking.
If convicted on all counts, each of the defendants could have been
sentenced 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines.
On February 17, 2005, Judge Pamela Dembe, of the Court of Common Pleas for
the City of Philadelphia, dismissed all charges against the remaining
defendants. After viewing a videotape of the incident which led to the
arrests, Judge Dembe announced: “It is clear that there was no violence.
There were no threats.”
That’s interesting. The judge said the case was without merit, but the
police insisted on arresting the protestors and the district attorney
insisted on treating them as the homophobic equivalent of a combo Klan
rally, cross-burning, and lynching.
In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the judge remarked: “That
which is unpopular now, may not always remain so. We can not stifle free
speech because some don’t want to hear it – or don’t want to hear it now.”
The prosecution of hate crimes often results in unequal enforcement.
Compare the treatment of the Philadelphia 11 with those participating in a
Boston demonstration, on October 29, 2005.
A mob of almost 1,000 left an anti-war rally and descended on Boston’s
Tremont Temple Baptist Church, where a “Love Won Out” conference was taking
place, which included testimony by ex-homosexuals. The demonstrators
shouted obscenities and threats of violence and brought a sound truck which
was parked near the front doors, blaring the message “Shut it down. Shut it
down!”
Do you think those inside the church might reasonably have felt
intimidated? Regardless, the police took no action. Apparently, the Boston
demonstration was motivated by love and esteem, rather than hate.
When it comes to criminalizing speech, many states are way ahead of the feds.
New Jersey has a law that makes it a hate crime “to communicate in a manner
likely to cause alarm or annoyance. “ Can you believe it, there are people
so depraved that they intentionally cause alarm or annoyance? – the fiends!
In Washington state, it’s a crime to “Threaten a specific person or groups
of persons and place that person…in reasonable fear of harm to person or
property.” What is “a reasonable fear of harm”? The law states “For
purposes of this section, a ‘reasonable person,’ is a member of the
victim’s group.” Thus, if a “reasonable member” of the group in question
happens to be paranoid, hyper-sensitive or vindictive, and feels
“threatened” by any almost sign of disapproval, well, you’d better not
raise an eyebrow at them.
Just how far the You-Should-Be-Silenced-Because-I-Feel-Threatened standard
can be taken may be seen in an incident that occurred at Ohio State
University’s Mansfield campus in 2006.
Librarian Scott Savage was concerned about the political imbalance in
suggested freshman reading. In an effort to correct this, Savage
recommended that freshman read four conservative books – The Marketing of
Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: the
Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or and (perhaps most shocking of all) It Takes a
Family by then-United States Senator Rick Santorum.
This blatant attack on the sensibilities of the academic community –
recommending conservative books – caused three professors to complain that
they felt “unsafe” on campus. One wonders what horrifying scenarios ran
through their fevered imaginations: Perhaps they feared the savage beast of
the Dewey Decimal System would follow them around campus reading passages
from the menacing books.
Given the mindset that dominates academia, it probably should come as no
surprise that the entire faculty voted to file charges of
sex-discrimination and harassment against Savage for (as their complaint
put it) “anti-gay hate-mongering” – all for recommending four books.
It’s a wonder that the librarian’s detractors didn’t don armbands, build a
bonfire and march around it, consigning arm-loads of conservative books to
the flames. Surely, that would have made them feel safer on campus.
When this insanity came to the notice of the non-academic community, the
charges against Savage were quietly dropped.
Still, when it comes to censorship, our neighbors to the north and those
ultra-sophisticated Europeans are way ahead of us.
Canada’s Human Rights Act was originally intended to ensure “equal
opportunity” to individuals who might be victims of discriminatory
practices. The law, which sets up a Human Rights Commission to investigate
complaints and a Human Rights Tribunal to judge them, has spawned a
plethora of provincial equivalents.
The law keeps morphing, so that now discrimination includes hurting the
feelings of a victim group. The Human Rights Commissions are usually manned
by what a writer on salon.com called “a banal, clerical bureaucrat.”
Canadian Human Rights Tribunals are the hate-crimes equivalent of the
Spanish Inquisition, without the ambience.
In 2001, Hugh Owens, a resident of Saskatchewan, published a small ad in a
local newspaper which was illustrated with two stick-figure men holding
hands in a circle with a line drawn though it. The ad included a few Bible
verses. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordered Owens and the
newspaper to pay $4,500 to three homosexuals who were traumatized and
scarred for life by the stick-figure men.
On New Year’s Day 2004, two plainclothes policemen showed up at the home of
Canadian Internet journalist Robert Jason to investigate a possible hate
crime after a gay activist complained that he was personally threatened by
Jason’s pro-family website. Can anyone say “chilling effect”?
In 2006, well-known columnist Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone:
The End of The World As We Know It. Macleans, Canada’s largest-circulation
magazine, published an excerpt that it titled “The Future Belongs To
Islam.” That’s when the hummus really hit the fan.
A Canadian Muslim group claimed that both Steyn and Maclean’s had violated
Canada’s anti-discrimination/don’t-hurt- anyone’s-feelings law, by
misrepresenting “Canadian Muslims’ values, their community and their
religion.” Misrepresenting the Muslim faith, would that be like saying that
Islam is a religion of peace?
Maclean’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, observed that according to Canada’s
anti-discrimination law (hate crimes detached from actual crimes):
“Innocent intent is not a defense. Nor is truth. Nor is true comment on
fair facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit
is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense.
Responsible journalism is not a defense.”
Star Chamber proceedings against Steyn and Maclean’s eventually ended, when
even some liberals started complaining about the absurdity of it all.
On the liberal website salon.com, on January 13, 2008, Glenn Greenwald (an
author and civil rights litigator who loathes conservative views, including
Steyn’s work, which he calls “pernicious”) wrote: “Empowering the State to
punish speech is not only the most dangerous step a society can take –
though it is that – it’s also the most senseless. It never achieves the
intended effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If
anything, it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus
preventing debate and exposure.”
Punishing speech is the objective of American hate-crimes laws, which
currently punish views that motivate actions, but which could soon penalize
words alone
The Dutch are reputed to be the quintessence of tolerance. They’ve
legalized soft drugs, prostitution, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. It’s
even legal to have gay sex in Amsterdam’s public parks.
But when Dutch tolerance meets political correctness, in the words of the
Johnny Mercer song, “somethin’s gotta give.” That something is freedom of
expression.
In January, a Dutch appeals court ordered Geert Wilders to stand trial for
making a movie. The court directed prosecutors to charge him with “inciting
hatred and discrimination against Muslims.”
A member of the Dutch parliament, Wilders made a 10-minute documentary
called Fitna (viewed millions of times on YouTube) which consists mostly of
verses from the Koran, that Wilders says incite violence and death to
infidels.
The court’s ruling comes six months after Dutch prosecutors announced that
Wilder’s film contributed to the public debate on Islam and that the
parliamentarian had committed no criminal offense.
Now, Wilders will stand trial for trying to further the debate on a subject
about which, the Left has announced, the debate is closed.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which represents nations where
minority rights are scrupulously respected (just kidding), admonishes that
there is a “thin line separating freedom of speech and the instigation of
hatred, animosity and discrimination.” The attitude seems to be: We can say
it, but if you quote us, that’s Islamophobia.
Jordan, an OIC member-state in good standing, is demanding Wilders’
extradition to stand trial for the crime of “blasphemy of Islam,” which,
under Shari’a law, is punishable by death.
By the way, at different times, various imams, sheiks and mullahs have told
us that cartoons depicting Mohammed and the Pope quoting a 14th. century
Byzantine emperor are also blasphemy of Islam – hence the 2006
demonstrations calling for the pontiff’s death.
On January 28, 2009, Egyptian cleric Ahmad Abd Al-Salam spoke on Al-Nas TV,
a religious channel broadcasting in Arabic.
His remarks were simply titled “Why We Hate the Jews,” and contained such
lunatic ravings as – The Jews “invest their utmost efforts… in conspiring
how to corrupt the Islamic Nation… This is why we hate them.” Also, the
Jews “infect food with cancer and ship it to Muslim countries.” And “The
Jews conspire to bring Muslim youth down to the pit of sexual temptation.”
Such rancid rhetoric is heard daily in the Arab media.
Here’s an example closer to home. During the Gaza fighting, the ANSWER (Act
Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition held an anti-Israel rally in Fort
Lauderdale, Fla. There were at least 200 in the ANSWER crowd, and a much
smaller group of Jewish counter-demonstrators.
At one point, a woman in a traditional Muslim headdress began cursing the
Jews, and shouting: “Go back to the oven” and “You need a big oven, that’s
what you need” – in reference to the millions of Jews who were cremated by
the Nazis during World War II.
Does this qualify as a hate crime? What if the crude anti-Semite made a
threatening gesture toward the Jewish activists? What if the Jews had
reasonable cause to feel threatened by the much larger pro-Palestinian crowd?
After calling for a resumption of the Holocaust, if the woman had hit one
of the Jews over the head with a picket sign, should she be charged with
assault or with a more serious hate crime?
Many evangelicals rightly fear that hate-crimes laws will be used against
Christians here, as they are in Europe, to punish preaching the Gospel.
Take the case of Swedish Pastor Ake Green. Sweden is one of the European
free-speech meccas where speech alone is punished, providing it’s hateful
and that those offended can claim victim status.
Green, an evangelical pastor from southern Sweden, was sentenced to a month
in jail for a 2003 sermon “inciting hatred.” The pastor had his sermon,
citing Scripture on homosexuality, published in a local newspaper.
In it, he compared Sweden to a biblical city that experienced instant urban
renewal, but ended with the words, “What these people need, who live under
the slavery of sexual immorality, is an abundant grace...We can not condemn
these people. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace.”
In demanding that charges be brought against Green, a spokesman for
Sweden’s national gay and lesbian organization insisted: “Hatred and
defamation is not accepted, just because it is based on religious beliefs
or religious scriptures. You have some limits when it comes to freedom of
speech.” In Europe, limits on freedom of expression abound.
Britain’s High Court ruled that Harry Hammond, a 69-year-old evangelical,
was properly convicted for holding a protest sign that read “Stop
Immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism,” notwithstanding that,
while he was protesting peacefully, he was assaulted by onlookers (dirt was
thrown at him, water poured over his head, someone tried to wrest his sign
away, and he was knocked to the ground). Hammond was fined 330 pounds and
ordered to pay 395 pounds in court costs.
The Anglican Bishop of Chester, Dr. Peter Forester, was investigated by
police for saying that homosexuals “could and should seek medical help to
reorient themselves.”
A columnist for the London Telegraph wrote: “That the bishop should be
threatened with prosecution for a perfectly reasonable, if debatable,
suggestion will strike people still in their senses as a bad joke, a case
of...‘political correctness gone mad.’ Unfortunately, it is much more
serious than that. Here are the unmistakable beginnings of state thought
control.”
When he was tried, the prosecutor asked Pastor Green if he would retract
his previously stated views. The pastor said he was following the Bible. To
this the prosecutor replied, “Then get another Bible.” You see how easy it
is. If your Bible offends the prevailing cultural ethos, find one that doesn’t.
Pastor Ake’s Green conviction was overturned by Sweden’s high court, when
his lawyers threatened to take the case to the European Court for Human Rights.
Easily the most hilarious example of hate speech careening out of control
was a controversy in the Disunited Kingdom in 2006.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of
the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said civil partnerships are “harmful”
and “not acceptable.” He too was investigated by the police, who declined
to press charges.
A British gay group charged Sir Iqbal with homophobia. This caused the
Muslim Council to charge the gays with – you guessed it -- Islamaphobia.
“You hate me!” “No, you hate me more!” Dueling phobias.
I could cite other cases, in Canada and Europe, where individuals have
suffered for what they’ve said in public, on the air, in a
letter-to-the-editor or with a protest sign.
This is where American hate-crimes laws will eventually lead.
It shouldn’t be necessary to say this, but obviously no one should be
assaulted, robbed, raped, or killed for their race, religion, ethnicity,
sex, or lifestyle. Such crimes are abhorrent and condemned by all decent
people.
If you think the penalties for these offenses aren’t tough enough, by all
means, work to make them more stringent.
But don’t criminalize speech. Punish the act itself, not the ideas behind
it, even ideas you find abhorrent.
For the record, I would not punish the Philadelphia 11, or Mark Steyn, or
Pastor Ake Green or the Nazi-sympathizer in Fort Lauderdale, or the
Egyptian cleric who claimed Jews infect the food shipped to Muslim
countries and conspire to sexually tempt their youth.
Nor would I punish the contemptible cretins who deny that the Holocaust
happened – which, by the way, is a crime in Canada, Germany, and France.
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.” That quote, usually attributed to Voltaire, has become a
cliché.
Yet it represents 19th century liberalism at its best – the idea that if
one man is censored, the freedom of all men is diminished.
Some in this audience may think that those who commit hate crimes are evil,
and deserve to be punished more severely than ordinary criminals for the
same act.
Some may have no problem with the premise that speech alone should be
actionable. If what’s said offends them, makes them feel “unsafe,” calls
their conduct into question, or passes judgment on them, they believe it
should be silenced
Be careful, the principle you establish today could come back to haunt you.
Thought crimes – which hate crimes manifestly are – is the proverbial
double-edged sword.
Recall that it wasn’t all that long ago that to step across the race line
was a crime in certain states.
Bull Connor, the public safety commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, in the
early ‘60s, felt so intimidated by civil rights demonstrators that he used
fire hoses and attack dogs against them. One of the arguments white
Southerners used to fight for Jim Crow was that integration would make them
feel unsafe.
Ultimately, safety for minorities – as well as the rest of us – not to
mention the survival of free speech, lies in the unfettered marketplace of
ideas.
---
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a
political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website,
DonFeder.com
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
First Things:
Declining Notre Dame: A Letter from Mary Ann Glendon
By Mary Ann Glendon
Monday, April 27, 2009, 9:32 AM
April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things , she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Conservatives on Government's Watch List (AFF)
A new report by the Department of Homeland Security warns federal, state and local law enforcement and counterterrorist officials about the potential threat that “right-wing extremists” pose to the domestic security of the United States. The unclassified report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” was published by the “Extremism and Radicalization Branch” and was provided to help law enforcement “effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
The Department of Homeland Security warned that “a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity,” including the economic downturn and the election of the first African American President. However, it admits that the Department “has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”
Such “rightwing extremist” and “rightwing terrorists” are broadly defined in the report as “those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
The Department even goes so far as to state that that rightwing extremists “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or [illegal] immigration,” and indicates that pro-life activists and opponents of illegal immigration are of comparable concern to the Nation’s security as are white supremacists, skinheads and neo-Nazi’s. Advocating for the United States Constitution to be read as intended, which did not include a right to choose the murder of millions of the unborn, does not justify a place on a government watch list.
The report further warns against threats posed by veterans returning from war and persons seeking to uphold their constitutional right to bear arms. The report notes that “[t]he possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
The American Legion, a patriotic, war-time veteran’s organization, criticized the report as “incomplete, and . . . politically-biased” and asked for a meeting with the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. Napolitano apologized to veterans today stating that “[t]o the extent veterans read it as an accusation ... an apology is owed” and that the report was “an assessment, not an accusation.” Napalitano has agreed to meet with American Legion National Commander, David Rehbein, to discuss this matter on Friday.
This report ultimately seeks to condemn conservative values and marginalize the political voice of those who understand our God given freedoms and responsibilities. It is astounding that the new Obama administration is willing to label American citizens “terrorists” when they have refused to use this same term to describe our enemies abroad. While the administration claims they are concerned with protecting civil rights, it seems they are concerned only about protecting those rights that promote the liberal values they hold so dear while squelching out the religious liberties this nation was founded upon.
This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Woman pleads guilty in St. Louis vote fraud case
ST. LOUIS—A former get-out-the-vote worker accused of submitting false and forged voter registration cards pleaded guilty Tuesday to a federal mail fraud charge.
Deidra Humphrey, 44, of East St. Louis, Ill., worked last year as a voter registration recruiter for Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition (Missouri Pro-Vote) and for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.(ACORN)
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Obama Taxes America's Patience (FRC)
While you would never know it from the mainstream media, President Obama's approval ratings are the second worst for any President after 100 days in forty years. Only Bill Clinton's numbers were worse--and by one percentage point! That outlook is unlikely to improve once taxpayers realize the impact of this week's budget resolution. Not only are they on the hook for the President's $3.5 trillion plan, but their middle-income tax cuts--a signature promise of Obama's candidacy--were dropped from the budget package to make room for the administration's radical social policies.
Now that the President has committed Americans to roughly $10 trillion of government spending, he has quietly decided not to extend the middle-income tax relief beyond this year. In February, the stimulus package included a tax credit that provided $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples. Now it appears this "relief" will be a one-time affair. Faced with the decision to keep his word to 95% of Americans or scrap it in favor of his aggressive social agenda, President Obama (much like Bill Clinton after 1992) chose the latter.
Why is the middle class not being allowed to keep its modest tax break? To paraphrase Willie Sutton, who was asked why he robbed banks, it's because "that's where the money is." The middle-class tax cut mirage is fading quickly as we approach Obama's first summer in office.
Additional Resources
Gallup Poll on Obama's first 100 days
Associated Press: Taxpayers to get rude surprise
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Hate Crimes Bill Protects Cross-Dressers and Pedophiles but Not Veterans or Grandmas
www.LC.org
Washington, DC – On Wednesday, April 29, the U.S. House is scheduled to vote on so-called “hate crimes” legislation, which would give “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” the same federal protection as race. Last week the House Judiciary Committee refused to exclude pedophiles from the bill’s protection. The Committee also refused to include veterans. Moreover, the bill does not include the elderly.
H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give “actual or perceived” sexual preference or “gender identity” (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 “sexual orientations” and “Gender Identity Disorders,” including pedophilia. The hate crimes bill does not limit “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of “actual or perceived” includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly “thought” the other person had such disorder or fetish.
The hate crimes bill also provides that the federal government, under the direction of the Attorney General guidelines, may award grants to local law enforcement agencies to address these alleged incidents. In other words, the federal government can pay for so-called “sensitivity training” and coercive pro-homosexual propaganda.
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Sexual orientation and gender identity include pedophilia and every imaginable deviant fetish. Cross-dressers and pedophiles find refuge in this so-called hate crimes bill, while veterans and grandmas are left to fend for themselves. Obviously, this bill is not about the prevention of crime but is all about pushing a radical sexual anarchy. This bill will crush free speech and trample free exercise of religion.”
Liberty Counsel has established a petition opposing this bill on its website at www.LC.org. Tens of thousands have already signed the petition.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
The House voted to silence you - will you help stop the Senate? (www.frc.org)
The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long-stated objective of the homosexual agenda. It is one step closer to being law.
The House of Representatives passed the Hate Crimes Bill 249-175. When the Republicans tried to stop protections from possibly going to pedophiles and other suspect categories the supporters of the bill voted to protect those perversions. When Representatives tried to insert protections for religion, protecting the Bible from being described as hate speech, the Democrats voted those protections down!
It has now been referred to the Senate.
We need your help to stop it.
What "hate crimes" legislation does is lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith, as documented in the video below (click to view and take action):
The act would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses.
The American credo calls for equal justice under the law, not equal justice unless you happen to be homosexual, then you get special treatment.
ALL people deserve to be protected from crime, not just certain groups. Sign our petition TODAY to say equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. Please join the over 60,000 people who have already signed this petition. www.frc.org
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
'Hate crimes' bill is full of swill
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist One News Now - 5/7/2009
Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal "hate crimes" bill, S. 909, have been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean – you know, with evidence and such) I'll join their little soirée, don a very large pink evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.
To the express exclusion of other identifiable groups – including veterans, the elderly and the homeless – S. 909, in its current form, would grant special federal resources and preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers and – as Democratic sponsor Alcee Hastings recently admitted on the House floor – a host of other APA recognized "sexual orientations" (i.e., deviant sexual fetishes and perversions).
Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required "equal protection of the laws;" it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government's authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution.
Here's how they're doing it:
In order for the feds to usurp the States' police power, liberals in Congress have had to openly place, within the very language of the bill, a series of transparent lies. To get around that pesky old Constitution and accomplish this brash federal power grab, they've been forced to misuse and abuse the Commerce Clause.
In a feeble attempt to constitutionally justify federal interference with local law enforcement, S. 909's sponsors have made – within the bill's "Findings" section – several outlandish and unsustainable claims relative to "interstate commerce." So outlandish are these claims, in fact, that the same language was intentionally withdrawn from the House version before it was passed and referred to the Senate.
But since the bill's Senate sponsors recognize that failure to include these fantasy "findings" immediately renders the legislation unconstitutional, the interstate commerce language has quickly and quietly found its way home.
First, while addressing "hate crimes" allegedly motivated by so-called "sexual orientation" bias, the bill asserts that existing law is "inadequate to address this problem." This is patently untrue.
When the legislation's 1968 "hate crimes" forerunner was introduced, there were multiple and verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites for violent crimes committed against blacks. Moreover, the 1968 law was actually conceived and passed with the primary purpose of righting this specific wrong.
The exact opposite is true today. As FBI statistics reveal, in the relatively few instances where bias motivated crimes are committed against homosexuals or cross-dressers, those crimes are, without fail, zealously prosecuted under existing law. Victims are granted "equal protection of the laws" regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.
Yet these same victims are, nonetheless, shamelessly and publicly exploited by homosexual activists and the mainstream media as the latest "hate crimes" cause célèbre. This, even as hypersensitive local prosecutors bend over backwards to take-down alleged "gay-bashing" assailants as to avoid kneejerk accusations of systemic "homophobia."
To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed "hate crimes" victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.
This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard's memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being "gay." Indeed, this very legislation, S. 909, is cited as the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act."
The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary "hate crimes" legislation. Justice prevailed and existing law was undeniably "[adequate] to address this problem."
In fact, I challenge proponents of S. 909 to provide one verifiable example of a prosecutor refusing to charge a violent criminal because the victim was a homosexual or a cross-dresser.
They won't. They can't.
But back to the interstate commerce charade:
Here, the federal government's own statistics serve to derail the "hate crimes" gravy train. According to the FBI, in 2007 – out of 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. – there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by the victim's "sexual orientation."
Yet S. 909 makes the fantastic claim that there is an epidemic of such "hate crimes." So many, in fact, that it "poses a serious national problem." The bill hysterically declares – while providing zero evidence – the following nonsense:
• Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;
• [T]he movement of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.) is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;
• Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity;
And, here's the kicker. Wait for it ....Wait for it:
• Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
So there you have it, folks. If it weren't so serious, it'd be comical. But let's make sure we have it straight.
According to Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and their S. 909 cheerleading cohorts, we must pass S. 909 immediately because right here, right now in America, it's not at all unusual to witness terrified hordes of fabulously dressed
– yet wrongfully unemployed – "gays" and otherwise gender-confused blokes in lipstick and Jimmy Choo pumps, frantically fleeing Dolce & Gabbana before they've even had a chance to make a purchase, while inbred, homophobic, bat-wielding rednecks hotly pursue them across state lines.
Don't think I'll be wearing that pink evening gown any time soon.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Janet Napolitano is Lying to Americans About Her Department’s Rightwing Extremism Report; Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit
April 17, 2009 ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that yesterday evening it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy, ” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, ” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs. General -
Napolitano tried to blunt the public furor over the Report by a half-hearted apology to veterans, but she left out of her apology all of the other Americans her Department has targeted because of their political beliefs. In fact, officials in DHS now admit that their internal office of civil liberties objected to the language in the extremism report, but the Department issued it anyway.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of the Gestapo and any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.
This incompetently written intelligence assessment, which directs law enforcement officials across the country to target and report on American citizens who have the political beliefs mentioned in the report, will be used as a tool to stifle political opposition and opinions. It will give a pretext for opponents of those Americans to report them to police as rightwing extremists and terrorists. You can imagine what happens then.”
The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:
* Opposes restrictions on firearms
* Opposes lax immigration
* Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
* Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
* Opposes same-sex marriage
* Has paranoia of foreign regimes
* Fear of Communist regimes
* Opposes one world government
* Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
* Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
* . . . and the list goes on
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host, Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights.
The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
Thompson added, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”
The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Cross-dressers & transsexuals converge on MA State House to lobby for radical "Transgender rights and hate crimes bill." (Report with photos.) www.massresistance.lorg
Here's a taste of what you'll see if the Orwellian "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" bill becomes law. At the Massachusetts State House last Tuesday, cross-dressers, transsexuals, and other "sexual minority" activists converged for a well-organized "transgender lobby day."
April 6 was "Transgender Lobby Day", to push the most radical bill ever seriously considered by the Massachusetts Legislature. And as usual, it was very well organized, full of emotion and propaganda - and very strange.
MassResistance Report on Bill H1728:
Transgender rights and hate crimes bill
Men wearing dresses and high heels and women with beards and sideburns attended a rally at the Grand Staircase featuring legislators, public officials, activists, and (of course) left-wing clergymen with the twin mantras of "horrible discrimination" and "civil rights" repeated over and over.
There is something about people who unmistakably are men attempting to pass themselves off as women -- and women who have ingested hormones to grow beards and sideburns -- that jars the soul. The shocking sight never quite leaves you. And that day in particular, there were many other political lobbying groups walking around, including several groups of young children. It was upsetting, to say the least.
See MassResistance "Transgender Lobby Day" report with photos here.
Slick, emotional lobbying
They gave out well-planned instructions and packets, complete with "outcome" forms to fill out. Then the groups meticulously went to every legislative office.
The one-page instruction sheet synopsis was clearly written by people very familiar with the techniques of using emotion and civil rights arguments. They tell their people, "You do not need to go into the details of the legislation." But as we all know too well, the devil is in the details!
Read transgender lobbying sheet here
If you have the stomach for it, watch MassEquality's propaganda video with transsexuals speaking out: "Everyone Matters"
Children on State House field trip walk into transgender rally . . .
A group of young children accidently wandered into the transgender rally. A man who was standing there gave us this account of what he saw:
"There was a group of about 60 children, about 7-8 years old, on a field trip to the State House. They were coming up the stairs of the Grand Staircase to the area where the transgender group was holding their rally. It was a normal group of boistrous, excited, and curious kids.
"When the children came around the corner and looked at all these men dressed as women, they suddenly became silent. I was standing right next to them.
"They looked confused, scared, shocked, and dumbfounded. It was obvious to them that these were men dressed in women's clothes.
"None of the children said a word. They were faced with something they'd never seen before. The teachers didn't seem to know how to react. I felt a terrible feeling inside of myself about it."
And of course, the bathrooms
According to multiple witnesses, they made a made a particular effort to use the (opposite-sex) men's' and women's' rest rooms, seemingly as a gesture of defiance.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Irresponsible Funding for Irresponsible Behavior (FRC)
In keeping with the administration's lack of restraint, Washington is preparing to send a message to America's teens that sexual restraint is also unnecessary. One of the few places that President Obama has shown a stingy side is by cutting programs for teens that have made a meaningful impact on public health. Of course, it's not really a spending cut since the money is being redirected to new pro-contraceptive programs for teens.
In fiscal year (FY) 2009 the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) fund was $94.7 million. Today the administration is proposing that of the $114.5 allotted for FY 2010, no less than $75 million would go to teen pregnancy prevention programs that include contraception promotion--not abstinence education. While another $25 million could be used for abstinence education, there is no guarantee that it will be since the proposal calls for "new strategies" with this money.
Abstinence funding in Title X Adolescent and Family Life funds is getting a similar cut. Instead of $13 million going to abstinence education, programs that advocate abstinence would have to compete for $3.28 million earmarked as "new strategies" for prevention, but as with CBAE there's no guarantee that the abstinence projects would be funded. The administration defends the abstinence cuts by pointing to studies, many of which are linked to Planned Parenthood, that question the effectiveness of abstinence programs.
The truth is, abstinence education goes beyond pregnancy prevention to promoting holistic change in teenagers. Studies show that in addition to preventing pregnancy and disease, teens who practice abstinence are better off emotionally and are much more likely to experience marital fidelity and satisfaction. The same cannot be said of the comprehensive sex education. In a review of 119 studies, comprehensive sex education has produced no compelling evidence of sustaining a meaningful effect on protective behaviors in a school-based setting, even after three decades of implementation and evaluation.
Additional Resources
Abstinence Works: Studies Validating the Efficacy of Abstinence-Centered Education
Defund and Defend
Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp (R) has found a perfect way to save money: defund Planned Parenthood.
"Despite allegations of impropriety," he said, "and more than a hundred criminal charges, this year Kansas taxpayers paid out nearly $300,000 to subsidize this entity."
The Planned Parenthood gravy train may be coming to an end in Kansas, if Gov. Mark Parkinson (D) joins the state legislature in supporting Huelskamp's amendment. Under it, the state's taxpayers would no longer have to shell out hundreds of thousands to an organization marred by allegations of fraud, criminal cover-ups, clinic deficiencies, and falsification of documents.
We urge Kathleen Sebelius's replacement to set a new tone in Kansas by signing this measure into law and ending the political payoffs to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Our hats go off to Senator Huelskamp for what could be a significant victory for people who cherish life--and their hard-earned dollars.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
The American Left attempts a bloodless coup
Sandy Rios - Guest Columnist - 4/29/2009
Totalitarian movements have always destroyed their enemies. Peter the Great of Russia murdered members of the Streltsy military corps by taking the ax of the executioner to cut off their heads one by one himself. The Bolsheviks murdered the last Russian Czar—along with his wife and family—by telling them they were going to have their picture made. As they smiled into the camera, they were shot, buried and had acid poured over their remains.
Stalin continued the blood bath of the Russian Revolution by murdering thousands of his own who didn't agree with Marxism. The Nazis had their gas chambers, not just for Jews, but also for dissenters. Fidel Castro turned his popularity into tyranny and brave Cubans gave their lives trying to free their beloved island. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia tortured and murdered the intelligentsia in the S21, the regular folk in the Killing Fields. The slightest lack of support for Pol Pot and the new regime earned one a place in a mass grave.
There was a dreadful logic in all of this: By killing the opposition, you eliminated any possibility of future resistance, and you eradicated any personality who could possibly remind or rally future generations to any other way of thinking. Power was—at least for a time—absolute in each situation.
But times have changed and so have strategies. Saul Alinsky, radical of the '60s, author of "Rules for Radicals" who was all about taking power, suggested that you target your opposition, make it personal and destroy him.
Recent decades have seen this play out in the demonization and ruination of a host of people. They weren't killed, but they were in essence destroyed so that no one in the mainstream culture would ever again listen to or heed their advice. Richard Nixon...Oliver North...Clarence Thomas...Dick Cheney...Tom DeLay...George W. Bush...Sarah Palin. Have Americans stopped to think that these destroyed people are all on the political right? Have they noticed that Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank still walk among us, exercising influence, with whatever reputations they have in tact?
Yes, times have changed. Under the careful guidance of Fidel Castro, the driving force behind the Sao Paulo Forum, a new method of gaining power has emerged: 1) Get elected through the system, 2) change the constitution, 3) corrupt the elections 4) nationalize banks and industry and 5) punish your opposition
. A leader needs to make just a few bold moves in each category so that all will get the message. According to Alejandro Peña Esclusa, the former Venezuelan presidential candidate who has been tried on several occasions for his opposition to Hugo Chavez, this insidious method of instilling a totalitarian regime is now working in 17 Latin American countries.
"It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America," Hugo Chavez said just last week even as he was jailing opposition mayors in at least three cities.
Now the president, however coyly, and the Democratic leadership, boldly, are seeking to prosecute the last administration for political disagreements by calling them crimes. They want to punish Bush officials who gave legal advice and permission to proceed with interrogation techniques including water boarding that documents show most assuredly saved American lives.
They have released top secret documents, jeopardizing American safety further by making the people who protect and defend us worried sick both for fear of retribution and the very real potential harm that could be done to the nation as a result.
Former President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice, Karl Rove and attorneys at Justice and the CIA won't be lined up and shot, but they will, if this insidious method of taking power has its way, be destroyed financially and personally—with their reputation in shreds.
And then who will stand up to speak against the dominant left? No one. And that's the point.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
European Fascist Movements are Led by Homosexuals According to Gay Journalist
Says gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the Third Reich
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman BRITAIN, May 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With the rise of an increasingly militant and even violent homosexual movement which has threatened and assaulted Christians for their opposition to their political agenda, homosexual activists in the U.S. and Europe have been increasingly accused of "homofascism."
Now, a self-described "gay left-wing" journalist in Britain has admitted that the fascist tendency of homosexuals is far more than a conservative rhetorical trope. Johann Hari, a reporter for the Independent newspaper points out in a recent article for the ultra-leftist Huffington Post that, despite their official condemnation of sodomy, the leadership of European fascist movements is dominated by homosexuals.
"If you inter-railed across Europe, only stopping with gay fascists, there aren't many sights you'd miss," Hari writes with amazing frankness. The author observes that "when the British National Party - our own home-grown Holocaust-denying bigots - announced it was fielding an openly gay candidate in the European elections this June, dedicated followers of fascism didn't blink."
"The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay."
"It's time to admit something. Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music."
Hari supplies readers with a long list of homosexuals in European fascist movements, beginning with Ernst Rohm, a co-founder of the Nazi party whose leadership of the party's paramilitary organization, the SA, rivaled that of Hitler himself.
The SA upper ranks, Hari says, were almost exclusively homosexual. He also cites historian Lothar Machtan, who speculates that one reason HItler had Rohm killed was to silence speculation about his own possible homosexual past.
According to Hari, the homosexual tendency in Nazism is strongly reflected among fascistic Europeans today. He observes that "Dutch fascist" Pim Fortuyn was an open homosexual who spoke publicly about his sexual behavior. Jorg Haider of Austria's neo-fascist Freedom Party died while leaving a gay bar, after much media speculation about his rumored homosexual relationships. Michael Kuhnen, leader of Germany's neo-fascist movement in the 1980s, died in the early 90s of AIDS after publicly acknowledging his homosexuality. The list goes on and on, Hari says.
Hari quotes the homosexual pornographic film-maker Bruce LaBruce, who states openly that "all gay porn today is implicitly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it's all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures."
Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), commenting on Hari's article, told LifeSiteNews that "clearly, we've talked about it for years, we've seen something that we're calling homofascism in the American movement, and actually you've seen this sort of fascistic tendency, for lack of a better word, going way back."
LaBarbera recalls the intimidation tactics and desecration of churches undertaken by homosexual activists in recent years. He believes that the involvement of homosexuals in extremist politics is an expression of their disturbed mental state.
"It shouldn't be surprising to find that people with a disordered psychology are found in disordered, fringe political movements like communism and fascism. The political tendencies of such people are often a reflection of their psychological problems," LaBarbara told LifeSiteNews.
Related Links:
The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann...y_b_136697.htm...
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH)
http://americansfortruth.com/
Related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Christian Prayer Group Sexually and Physically Assaulted by Homosexual Mob
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111816.html
Mainstream Media Ignoring Violence, Vandalism and Intimidation of Homosexualist Protestors
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111905.html
New Study Shows 32% of Homosexuals Have Suffered Abuse by their "Partner"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07110902.html
Gay Activists Assault Ex-Gay, Trash Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays Booth at Fair
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07082808.html
Homofascists March On
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/may/060515a.html
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
A Word in Due Season (www.frc.org)
It was a speech so powerful and uncompromising that those in attendance couldn't help wishing that it had been broadcast to every church in America. With the nation in moral crisis, Christians everywhere are hungry for the kind of spiritual leadership that Archbishop Emeritus Raymond Burke brought to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. With many from FRC in attendance, one of the most distinguished Catholic leaders delivered a call to conscience that deserves repeating.
"I come to you, not as someone who stands outside of our nation but as a citizen who... takes responsibility for the state of our nation and, therefore, cannot remain indifferent and inactive about what most concerns the good of us all... Over the past several months, our nation has chosen a path which more completely denies any legal guarantee of the most fundamental human right, the right to life, to the innocent and defenseless unborn.
Our nation, which had its beginning in the commitment to safeguard and promote the inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" for all, without boundary, is more and more setting arbitrary limits to her commitment...
With unparalleled arrogance, our nation is choosing to renounce its foundation upon the faithful... love of a man and a woman in marriage, and, in violation of what nature itself teaches us, to replace it with a so-called marital relationship, according to the definition of those who exercise the greatest power in our society...
What those who were so enthused about the strong message of change and hope in the United States, delivered during the last election campaign, are now discovering is a consistent implementation of policies and programs which confirm and advance the culture of death, which can only finally leave our world without the Great Hope...
The change which brings hope can only be the renewal of our nation in the divine love which respects the inviolable dignity of every human life...and which creates and gives growth to new human life through the love of man and woman in marriage.
Any hope which is incoherent with the Great Hope is truly illusory and can never bring forth justice and its fruit--peace--for our nation and world."
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Anti-Catholic Bigot Harry Knox - Letter From Catholic Leaders Calls for President Obama to Fire Hm
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500-0003
Dear Mr. President,
On April 6, you named Harry Knox to your Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. You claim to have created this Council, among other things, to “bring everyone together – from both the secular and faith-based communities.”
Harry Knox is the hate-filled antithesis of this noble objective. Knox is a virulent anti-Catholic bigot, and has made numerous vile and dishonest attacks against the Church and the Holy Father. He has no business on any Council having to do with faith or religion.
We do not know if you or members of your Administration were aware of Knox’s deplorable, abusive attitude towards the Church and Pope Benedict XVI when you named him to the Council. We assume you were not. But since then, there have been numerous press reports on Knox’s loathsome, and clearly bigoted rhetoric, so there no longer is any excuse for your failure to act. We can remain silent no longer.
As Catholics, we call on you to remove Mr. Knox from his position and to formally disassociate yourself from his militant anti-Catholicism. Failure to do so will result in the tainting of your Faith-Based Council—and indeed, your entire administration—as anti-Catholic.
We urge you to give this matter your immediate consideration.
Sincerely,
John Boehner
House Republican Leader
Member of Congress
L. Brent Bozell, III
Founder and President
Media Research Center
Judie Brown, President,
American Life League, Inc.
Stafford, VA
Larry Cirignano
Catholic Activist
Eileen Cubanski
Executive Director
National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools (NAPCIS)
Bill Donohue
President
Catholic League
Chuck Donovan
Executive Vice President
Family Research Council
Deacon Keith A. Fournier
Editor in Chief, Catholic Online
Founder, Common Good
Deal W. Hudson
Director
InsideCatholic.com
Philip F. Lawler
Editor
Catholic World News
Leonard Leo
President
National Catholic Prayer Breakfast
(Mr. Leo’s affiliation is listed for identification purposes only)
Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council
Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
Kate O’Beirne
President
National Review Institute
Thomas Peters
American Papist Blog
Al Regnery
Publisher
The American Spectator
Patrick J. Reilly
President
The Cardinal Newman Society
Charles Rice
Professor, Emeritus
Notre Dame Law School
Austin Ruse
President
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM)
Phyllis Schlafly
Founder and President
Eagle Forum
Fr. Robert Sirico
President
The Acton Institute
Richard Viguerie
Chairman
American Target Advertising
Instances of Harry Knox’s Bigotry
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Obama, Notre Dame, and the character thing
Dr. Paul Kengor - Guest Columnist - 5/16/2009
...his first year as Pennsylvania governor, Tom Ridge was invited by Gannon University, a Catholic college in Erie, Pa., to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree. But the distinguished Republican and native son had a problem: he was a pro-choice Catholic.
Erie Bishop Donald Trautman expressed his "concerns." Governor Ridge declined the degree.
"The last thing I would want is for those differences to distract in any way from this wonderful day of recognition for Gannon's class of 1995," said Ridge. His spokesman explained that the decision "came from the governor."
Ridge did the right thing. He did the character thing.
That wasn't the only case. As far back as June 1974, shortly after Roe v. Wade became law, the famous Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty refused an invitation and honorary degree from the University of Santa Clara because of an abortion controversy involving the university. Mindszenty did the character thing.
Obviously, this is relevant because of the situation with President Barack Obama and Notre Dame. On Sunday, Obama will deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame, courtesy of the invitation and insistence of Notre Dame president John Jenkins.
This has caused a tremendous scandal. In fact, Catholic Church officials are using precisely that word — "scandal" — which has loaded, pejorative meaning in today's Catholic Church, reserved for the worst offenses. One Vatican official calls the Notre Dame situation "the greatest scandal."
Countless letters and 350,000 signatures from Catholics all over America have flowed into Notre Dame, demanding Jenkins rescind the invitation or resign. Millions of dollars from alumni are in jeopardy. Arrests of protestors have already taken place, with more sure to follow.
Notre Dame's bishop, John D'Arcy, carefully instructed Father Jenkins that his invitation stands in "clear" violation of the American bishops' guidelines, openly articulated in their statement, Catholics in Political Life. Jenkins has rebuffed D'Arcy, who, in turn, will not be attending graduation for the first time in 25 years as bishop.
The other speaker scheduled for the day, the renowned Catholic stateswoman, former ambassador to the Vatican, and Harvard law professor, Mary Ann Glendon, is also staying home, refusing the school's Laetare Medal, which she would have received alongside President Obama. Additional priests and church officials, plus students, are boycotting.
Voices condemning Notre Dame range from Norma McCorvey — "Jane Roe" herself, who is now a pro-life Catholic — to Archbishop Raymond Burke, head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court. (Burke calls Obama "an agent of death.")
I literally cannot think of a single episode in American history where a Catholic university has found itself in such an uproar with a president. Indeed, the previous pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, was not invited by Jenkins' predecessor.
Thus, President Obama should do the right thing — the character thing — and let Jenkins off the hook by not attending. He should take the high road, "No, Father Jenkins, I insist. This is hurting you and your university."
Apparently, Obama will not do that. Why not?
I'm not a mind reader, but I can report on the speculation, and it isn't pretty. I've spoken to Catholics ranging from laity and priests to journalists, scholars, and even university presidents. I can report to Obama and his advisers, sincerely, that the target has shifted to not merely Notre Dame, but to both Notre Dame and Obama.
Previously, the view had been that Obama was Obama, and it was Notre Dame, not Obama, who was at fault. That has changed. I'm encountering a lot of hostility at Obama personally for not withdrawing, especially as the controversy has mushroomed. He is being accused of everything from "no integrity" to narcissism to sheer political expediency.
Now, to be sure, I'm hearing these things largely from orthodox Catholics, meaning those who attend Mass consistently and follow the Roman Catholic Church and its moral teachings; they are loyal to the Magisterium (the teaching body) of the Catholic Church. These are Catholics that liberals will dismissively dub "conservative Catholics," even though many of them, especially those over 60 years old, are longtime registered Democrats. Liberals don't care if these particular Catholics are angry.
That would be a mistake. Consider:
Sure, a majority (54 percent) of Catholics voted for Obama. Amazingly, a Pew poll shows an astounding fact sure to embarrass orthodox Catholics: 50 percent of Catholics favor Notre Dame's invitation to Obama. (A Rasmussen poll shows otherwise.)
But if you break down the data, the numbers are illuminating. First off, actual churchgoing Catholics voted for John McCain over Barack Obama; likewise, the Pew poll shows that churchgoing Catholics disagree with Notre Dame's invitation. (Similar splits exist among churchgoing vs. non-churchgoing Protestants, and evangelicals vs. mainline Protestants.)
What does this mean? It means Obama gains no ground, politically, by going to Notre Dame. He preaches to the choir that supports him regardless. On the other hand, he loses big time — and, frankly, infuriates — tens of millions of faithful Catholics.
If I were a Republican Party political strategist, the Machiavellian in me would urge Obama to go to Notre Dame — to permanently divorce himself from faithful Catholic voters, especially in 2012. I wouldn't want him to withdraw.
But it looks like Obama's decision is set. He won't do what Tom Ridge did, or what Cardinal Mindszenty did. And, ultimately, Barack Obama will only hurt Notre Dame and himself.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" (HarperPerennial, 2007), and "The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand" (Ignatius Press, 2007). This column is printed with permission.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
The fight to preserve conscience laws
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/19/2009
Medical professionals are trying to protect conscience rules implemented by the Bush administration.
Those rules allow doctors and pharmacists to decline to perform services on the basis of religious beliefs or ethics. Dr. David Stevens of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations says the Obama administration intends to withdraw the rules. He points to comments by President Obama during his speech on Sunday at Notre Dame.
"The president says he going to honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause. We already have a conscience clause, so I don't know what he's trying to say," Stevens admits. "The Church Amendment, The Public Health Act, the Weldon Amendment all have very clear conscience laws in them. Unfortunately they're not being enforced."
According to Stevens, up to a fourth of medical personnel say they have been discriminated against because of their religious views in areas such as abortion.
David Stevens (CMDA)
"What we need is for this administration to let the common-sense regulations that were put in place stand, and then we can move forward with patients knowing they're going to have a doctor, nurse, or other healthcare professional they need when they have a healthcare problem," he adds.
Stevens is hopeful the public will continue to contact the White House urging retention and enforcement of the current rules.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Shifting Stories: Napolitano’s Recent Comments No Comfort to Patriotic Conservative Americans ─ Lawsuit Moves Forward TMLC May 20, 2009
ANN ARBOR, MI – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s May 12, 2009, revised explanation to a congressional subcommittee about her Department’s controversial “Rightwing Extremism” report raises even more questions about her candor and competence to protect our nation from terrorists.
Napolitano originally told Americans that she had been briefed before its release and stood by the “Report.” However, when public outrage over its contents reached a crescendo, she backtracked and told Americans she would have “reworded” the section that labeled returning veterans as potential terrorists. When that did not calm the outrage, she apologized to veterans. Now, Napolitano claims a rogue employee published the report without authorization.
On May 12, 2009, Napolitano told a congressional subcommittee that the Report “was not authorized to be distributed, ” and that it was taken off the Department’s website.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted to her latest explanation, “Our lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano will continue. Since we filed that lawsuit, additional information has been brought to our attention that creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs. Moreover, simply removing the report from the DHS website, without a condemnation of its contents and specific instructions to all the enforcement agencies receiving it that that it should not be used, is merely hiding the evidence of an insidious ongoing agenda to go after conservative Americans. In fact, her comment to the subcommittee that the report is being ‘redone’ and will be ‘much more precise’ in view of her previous linguistic contortions, is too vague to give comfort to conservative Americans.”
Significantly, Napolitano has never apologized or retracted the report’s specific targeting as ‘potential terrorists’ conservative Americans who:
* Oppose abortions
* Oppose same-sex marriage
* Oppose restrictions on firearms
* Oppose lax immigration
* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
* Are suspect of foreign regimes
* Fear Communist regimes
* Oppose a “one world” government
* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
* Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
* . . . and the list goes on.
Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, ” which was first made public in a “leaked” Intelligence Assessment violates the civil liberties of American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.
On April 16, 2009, the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan filed a lawsuit against Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.
The Law Center claims that DHS has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that DHS encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Have Agenda, Will Trave(www.frc.org)
Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration are not ready to attack traditional marriage directly, but they may be willing to have it die a death of a thousand cuts. Under the current version of H.R. 2410, the State Department budget reauthorization bill, taxpayers will be financially responsible for the same-sex partners of U.S. diplomats. The legislation calls for an end to "the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits [like health care and travel] routinely provided to the spouses... serving abroad."
If the House agrees to fund these "significant others," the policy would be completely inconsistent with the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the government from treating same-sex partners as the equivalent of spouses. Ironically, House leaders are asking Congress to overturn the policy on the grounds of discrimination--even though the bill blatantly practices it. Under the current language, gays and lesbians are eligible for these perks, but heterosexual partners are not.
When the State Department isn't busy undermining U.S. law, it will turn its attention to undermining other nations'. H.R. 2410 also includes some aggressive language about the President's intent to challenge the sovereignty of our international neighbors. "...[T]he Secretary of State shall work... to reform or repeal laws of such countries criminalizing homosexuality..." In other words, the Obama administration is planning a global offensive that will tear down the pro-marriage policies of other nations.
This would be in concert with Secretary Hillary Clinton's work as America's abortion ambassador. She said last month that the State Department would actively work to overturn pro-life laws in other nations. One agency that could help her achieve that goal is the "Office of Global Women's Issues," which is authorized through H.R. 2410. FRC will work assertively to ban the Office from performing, promoting, or engaging in abortion-related activities.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Homosexual Youth Pride Day - state sponsored gay / transgender activities for kids and adult activists. (part 1 of 5 - www.massresistance.org)
On Saturday, May 9, the homosexuals showed us all what they think of our children. They brought kids as young as 12 to their annual all-day "Youth Pride Day" in downtown Boston. It started at the Boston Common at noon with a "celebration" featuring "gay" speeches and crude entertainment. Then they paraded the kids down the street past the State House for an in-your-face message to the politicians there who fund them with our money.
That night was a "transgender prom" for kids held at Boston City Hall (Mayor Thomas Menino gave them full use of the building) which included activities which bordered on criminal (wait till you see our report). There was also a range of pro-homosexual literature passed out, as well as condoms. Various government agencies also participated.
Throughout the day and evening all kinds of strange adults (mostly men, but also some adult women) freely mingled with the children.
NOTE: CORI checks - which are required by the state for any adult participating in a children's activity - are given an informal exemption from the Attorney General and others for homosexual-related activities (which we reported in detail last year.)
The main theme throughout the day was "transgenderism". And various other kinds of public homosexual behavior was also encouraged. The constant emotional message to the kids was that engaging in these behaviors is "good" and "progressive". And anyone who criticizes it is "bad" and "bigoted" - to a point where one photographer was assaulted by a crowd of kids and adults whipped into a frenzy (of which we have photos and video).
This was organized by the state-funded Massachusetts Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth, made up of some of the most hardcore homosexual / transgender organizations and individuals in the state.
But worse, a great deal of the funding for this event also came from a private organization, The Friends of GLBT Youth -- a truly evil (in our opinion) group of wealthy homosexual activists whose offensive motto is "These kids are our kids."
Here's the MassResistance report of one of their fundraisers a few years ago, and here's their website. They've pledged to raise private money for the Massachusetts Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth, whenever the government funding slows down.
Drag queeen and other bizarre adults running the "celebration"
When the kids got to the Boston Common, they were gathered around a stage erected in the center of the area. The master of ceremonies throughout the afternoon was a drag queen - Adam Shanahan, a 27-year-old man from Lowell dressed in women's clothes who called himself Raquel Blake.
Mr. Shanahan is also a former "Miss Gay Massachusetts." This is the role model that the state "commission" wants your kids to see.
You can't make this stuff up. The MC of the day's event was a man dressed as a woman. This is what your politicians think of you and your children.
As we mentioned, there were all kinds of strange adults mingling around the kids. Many were clearly homosexual activists, others were men dressed in women's' clothes. There were also many boys dressed as women.
As things began, Mr. Shanahan introduced a representative from Boston Mayor Thomas Menino's office who read a personal message from the Mayor welcoming the homosexual activists and congratulating them on their "youth pride" event.
After that came the transgender Elvis Presley. It's hard to imagine a weirder singing act. A female dressed as Elvis accompanied by a bearded male "transgender" dancer wearing a skirt and bikini. It wasn't a joke; they were serious. Their message to the kids was: We're just as normal as you.
How weird does it get? The main singing act was a female Elvis Presley with a man in a bikini. (video at www.massresistance.org)
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
OBAMA CHOOSES RACIST FOR SUPREME COURT (IVA)
President Obama's nominee to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is by all objective accounts an activist judge who will indulge left-wing policy preferences instead of impartially applying the law.
She appears to be intellectually shallow, and perfectly willing to use her judicial power to discriminate on the basis of race, as long as the victims of discrimination are white.
She proved this in a one-paragraph ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, siding with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to white firefighters, and was even chastised for her blatant racism by a colleague, a Clinton appointee.
Said the colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, her opinion "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," and represents a "perfunctory disposition" of a case that required thought because of the "weighty issues presented."
Her racism-tainted ruling was so bad that even a Washington Post columnist lamented that the firefighters in question had been "deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race."
In other words, Judge Sotomayor is willing to cavalierly brush aside the profound principles of the Declaration of Independence if the people involved have the wrong skin color. Didn't we fight a Civil War to resolve this very thing?
If we want to go back to the America of 1857 and Dred Scott, Sotomayor is the express train who will take us there.
Her ruling is under review by the Supreme Court, and an opinion is expected by the end of June.
Tellingly, Sotomayor freely ad mits that she makes judicial decisions based on her feelings and personal politics rather than the Constitution and the law, as if this were something to be proud of rather than ashamed of.
She said in 2002 that it is appropriate for judges to consider their "experiences as women and people of color" and that such experiences should "affect our decisions."
She added, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Picture a major league umpire with a Hispanic background who vows publicly to allow his race to factor into calling balls and strikes. His "empathy," he admits, drives him to cut a break to players from the Dominican Republic and Venezuela out of sympathy for the impoverished circumstances under which they grew up.
This obviously would make a mockery of the rules of baseball. And so Sotomayor will make a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law.
And perhaps most tellingly, she famously admitted in 2005 that the courtroom (rather than the state legislature or Congress) "is where policy is made." That's as succinct a creed for judicial activism as you will find anywhere.
She is so far out of the mainstream even among her judicially-activist peers that she has been frequently reversed by the Supreme Court.
Sadly, we have a Republican president, Bush I, to thank for this inept and dangerous judge, as he appointed her to the bench in 1991. If there was ever a clarion call to the party of constitutional principle to wake up and smell the napalm, Sotomayor is it.
According to Jeffrey Rosen of the far-left The New Republic, Sotomayor's colleagues have questions "about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectu al counterweight to the conservative justices."
Some of her colleagues have said that she is "not that smart" and that she is "kind of a bully on the bench." Said a former Second Circuit clerk for another judge, "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."
Apart from her own racism, prejudice and bias, she does not appear to have the intellectual heft for a responsibility of this magnitude.
The bottom line is that we simply cannot afford to have a racist lightweight exercising tyrannical judicial power.
This morning's advice from Republican elites is to go easy on Sotomayor and reserve judgment. This is the worst possible strategy. The GOP must come out fast and hard against a judge who will lurch the Court even further to the left than the justice she will replace.
The longer they wait to vigorously oppose her nomination, the more vulnerable they will be to completely false charges that they, rather than Sotomayor, are the racists in the drama. They must openly and unapologetically oppose her as unfit to occupy a seat on the Supreme Court beginning right now.
The president is cynically appealing both to racial and gender bias in presenting this Hispanic woman to the nation. But Republicans should expose and reject this blatant appeal to characteristics that have absolutely nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with qualifications for a seat on the highest bench in the land. This decision is far too important to let racism and gender bias influence their decision.
If our system of justice is to be color-blind, as it should, then the place to begin is by refusing to be intimidated into supporting an obviously flawed nominee because of either her gender or the color of her skin. Preferring a candidate just because of her race is itself racism, plain and simple, and the party of Lincoln should be way better than that. But don't hold your breath.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Immigration Law: Leahy's Passport to Same-Sex 'Marriage' (FRC)
Under its cheery name, The Uniting American Families Act, lies yet another attack on marriage at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. As part of the movement to give same-sex partners special privileges, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill, S. 424, to allow any gay or lesbian foreigner who is currently dating an American to immigrate to the U.S. on the same basis as foreign spouses.
Like a married couple, these homosexuals would be eligible for "permanent resident status" under the current immigration law.
Although Leahy frames the policy as an anti-discrimination measure, the truth is, this weakens our federal law and chips away at the unique status of marriage. For the federal government to recognize homosexual pairs in any way, shape, or form is a violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
If the liberal leadership wants to repeal DOMA, then they should do so with a recorded vote of Congress--not let it just die of a thousand cuts.
A full Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, June 3. Before then, contact your Senators and remind them that same-sex relationships should never be privileged in our immigration laws.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Entertainment a Drag at U.S. Embassy (FRC)
According to the Washington Post, tonight marks the beginning of a new offensive in Iraq: the homosexual invasion. At the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, government employees are gearing up for their first-ever gay pride theme party. "Come celebrate the start of summer...in costume," reads the invite. "Dress in DRAG or as a GAY ICON. Prizes will be awarded."
In the last several months, President Obama has been a harsh critic of his predecessor's approach to Middle Eastern policy. Is this his idea of "getting back to diplomacy"? Now maybe the Embassy staff needs a way to chill, but surely they can think of something less insulting than a toast to debauchery in the middle of an Islamic war zone. For an administration bent on promoting tolerance and diversity, this smacks of cultural ignorance. If the Muslim community finds an unveiled woman distasteful, how will they react to this vulgar display? Although it is certain to bring harm to our credibility in the region, the real risk is a loss of U.S. lives. This type of provocation could pose a grave threat to Americans on Iraqi soil, many of whom could be a target of Baghdad's outrage.
And speaking of inviting contempt on the Embassy, U.S. taxpayers will surely have something to say about this. Although a spokesman said that the drag contest was "sponsored by a group of employees" who are just using the facility's bar, the invitation was distributed over an official government wire, meaning that taxpayer resources were used in its promotion.
Of course the irony of all this is that while these employees are planning a night of gaiety, CNN is reporting that the U.S. military is burning hundreds of Bibles sent to our soldiers because they might offend Muslims. In other words, it's not acceptable to own a New Testament in Afghanistan, but letting our Embassy workers cross-dress in the middle of an Islamic capital is?
Four days removed from Memorial Day, this party sends an incredibly insensitive message to our troops who gave the ultimate sacrifice. The brave men and women of the United States who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan did so to bring about a revival of freedom in the Middle East -- not a celebration of sexual decadence.
Additional Resources
Washington Post: For One Night, Baghdad Gets a Pink Zone
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
VOTER INTIMIDATION BY BLACK PANTHERS A-OK in Obama's America (IVA)
They say that the wheels of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine. Well, in Obama's America, it looks like the wheels of justice have jumped the tracks and aren't grinding much at all, unless they're grinding up the voting rights of ordinary Americans.
Obama's political appointees in the Justice Department this week dismissed a civil complaint against three Black Panthers who wielded nightsticks and intimidated voters by using racial slurs and wearing military-style uniforms, replete with black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, and black jackets with military-style insignias, ]
at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, an incident famously caught on videotape and widely watched on YouTube.
According to one of the defendants, the incident was part of a nationwide effort to deploy Black Panthers at polling places on Election Day.
According to the now-dismissed Justice Department complaint, the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... (and) menacing and intimidating gestures."
In a sworn affidavit, Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign, who was a credentialed poll watcher at the site, said, "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."
Bull overheard one of the Black Panthers tell a white poll watcher, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
Bull says the Panthers' conduct was an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear," and was "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" he had ever seen.
Ludicrously, DOJ spokesman Alejandro Miyar said, "Claims were dismissed ... based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." What "facts," exactly, would that be?
The accused didn't even bother to appear in court to answer accusations over the five-month period since charges were filed in January. Apparently they figured they didn't need to, even though a federal judge had ordered - ordered! - the DOJ to seek sanctions against them for their failure to appear.
Bottom line: there doesn't seem to be much "justice" left at the "Department of Justice." And it's at least three and one-half years before Americans can do anything about that.
Washington Times - EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
ObamAcorn Pop
Those who watched the Obamacon during his Senate Election 'debate' with Alan Keyes, and unlike our mainstream media which immediately tried to forget about it, may remember the Obamacon endorsing the 'Fatherless Boy' ideology of the Radical Gender Feminist lobby.
This is the process where a boy is told he has No Father (not an absent or missing one, but No Man Ever Existed to be His Father), despite the evidence of his Inherited Male DNA. It is done in service of Misandry; the Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality, and has become a legal foundation of the 'Separatist / Exterminationist' Dyke Lobby.
It is not surprising that the Democrap Machine has offered us yet another Fatherless, Feminist Mama's Boy (The Obamacon, like Slick Willie before him) as a figurehead; while the real work against "Heteronormative" Fathering gets done in the trenches by the Homosex Storm Troopers like Jennings and Knox.
Best Keep Quiet about it though, wouldn't want to spread any 'Ism-Obia" now would we, what with everything else going around and all.
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth (like saying that All Boys have Fathers) is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Harry Knox unfit for Obama's faith-based council
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/27/2009
A controversial member of President Obama's faith-based council has stated that responsible fatherhood means moving beyond America's "heteronormative" view of fatherhood.
Harry Knox, who was recently appointed to the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Parnernerships, in the past has held a high office in the Human Rights Campaign, the largest pro-homosexual activist organization in the U.S. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel understands Knox's background.
"Harry Knox is a militant anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, sexual anarchist," he believes, "and his appointment to the president's faith-based council is like having David Duke sit on the NAACP's board of directors." Duke is a well-known white supremacist and former Grand Duke of the Ku Klux Klan.
Barber believes Knox, who supports homosexual adoption, is in line with the president's views. "The president and Harry Knox both hold this radical, post-modern, biological, historical and biblical revisionist view of sexual morality," he notes. "And Harry Knox -- the more he opens his mouth, the more he reveals to the world just how radical President Obama's agenda is."
Knox has been quoted as saying he is glad that President Obama will not be giving any funds to bigoted Christian organizations, meaning those who adhere to a biblical view of homosexuality.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
"Fistgate" Czar to Rule Schools...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
GLSEN founder overseeing safety of nation's schools?
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 6/1/2009
A conservative activist says the appointment of the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network to head the U.S. Education Department's Office of Safe Schools is the equivalent of putting O.J. Simpson in charge of women's safety.
GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings was recently appointed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan to serve as assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The Department's announcement of Jennings' appointment describes GLSEN as "an organization that works to make schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."
But Linda Harvey, president of Mission America, says the Jennings appointment is a radical move. GLSEN, she explains, is a "child corruption" organization that consistently promotes books on its website that legitimize sexual encounters between adults and minors.
"One book called Growing Up Gay, Growing Up Lesbian -- it's an anthology; they've had this on their site for years, even after I reported on it and others have," Harvey explains. "[The book describes] a man looking back on his youth [who] said that he had had sex with one of his father's gay friends when he was a young teenager -- and he talks about it in graphic terms and that this was a great experience in his life."
Harvey finds it ironic that President Obama's new "safe schools" czar is a leading proponent of an extremely unsafe, destructive lifestyle.
"They are the people involved in the infamous 'Fistgate' programs in Massachusetts where public health officials were describing dangerous, high-risk behaviors to very young teenagers," she says. "Again, this was a GLSEN-sponsored program."
Jennings previously served a co-chair of the Obama campaign's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) finance committee.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
When Silence Would Have Been Golden
Acts of Homosexual Promotion to Youth that We Wish Had Never Happened (CWA) By Peter J. LaBarbera 4/10/02
On April 10, 2002, young pro-homosexual activists nationwide staged their sixth annual "Day of Silence" protest in middle schools, high schools and colleges across the country. The event sought to portray homosexual, bisexual and "transgender" youth as victims of neglect and oppression, and teens who oppose homosexuality as "bigots" and "haters."
Student-activists from over 1,000 schools and universities were slated to participate in the protest. (The figure does not represent the number of schools officially endorsing the event since a response by just one student from a school to the Day of Silence Web places that school on the list.) According to the Web site, participants pledged to mute themselves all day while passing out cards with this message:
I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices….1
Pro-family groups and conservative students, with tongue in cheek, welcomed the voluntary "gay" silence as a respite from homosexual and "transgender" advocacy in schools. Contending that aggressive promotion of homosexuality in the education system has gotten out of hand, they called for the Day of Silence to be extended to a Week of Silence, and perhaps even the full school year.2
Many students, like their parents, resent demands that they approve of (or not criticize) homosexual behavior and gender confusion in the name of tolerance or fighting "prejudice." They do not accept the "gay" lobby's contention that opposing homosexuality is analogous to racism or other forms of irrational bigotry. (In fact, there are ample indications that homosexuality is less popular among U.S. minorities than among Caucasians.)3 Moreover, many students believe homosexual behavior is dangerous and immoral, and no more deserves approval than other sinful, harmful behaviors.
GLSEN JOINS 'SILENCE' CAMPAIGN
Day of Silence organizers received a big boost this year when the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the leading homosexual pressure group in schools, agreed to join with them in coordinating and promoting the protest. The New York City-based GLSEN has drawn critical attention from pro-family citizens across the country by sponsoring pro-homosexual events and conferences, including some in which students were exposed to explicit, perverse sexual messages (see below). The organization, with an annual budget exceeding $3 million, also promotes pro-homosexual and pro-"transgender" lessons for elementary school children, and homosexual-affirming student clubs called "gay-straight alliances" in middle schools, high schools and colleges.4
One irony of the "Day of Silence" theme is that many parents are given the silent treatment by school administrators intent on allowing homosexual activism in schools. Often, parents do not learn about pro-homosexuality events in their child's school until after they are over. Time and again, cases surface in which parents are outraged to learn of a controversial school event, or a pro-"gay" lesson plan at the last minute and demand to know why the school was wasting valuable learning time on one-sided propaganda. Christian and other religious parents who have been told that there is no place for the Bible in public schools are distressed to learn that administrators have acquiesced to anti-Biblical teachings that normalize sexual sin (homosexuality) to their children. Often, they feel intimidated by school bureaucrats and helpless to do anything about it.
The following are documented school-oriented activities, events and quotations that promoted homosexuality and transsexuality either directly to youth, or to adults who work with students and young people. They qualify as the sort of "gay" activism that many parents and natural family advocates — young and old — find deeply offensive and wish would have been replaced by silence.
GLSEN'S 'FISTGATE' IN MASSACHUSETTS
The most notorious education scandal involving homosexual activists is a GLSEN-sponsored conference that occurred on March 25, 2000, dubbed "Fistgate" by conservatives. Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled "What They Didn't Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class" — part of the annual Boston-GLSEN "Teach Out" conference held at Tufts University. The "Queer Sex" session, advertised to "youth only ages 14 to 21," was attended by Massachusetts family advocate Scott Whitemen, who taped it while standing in the back of the room.
In the workshop, instructor Michael Gaucher, prompted by a teen's question, verbally guided the students on the mechanics of "fisting" — a homosexual slang term for a sadistic sex act in which a man inserts his hand and arm into another person's [bleep] cavity. Another instructor, Margot Abels5, said fisting "often gets a really bad rap," and described it innocuously as "an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with." Abels and Gaucher also guided the students on techniques of oral sodomy and lesbian sex.6
Other panels at the Boston-GLSEN conference — which is still at the center of litigation due to Whiteman's taping of the workshop7 — included:
* Ask the Transsexuals
* Early Childhood Educators: How to Decide Whether to Come Out [as a Homosexual] at Work or Not
* Lesbian Avengers: How to Promote Queer-Friendly Activism in Your Schools and in Your Lives
* The Struggles and Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum
* The Religious Wrong: Dealing Effectively with Opposition in Your Community8
GLSEN'S JENNINGS: !&%#! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!
Addressing a church audience on March 20, 2000 in New York City — just days before "Fistgate" — GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings offered a stinging (and quite intolerant) assessment of how to deal with religious conservatives:
Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we'll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] … over to our side. That's really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — … I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say, '[F---] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!9
It should be noted that GLSEN and Jennings make heavy use of the words "respect" and "tolerance" in their public rhetoric and in descriptions of their programs.10
JENNINGS: OK TO PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS
Although Jennings has employed manipulative methods that exaggerate homosexual victimhood to advance his pro-"gay" agenda in schools, he has occasionally been frank about GLSEN's real agenda:
I'd like five years from now for most Americans when they hear the word GLSEN to think, "Ooh, that's good for kids." … Sane people keep the world the same [sh---y] old way it is now. It's the [crazy] people who think, "No, I can envision a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?' or [when] straight kids say, 'Hey, why don't you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try your tuxes on at my house?'" … [I]f we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward.11
PRO-HOMOSEXUAL PLAY FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS
In 2001, children as young as age seven were required to attend a theatrical tolerance presentation with pro-homosexual themes at two elementary schools in the Novato Unified School District in Novato, California. The presentations were part of a series of skits titled "Cootie Shots," produced by an activist group called Fringe Benefits Theatre "dedicated to building bridges between gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) youth and their straight peers, teachers and parents."12 Parents were not informed about the loaded presentations, according to Pacific Justice Institute, which is suing the Novato school district over the play on behalf of parents.13
GLSEN's Web site sells the book Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry for Children, Parents and Teachers, which is described:
This assortment of plays, songs, poems and interactive performance pieces promote acceptance and celebrate diversity by presenting role models from many different races, classes, genders, abilities, sexual orientations, religions, ages, shapes and sizes. In all, Cootie Shots is comprised of fifty 2-15 minute educational pieces for elementary school audiences.14
BRAINWASHING KINDERGARTNERS
At the same 1997 regional GLSEN conference where Kevin Jennings revealed his goal to openly promote homosexuality in schools, New York teacher and GLSEN activist Jaki Williams led a workshop titled "Inclusive Kindergartens." What follows is Williams' chilling advice to other teachers and fellow GLSEN activists on how to push pro-homosexual themes on very young, impressionable children:
Children in the kindergarten age are "developing their superego," Williams said, and "that's when the saturation process needs to begin." … She explained that "five-year-olds really are very interested in the big questions. They're very interested in sex, death, and love, and they ask those questions, and they talk about them. And we want to help them find the answers … on their level." To initiate conversation, Williams said she has her class read from an assortment of pro-homosexual children's books, such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads."
'COMING OUT' TO KINDERGARTNERS
Yet another GLSEN activist, retired gym teacher Geraldine Burke of East Hartford, Connecticut, demonstrated that no child is too young to be on the receiving end of pro-homosexual messages. In 1999, Burke co-led a workshop at a national GLSEN conference in Atlanta, attended by this writer, and told the audience about how — in a kindergarten gym class — she seized on a student's innocent question to reveal, explain and defend her lesbian behavior. The dialogue below is striking because: 1) Burke easily could have avoided discussing homosexuality with her young charges but chose not to out of a devotion to the "gay" cause; and 2) she manipulatively equates homosexual behavior with familial love:
[Burke] explained that at her school she was "out" as a lesbian to the principal and to most of the teaching staff, and that it was important for her to be "authentic" about her sexual identity. According to Burke, one day a student in her gym class asked if she had a husband. She said no, and then another student asked if she had a boyfriend. Burke said no, "As a matter of fact … I have a girlfriend." After some of the children said, "Ohhhh!" as if shocked, they asked her if she kissed her girlfriend. Burke said she did.
The kids responded again, "Ohhhh!" When she asked what was wrong, one of the students said "Well, boys aren't supposed to kiss boys and girls aren't supposed to kiss girls." [Editor's note: Out of the mouths of babes…]
Burke responded, "Some people think it's OK, and some people think it's not OK."…
Then the gym teacher asked one of the boys in her class, "Do you ever kiss your father goodnight?" He replied, "Yes." [Burke] asked one of the girls," Do you ever kiss your sister to show her that you love her?" "Yes," the girl responded. Burke then used the analogy between those kisses and her lesbian kisses as she told the children, "Some people will tell you that you shouldn't love some people [but] … your heart tells you who to love."…
"This was a very teachable moment … I was not in any way going to lie to my students," Burke said of her conversation with the kindergarten gym class. "At the elementary school level, the teachable moments are the really critical ones."
PROMOTING SADISM, DRUGS & GENDER CONFUSION TO YOUTH
At a homosexual "Youth Pride Day" rally held April 17, 1999 in downtown Washington, D.C., a "gay" youth organization passed out "safe sex" condom packets containing a flier featuring sadomasochistic homosexual photos and a "nonjudgmental" approach to illegal party drugs. The packets were passed out in a large bucket manned by the group SMYAL (Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League) and were freely available to any youngster who walked by SMYAL's table. One photo pictured two men bound together with rope. Another featured a man's naked buttocks being spanked over the knee of a "leatherman," over the caption: "Some of us do ecstasy [an illegal drug used to create euphoric feelings]. Some of us do crystal [a powerful methamphetamine]. Some of us just say no. Some of us are tops [in the act of homosexual [bleep] sodomy]. Some of us are bottoms. Some of us are versatile." This writer attended the youth event, and there was no information about the risks of [bleep] sodomy or sadistic acts at the SMYAL table.
At the same "Youth Pride" rally, a teenage-looking boy dressed gaudily in female clothing spoke from the stage about his "transgendered" (perceived) conversion from male to female. Other transsexual speakers were featured at the event, as well as an adult, Jose Ucles, who produced sadistic sex "Dungeon Dance" parties held in D.C.17
CALIFORNIA USES PERVERSE 'GAY' WRITINGS FOR 'DIVERSITY' LESSONS
www.Worldnetdaily.com reported recently on some of the books that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is using to carry out California's new pro-homosexual school law. Reports the online news source:
"Young, Gay & Proud," "One Teenager In 10: Writings by Gay & Lesbian Youth" and "Homophobia as Child Abuse" are three of the 27 recommended titles….
In one excerpt from "Young, Gay, & Proud," the author writes: "There are lots of ways for gay men to have enjoyable sex. … It's up to you to find out what you like and how you like to do it. … [Masturbating] is a fun, safe and healthy way for guys to enjoy our bodies and fantasies." The author goes on to provide explicit details of how "gay men can make love." A note of encouragement follows profanity-laced tips on performing [bleep] sex: "You may have to practice a bit before it starts feeling really good."
In "One Teenager in Ten: Writings by Gay & Lesbian Youth," 16-year-old Amy relates the blow-by-blow details of her sexual encounter at the age of 12 with her [female] dance teacher, aged 23. The encounter reportedly happened at a hotel after the teacher "asked [her] to give a special dance presentation in another city" over the weekend. Amy praises her teacher for bringing her "out" [as a lesbian] and for the relationship that continued for three years following that encounter. The "very conservative Baptist" later explains that her "parents do not know or suspect" and states, "I think finding out that people think homosexuality is bad made me more firm in my desire to stay a lesbian regardless of what would happen to me."
A two-page magazine article displayed at Hollywood High School under the caption, "The Gay Rapper," and obtained by WorldNetDaily is too profane and obscene to be quoted.18
LYING ABOUT LINCOLN
The same Los Angeles school district has also promoted the widely discredited piece of "gay" revisionist history that claims President Abraham Lincoln had a homosexual affair with his good friend Joshua Fry Speed. In 1995, Kathy Gill, director of the LAUSD's Gay and Lesbian Commission, defended the commission's use of a one-page document entitled "Abraham Lincoln's Love for Joshua Fry Speed." Gill told this writer that the paper gives a "balanced" account about the "homosexual activities that [Lincoln] did have." When questioned repeatedly about the irresponsibility of making such a claim, Gill said, "There are many people in history that have had bisexual activities. That's not a sin. It's not a sin to tell the truth."19
In reality, the "gay" Lincoln myth is rooted in the bizarre writings of one Charles Shively, a pro-pedophile academic. His book Drum Beats: Walt Whitman's Civil War Boy Lovers, asserts, for example, that because Lincoln and Speed shared a bed when they rented a room together in their youth, it meant they were homosexuals. Lincoln scholars ridiculed that assertion as nonsense, saying, as one put it, "In those days, bed space was at a premium, so this was very common."20 Michael Burlingame, a leading Lincoln scholar, said, "there is simply no evidence" to support Shively's theory, which, sadly, has since been given a wider audience on the Internet.
XY MAGAZINE FOR 'GAY' BOYS
The San Francisco magazine XY is geared toward self-identified "gay" male teens and collegians, and is available in Borders and other "mainstream" bookstores across the nation. The racy magazine is filled with shirtless young men, so much so that a homosexual writer at a "gay" newspaper in Boston said that it would be popular with "chickenhawks" — a "gay" slang term for adult men who like to have sex with boys and young men.
As if XY's promotion of homosexuality as a good weren't tragic enough, the magazine regularly revisits even more extreme themes such as sadomasochism (e.g., boys photographed in chains) and "gay" porn. One issue showed a photo of a youthful male sexual threesome, hugging erotically.
IT'S ELEMENTARY: MORE GRADE SCHOOL PROPAGANDA
In 1999, two lesbian activists produced a pro-homosexual propaganda film, It's Elementary: Talking about Gay Issues and Lesbian Issues in School. The video shows actual footage of pro-"gay" lessons in the classroom in several public and private grade schools. The original, longer version of the film is revealing for its blatant anti-Christian bias. One scene shows a young boy claiming that Christians "torture and kill" homosexuals, with nobody answering this misinformation.23 After protests from religious conservatives, this and other particularly offensive segments were edited out of a shorter version of It's Elementary that was shown on PBS TV stations nationwide.
One portion of the film (included in both versions) shows very young students at a private school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, attending a homosexual-affirming assembly. Both teachers and students wore pink triangle pins, a symbol of the "gay rights" movement. After a homosexual teacher compares not being open about his homosexuality to trying to play soccer with just one leg, the students are led in a rendition of "This Little Light of Mine," a Christian children's song that is actually about sharing your faith in Jesus Christ.24
It's Elementary co-producer Debra Chasnoff is clear about her goals: "I would like to see mandatory homophobia prevention education integrated into elementary and secondary school curricula."25 Unfortunately, many liberal-minded educators share her radical vision.
STRATEGY: ISOLATE DISSENTERS
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), issued a press release on April 4, 2002, announcing the latest casualties in the pro-homosexual crusade for "tolerance." Freshmen at Arcata High School in Arcata, California are required to take a health class as part of the school's curriculum. According to Dacus, school administrators invited Planned Parenthood to address the class on the subject of homophobia and homosexuality. PJI reports that school administrators did not notify parents of the subject matter nor seek written parental consent.
Dacus describes what transpired:
As part of an icebreaker, Planned Parenthood asked the class to stand in a circle. Questions were then asked of the class regarding "homophobia" and homosexuality. Whenever a question was asked that applied to the students, the students were asked by Planned Parenthood to step into the middle of the circle, facing their peers. One question was, "Does your religion believe against or think homosexuality is a sin or something wrong?"
Feeling humiliated and singled out, only a few students stepped forward. "This made me feel very uncomfortable," claimed one of the freshmen students. "I felt like I was being judged as a bad person … my classmates stared at me like I had done something wrong."
Dacus called the line of questioning "religious-based harassment" and offered legal aid to parents throughout the administrative complaint process.
CONCLUSION
The above incidents are only a fraction of the educational abuses and examples of extremism that have occurred in the name of "tolerance" for homosexual and "transgender" students. Similar examples could fill the pages of a thick book, or perhaps several books. What is clear is that parents cannot remain "silent" or sit idly by in the face of growing "gay" militancy in schools. GLSEN's "Day of Silence" should serve as a wake-up call to both parents and students of the threat to their freedom and their beliefs — and, of course, the well-being of children—if the homosexual school agenda is allowed to take hold.
Parents and students can turn to the following Web sites for resources and help in combating the encroaching "gay" school agenda:
Culture & Family Institute (of CWA)
Concerned Women for America (CWA)
Mission: America
Family Research Council
American Family Association
Abiding Truth Ministries
Pacific Justice Institute
Peter LaBarbera is senior policy analyst at the Culture & Family Institute (CFI) of Concerned Women for America, and editor or the Culture & Family Report, CFI's weekly Web-based publication.
End Notes
1. See www.dayofsilence.org.
2. See, for example, the sample press release at Mission: America's Web site at http://www.missionamerica.com/twid_news.htm. Ex-homosexual Stephen Bennett's (www.sbministries.org) made similar comments on the Day of Silence.
3. For example, 58 percent of white voters in California cast ballots supporting marriage (Proposition 22 said only marriage between one man and one woman would be recognized in the state) in March 2000, compared with 62 percent Black voters in support, and 65 percent of Hispanic voters who supported traditional marriage. Source: Los Angeles Times exit poll on Prop 22, "A Look at California Voters," published March 9, 2000.
4. GLSEN's 2001 budget was projected at $3.5 million, up 106 percent from 1999, according to the Washington Blade, a newspaper for homosexuals, April 4. 2002.
5. Abels was fired by the Massachusetts Department of Education due to her role in the "Fistgate" scandal. She subsequently claimed in a lawsuit that the Department "knew of and supported her work," according to the Boston Globe (November 28, 2000, Scott Greenberger) and, following an arbitrator's ruling, was reinstated with back pay. For more information on "Fistgate," see the Massachusetts News Web site at www.massnews.com.
6. Lambda Report on Homosexuality (April-May 2000, pp. 1-4) reprint of Whiteman affidavit, submitted April 18, 2000 to Hon. Martha Coakley, District Attorney for Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
7. For more information or to receive a copy of Whiteman's audiotape, contact Brian Camenker of Parents Rights Coalition at 781-433-7106, or write: Parents Rights Coalition, P.O. Box 175, Newton, MA 02466. E-mail: Office@ParentsRightsCoalition.org.
8. Lambda Report, April-May 2000, p. 5. Boston-GLSEN conferences in subsequent years similarly have featured workshops devoted to pro-homosexuality discussions in elementary and middle school classrooms, and others endorsing "transgender" concepts.
9. Jennings speech to Marble Collegiate Church, March 20, 2000.
10. For example, GLSEN's annual conferences are called "Teaching Respect for All," and the group has produced a video by the same name.
11. Jennings comments October 25, 1997 at GLSEN's Mid-Atlantic conference in New York City, Lambda Report on Homosexuality, January/February 1998, "GLSEN's Jennings: 'That Is Our Mission from this Day Forward," page 5, Brian Burt, reporting.
12. Diana Lynne, "Schools Sued over Pro-Homosexual Skits," WorldNetDaily.com, February 6, 2002.
13. See January 31, 2002 press release at www.pacificjustice.org/press/2002/pr013101.htm.
14. The book's editors are Norma Bowles and Mark E. Rosenthal. See section on GLSEN's Web site: "Bookstore: Resources for Primary Students."
15. Brian J. Burt, Lambda Report, January/February 1998, op cit., p. 4.
16. Reported by author, "How One Teacher Defended Her Lesbianism to Kindergartners," Lambda Report on Homosexuality, Fall-Winter 1999, pp. 1-2. Burke's session was titled, "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, Except What to Do When I Hear the Word [bleep] or Dyke in Class."
17. SMYAL flier obtained by the author, who attended the "Youth Pride" event. Ucles' affiliation with sadistic "Dungeon Dance" parties appeared in advertisements for the dances in the Washington Blade.
18. Diana Lynne, "Lawmakers Sanction Use of District-Approved 'Porn,'" WorldNetDaily.com, January 24, 2002.
19. Interview with author, then publisher of Lambda Report, "L.A. Educator Asserts Lincoln Had Homosexual Affairs," Lambda Report, April-June 1995, p. 1-2.
20. Tim Townsend, historian with the Lincoln Home National Historic Site in Springfield, Illinois, interview with author, Lambda Report, April-June 1995, p. 1.
21. Ibid., interview with author. Burlingame is the author of The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln. Homosexual activist Larry Kramer has joined those popularizing the spurious "gay Lincoln" story; see the May 3, 1999 article in online magazine Salon.com (Carol Lloyd, "Was Lincoln Gay?") at http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/.
22. XY magazines in possession of the author.
23. See article by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, "'It's Elementary' Doesn't Teach Tolerance,' JewishWorldReview.com," June 7, 1999.
24. See article on Concerned Women for America Web site, "'It's Elementary': A Video Review," May 1999: http://cwfa.org/library/education/1999-05_pp_elementary.shtml
25. Chasnoff, quoted in OutFacts (New York: Out Publishing, Inc., 1997), p. 43. For more information, see Family Research Council (FRC) paper by author, "Top 10 Strategies Used by Homosexual Activists in Schools," November 23, 1999; it is available online at http://www.frc.org/get/is99f4.cfm - 25. Also see adjoining FRC paper by author, "How to Protect Your Children from Pro-Homosexuality Propaganda in Schools," November 24, 1999, http://www.frc.org/get/if99j1.cfm.
26. Pacific Justice Institute press release, April 4, 2002.
Bookmark and Share
Printer Friendly Version
Recent Articles
Fairy Tales Don't Come True
The Corporate Curtain
Born or Bred?
Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
'Hate Crime' Laws Threaten Religious Freedom
The Federal Hate Crimes Bill: Federalizing Criminal Law While Threatening Civil Liberties
'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom
Revised 9/27/2005
An Attack on Naval Academy's Mealtime Grace
Girl Scouts National Conclave to Feature Pro-Abortion, Pro-Lesbian Speakers
Monopoly is More Than a Game:
U.S. Senate Hearing on Cable Hears Calls for Competition and Choice
How Christians Can Talk to Homosexuals
Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Climate of hate, world of double standards
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/3/2009
When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller of Kansas versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.
Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, is white, Christian, anti-government and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruitment center attack, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is black, a Muslim convert, anti-military and anti-American.
Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.
President Obama issued a statement condemning "heinous acts of violence" within hours of Tiller's death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climate of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News in reporting Tiller's activities.
By contrast, Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Pvt. William Long dead and 18-year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon -- more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark. -- Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.
But Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of Tiller. Obama's omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.
Why the silence? Politically and religiously motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents. Which also helps explain why the phrase "lone shooter" is ubiquitous in media coverage of jihadi shooters gone wild -- think convicted "Jeep Jihadist" Mohammed Taheri-Azar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Israel-bashing gunman Naveed Haq, who targeted a Seattle Jewish charity or Los Angeles International Airport shooter Hesham Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Israeli airline ticket counter -- but not in cases involving rare acts of anti-abortion violence.
Even Jeffrey Goldberg of the left-leaning Atlantic magazine noticed the double standards. He called attention to a National Public Radio report on the military recruiter attack that failed to mention the religion and anti-military animus of the suspect. Wrote Goldberg: "Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world? We saw this a couple of weeks ago, when the press only gingerly acknowledged that the malevolent though incompetent suspects in the synagogue bombing-conspiracy case in New York were converts to Islam. How is the public served by this kind of silence?
The extremist Christian beliefs of George Tiller's alleged murderer are certainly relevant to that case, and no one in my profession is hesitant to discuss them. Why the hesitancy to talk about the motivations of the man who allegedly killed Pvt. William Long?"
The truth is that the "climate of hate" doesn't have just one hemisphere. But you won't hear the Council on American-Islamic Relations acknowledging the national security risks of jihadi infiltrators who despise our military and have plotted against our troops from within the ranks -- including convicted fragging killer Hasan Akbar and terror plotters Ali Mohamed, Jeffrey Battle, and Semi Osman.
You won't hear about the escalating war on military recruitment centers on the op-ed pages of The New York Times -- from vandalism to obstruction to Molotov cocktail attacks on campus stations across the country; to the shutdown of a Pittsburgh military recruitment office by zealots holding signs that read "Recruiters are Child Predators"; to the prolonged harassment campaign against the Marine recruiting center in Berkeley, where Code Pink protesters called America soldiers assassins; to the bomb blast at the Times Square recruiting center last March.
And you'll certainly hear little about the most recent left-wing calls to violence by a Playboy magazine writer who published a vulgar list of conservative female writers and commentators he said he'd like to rape (the obscene slang word he used is not printable). The list was hyped by the magazine's publicity team and light-heartedly promoted by mainstream publications such as Politico.com (founded by Washington Post reporters).
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
ObamACORN
......................................
The Leader of the 'Pride' (www.frc.org)
Considering the moves by this administration, every month feels like "gay pride month." But in keeping with the liberal tradition, President Obama did single out the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement for special recognition yesterday, signing a White House proclamation that officially designates June as "LGBT Pride Month." President Bush had refused to acknowledge the hype, saying repeatedly that the White House shouldn't "politicize people's sexual orientation." In the proclamation released Monday, his successor makes no secret about the upcoming policy push.
"I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world," President Obama writes. "Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy..."
If, as the saying goes, people are policy, then we have no doubt where this White House stands. At last count, the Obama administration employed 36 open homosexuals. That number could climb to 37 if the Department of Education manages to squeak Kevin Jennings past an unsuspecting public. As we mentioned yesterday, Jennings, the controversial founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), has been appointed by Secretary Arne Duncan to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools despite his endorsement of the book Queering Elementary Education, for which Jennings wrote the foreword.
For those who aren't familiar with Queering, it focuses extensively on "re-educating parents" who object to teaching children about homosexual families,
"affirming 'sissy boys,'" and eliminating "Mother's Day" and "Father's Day" from the classroom.
Other chapters encourage the use of music to indoctrinate kids (with pro-homosexual songs like "Mama, What's a Dyke?"), and the drive to include gay-friendly literature in grade school, particularly the type that "affirms the comfortable friendships between young boys and adult homosexual men."
Obviously, this is more of an education than most American parents bargained for. If you'd like to protect your kids from this environment, join the protest by contacting Secretary Arne Duncan at 202-401-3000. Tell him to there is nothing "safe" about Kevin Jennings--and his "queering" agenda!
Joined: Dec 1969
Current Posts: 1
Ohso, Have enjoyed reading your posts. There's more than one way to skin the media rats!
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
Barack Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said this not long ago: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Hillary Clinton agreed with him just afterward, saying, "Never waste a good crisis."
They meant it. According to LifeNews.com, "The apparent shooter of late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller was never involved in a pro-life group and, by his own actions, wasn't pro-life. But abortion advocates are quickly taking to calling the majority of Americans who are pro-life, ‘terrorists,' in the first day following his death."
Kim Gandy, the head of the pro-abortion National Organization for Women, was first: "Bringing the killers to justice is not enough," said Gandy, "the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security must root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded criminal acts for decades."
She went on to say the pro-life movement was guilty of "politically-motivated domestic terrorism" and called on the Obama administration to aggressively target pro-life Americans.
Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri also used the term: "We're not going to let the terrorists win," he told the Kansas City Star newspaper.
The Huffington Post wrote, "Tiller was the subject of assassination attempts, violence, and, by definition, terrorism in the past," and Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic labeled the death "Christianist terrorism."
Bonnie Erbe, of U.S. News and World Report, titled her blog response, "Tiller Murder Is Terrorism, and All Pro-Life Extremists Are to Blame." She said anyone who describes abortion as the killing of babies "ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism."
Do you get it? If you are opposed to abortion, you are a terrorist, because some whacko who wasn't connected to ANY pro-life group shot and killed an abortionist who killed 60,000 babies in their eighth month in the womb.
Whatever your stand on the abortion issue… even if you just don't want your tax dollars to pay for abortion... YOU are a right-wing extremist, and they're going to do all they can now to "not waste this crisis" and come against YOUR rights to protest and speak out.
This is only the LATEST attack by the Left on conservatives who disagree with them! As if that first DHS report wasn't bad enough… the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis -- the same unit that produced the report on right-wing extremists -- then released a NEW report, titled the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," meant to define terms used when analyzing dozens of supposedly "extremist ideologies" inside the United States.
So what did this "dictionary" of extremist groups cover? Well, for starters: Jewish extremists, animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatism extremists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists, anti-technology extremists, Cuban independence extremists and tax resistance extremists, to name a few.
That's right: Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans, are ALL in DHS' "Domestic Extremism Lexicon."
The first DHS report also said that Congressional debates about immigration and gun control make "extremist groups" suspicious and give them a rallying cry:
"It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists," the report said.
Why are they worried? Because since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons. And as far as the Obama administration is concerned, buying guns equals "weapons stockpiling," buying ammo equals "hoarding of ammunition," and expressing concern about Congress passing gun control legislation qualifies YOU as part of an "extremist group."
Therefore, you and I are now being viewed as dangerous rightwing extremists that law enforcement officials need to be watching out for!
According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:
* Oppose restrictions on firearms
* Oppose lax immigration
* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
* Oppose same-sex marriage
* Has paranoia of foreign regimes
* Fear Communist regimes
* Oppose one world government
* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
* Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE
ON BARACK OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
This report was released "hot on the heels" of another (state) government agency report in February: the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this horrific "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members."
According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":
* The United Nations
* The New World Order
* Gun Control
* The violation of Posse Comitatus
* The Federal Reserve
* The Income Tax
* The Ammunition and Accountability Act
* A possible Constitutional Convention
* The North American Union
* Universal Service Program
* Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
* Abortion
* Illegal Immigration
Well, there you have it! You see? You ARE a dangerous rightwing extremist!
As ridiculous as that report seems, it was distributed to law enforcement officials across the state of Missouri. And it wasn't until the state government was FLOODED with protests from patriotic Americans across the country, that they finally came out and denounced and retracted the MIAC document.
Now, it's happened again -- but this time, at the Federal level! Our own government is turning against us, and unless there is a HUGE outpouring of outrage from every part of this nation, it will just keep getting WORSE!
TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE
ON BARACK OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified in the first report.
No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in BOTH the MIAC report AND the Homeland Security "assessment."
This shouldn't be too surprising: both of these reports are similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies, courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." MIAC is one of those Centers, sponsored by the DHS!
So now, even veterans are targets of our own government: The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."
PLEASE, don't think we're making a "big deal" out of nothing! Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban specifically told the press, "This is nothing unusual," and added that the Homeland Security Department did this "to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again."
The authors of the DHS assessment are pushing an "Us against Them" philosophy. You and I are being marginalized -- labeled as fringe kooks, "rightwing extremists," so that it will be easier to violate our liberties and take away our political rights in the future.
Think of it: The Obama administration is quickly developing its own "Enemies List" of who it needs to target, to shut down opposition to its radical socialist agenda.
So how do Obama's leftist minions propose to shut us down?
SIMPLE: Cut off our ability to respond to such accusations and official "assessments," by TAKING OVER THE INTERNET and SHUTTING DOWN CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO.
For example, according to news reports, two new Senate bills -- S. 773 and S. 778 – "would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared ‘cyber emergency.'"
These two new bills are both part of what's being called the "Cybersecurity Act of 2009." The Act would create a new bureaucracy, the "Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor," which would be charged with "defending the country from cyber attack"… and would report directly to Barack Obama.
But that's not all it would do: it would also grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be "critical" to the nation's infrastructure, "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."
Did you read that? The Secretary of Commerce, reporting directly to Mr. Obama, would be able to snoop through ANYTHING connected to the Internet that a President decides is "critical" to look at. And it doesn't matter what the law says -- they get to do this whenever and wherever a President wants them to.
Talk about UNCONSTITUTIONAL! We MUST NOT let Barack Obama's cronies in Congress get away with this!
TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE
ON BARACK OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's clear: giving the U.S. Department of Commerce oversight of the "critical" networks -- like banking records -- would give the federal government access to confidential, private information obtained without cause or warrant, which is a CLEAR violation of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure!
What exactly are these "critical infrastructure networks" that Barack Obama would have the power to "take offline" whenever he wants to? The examples they give are things like "banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, and telecommunications."
WHAT??? Exactly HOW do you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet, when that's what the Internet is comprised of? And if YOUR bank gets taken offline, don't you think you might go into your branch and ask for all of your deposits in cash? Don't you think EVERYONE might do that?
TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE
ON BARACK OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
According to one Senate document that attempts to "explain" the bills, this Act "addresses our country's unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure."
In a statement explaining the bill's introduction, liberal Democratic West Virginia U. S. Senator Jay Rockefeller said, "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on."
Senator Olympia Snowe, a liberal Republican from Maine who is co-sponsoring the bill, gave us this dire warning: "If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
In other words, we need to give up our freedoms and liberties in order for the government to give us "security."
What was it that Benjamin Franklin once said? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
WE MUST NOT GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THESE ABSOLUTE POWERS!
Why would anyone push such a bill? Because if Obama controls the Internet, he can cut off our ability to respond to his administration's attacks on YOU, ME and every other conservative in America!
TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE
ON BARACK OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
NO, we're not paranoid -- because you're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you!
You see, it doesn't stop there -- also on Obama's "Enemies List" is one more form of alternative media that he is otherwise powerless to stop: Conservative Talk Radio. And they're very clear about HOW they're going to shut it down:
The Fairness Doctrine.
The "Fairness Doctrine" -- a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of any "controversial" issue -- was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1949 to 1987. The FCC adopted it as a regulation, but it was never a law enacted by Congress.
When the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face huge fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing "equal time" to opposing viewpoints. The result was self-censorship by broadcasters who avoided politics to escape any potential government retaliation.
When this rule was dropped in 1987, under President Ronald Reagan, it led directly to the rise of conservative talk radio that enabled average citizens to have their voices heard across America. If it weren't for the Reagan administration dropping the "Fairness Doctrine," we would never have heard of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Martha Zoller, Neal Boortz, Janet Folger, or the hundreds of other conservative talk radio hosts that dot the land and expose the lies and misdeeds of the Left.
And THAT is why Barack Obama and his left-wing friends want to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" -- this time, as a LAW. Because if they can get it passed as a LAW, they can cut off one of our biggest means of responding to their attacks, and disproving their LIES!
TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE
ON BARACK OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
Up until 1987, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that when a broadcast station presented one viewpoint on a "controversial" public issue, it also had to air the opposing viewpoint. Sounds "fair," right?
WRONG. The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" did nothing but stifle any real public debate on the airwaves. What station manager in his right mind would air a (profitable) conservative talk radio show for two or three hours every day, if it meant he had to also air liberal shows as well -- shows that have consistently LOST money whenever they've been tried?
Repealed by an FCC vote of 4-0, it was concluded that the "Fairness Doctrine" had begun to inhibit political discourse, rather than enhance it.
The Democrat Congress tried to reinstate the doctrine, but President Reagan vetoed their attempt. Again, in 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine failed when President George H. W. Bush threatened a veto.
Now, with Barack Obama in the White House, and with liberal Democrats Senator Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reigning over a Democrat-controlled Congress, they're already talking about trying to SHUT US DOWN AGAIN -- and this time, they might succeed... unless YOU AND I take action to stop them NOW, before they are able to mobilize support for this insidious attempt to SILENCE CONSERVATIVES!
Nothing frightens those who peddle lies more than the cold hard light of TRUTH. They react to exposure of their deceits the way vampires react to a crucifix held up in front of them.
Ever since the birth of conservative talk radio and the Internet ended the liberals' total monopoly over the news, the left has been simmering with rage -- because of the loss of their absolute control over what Americans are allowed to see and hear, and their inability to do anything about it!
Time and time again, liberal attempts to sell the nation their shoddy goods have been frustrated when talk-radio hosts have taken to the airwaves and warned their millions of listeners that they were about to be taken to the cleaners.
It wasn't until McCain/Kennedy's fatally flawed "immigration reform" AMNESTY bill -- that seemed destined for passage -- was derailed by an army of angry voters recruited by talk radio hosts and conservative Internet websites, that the left understood both the incredible power of the new media, and their utter helplessness in the face of it.
Clearly, they felt that something had do be done. And that's when they came up with the idea to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" -- but this time, as a LAW.
Really, what they're trying to do shows just how desperate the liberals have become. Without conservative talk radio, and conservative internet websites, to keep an eye on them, the Left's failure to accomplish their stated goals since winning control of the Congress would have been covered up by the liberal controlled "mainstream media."
Conservative voices on talk radio and the Internet are the left's worst nightmare -- their monitoring of the liberals' activities have been shining the light of truth on the Left's attempts to deceive the nation, so now the Left is trying to do whatever it takes to silence us.
Like all Marxists, the liberals won't stop trying to LIE their way into power. As a result, they won't stop trying to destroy conservative talk radio, conservative internet sites, and groups like ours -- those of us who are more than willing to ACTIVATE the grassroots to help EXPOSE their lies. You can be certain that they'll push HARD for a new "Fairness Doctrine" or some other way to silence the voices of common sense and truth in America.
But you can be just as certain that we will NOT let them succeed!
As grassroots conservatives, we MUST take action to stop them NOW, before they are able to mobilize support for this insidious attempt to SILENCE CONSERVATIVES!
TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE
ON BARACK OBAMA'S NEW "ENEMIES LIST":
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
Just piece the whole puzzle together: the Obama administration releases reports that label any Conservative as a potential "rightwing extremist"… the Obama administration wants to be able to completely take over the Internet during whatever he proclaims is an "emergency"… the Obama administration wants to shut down talk radio to silence its strongest critics… the Obama administration and their supporters view pro-lifers as "domestic terrorists"…
It's plain to see: Conservatives... are on Obama's ENEMIES LIST!
The only thing that will put a STOP to this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to do anything. We either stop it NOW, or it will grow into an out-of-control monster that will monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country.
And don't be fooled by phony "apologies" issued by Secretary Napolitano or others for those leaked reports. When American veterans expressed understandable outrage at the report's targeting of vets as being susceptible recruitment by terrorist groups, her response was, "I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended." In other words, "I'm sorry you were offended -- it's YOUR fault for taking it the wrong way!"
The Executive Branch of the U.S. government is coming after us. As patriotic Americans, we need to seek relief from the other branches of government – first of all, by DEMANDING that these outrageous DHS reports be CONDEMNED by our Representatives in Congress, and RETRACTED by the Obama administration; by demanding that the U.S. government REPUDIATE any person or organization that refers to pro-life individuals and groups as "terrorists"; and by demanding that Congress REJECT any attempt to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Should Our Foreign Policy Promote Abortion and Homosexuality?
June 8, 2009 www.frc.org
As early as this Wednesday, June 10, the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 2410, the State Department reauthorization bill. This bill creates an "Office for Women's Global Issues" to coordinate efforts regarding "women's empowerment" internationally.
We are deeply concerned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will use this office to promote abortion on demand abroad and to overturn pro-life laws in other countries.
Incredibly, the bill also places a priority on examining how other countries restrict homosexual behavior and overturning laws deemed to violate or restrict homosexual or transsexuals' behavior. It will also force U.S. Foreign Service workers to go through sensitivity training on the issues of "sexual orientation and gender identity." Furthermore, the bill provides no conscience protections for Foreign Service officers, but, in fact, requires that they take instruction on identifying violence or discrimination based on "perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."
Under this bill, people who have dedicated themselves to representing our nation abroad will be forced to violate their own moral or religious beliefs.
Contact your Representative today to vote AGAINST H.R. 2410!
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Trans-ObamAcorn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Forget marriage in June - for Obama, it's Gay Pride Month
Robert Knight - Guest Columnist - 6/9/2009
Robert KnightFor the first time in history, a U.S. president has issued a White House proclamation celebrating transgenderism -- along with homosexuality, lesbianism, and bisexuality.
In his June 1 "Pride Month" proclamation, Barack Obama boasted of appointing Senate-confirmed openly homosexual nominees to high executive offices, described reluctance to accept homosexuality as "discrimination and prejudice," and called for passage of the entire homosexual political agenda, including programs for "LGBT youth."
No president, even Bill Clinton, has issued such a radical embrace of the entire homosexual agenda. To give "teeth" to the LGBT youth emphasis, President Obama recently appointed Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, as the Assistant Secretary of Education for Safe and Drug Free Schools. Jennings' group backs homosexual lessons for children, beginning in kindergarten, and sponsored a Massachusetts conference in 2000 in which children as young as 12 were instructed graphically about how to perform homosexual acts.
The president's proclamation calls for:
- "Outlawing discrimination in the workplace," which means passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would empower the federal government to force employers with 15 or more employees to adopt "sexual orientation" special protections now applicable to race, ethnicity, and sex.
- "Enhancing hate crime laws." The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909), now in the Senate, would lay the foundation for special treatment based on gender identity and homosexuality and would empower the Justice Department to take over any criminal case that it deems a "hate crime." Similar laws paved the way for "thought crime" statutes in Canada, Sweden, England and other nations where public criticism of homosexuality is now banned and passages in the Bible have been declared "hate speech."
- Adoption of children by homosexual couples, guaranteeing that orphans would be placed in fatherless or motherless families by design, despite the availability of more than one million husband-and-wife households awaiting adoption.
- Recognition of transsexuals and transvestites as a civil rights category on a par with race, ethnicity, place of birth, or sex. This means that men who dress as women would obtain more rights under the law than other Americans and could force employers to accommodate them, regardless of the impact on the workplace. A male school bus driver in Pennsylvania, for instance, showed up for work dressed as a woman and claimed that he had the right under a state law to do so, regardless of the impact on the children.
- Civil unions. The president specifically called for civil unions, which give the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples. Civil unions put the government on record as encouraging homosexuality with legal incentives. The proclamation did not mention the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but Obama has called elsewhere for repealing it.
- End the military's ban on homosexual behavior. Despite a letter signed by more than 1,000 retired generals and admirals opposing this idea, Obama says he wants open homosexuals to serve in the nation's armed forces.
When traditional sexual morality is redefined as "discrimination and prejudice," the law will be used to criminalize biblical Christianity. Children will be taught in schools that God's plan for marriage and sexuality is merely a form of bigotry and that "trying out" homosexuality will be a rite of passage. The volunteer military will be shaken to its roots, putting recruitment and retention at risk.
The stakes are enormous for our churches, our nation, our children and grandchildren.
Speak now -- or forget about having peace in the future.
Robert Knight (R.Knight@crministries.org) is senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of the new book, "Fighting for America's Soul.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Drop Homosexual Activist from Education Department
June 10, 2009 (www.frc.org)
Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was appointed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
GLSEN is the chief national group promoting policies to force affirmation of homosexuality in schools, beginning in kindergarten. GLSEN once sponsored a conference at Tufts University that was advertised to "youth only ages 14 to 21." Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled "What They Didn't Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class." Among other activities, the activists guided the students on gay sex practices.
Jennings has spoken publicly about a high school student he once counseled who was in a sexual relationship with an older man -- yet Jennings never reported this abuse to the authorities, the school, or the child's parents.
Should he be overseeing a major federal program designed to promote the health and well being of students and families?
We can only assume, given his past, that he will steer grant money toward programs like those offered by GLSEN that put a homosexual agenda ahead of the rights of parents and the safety of students.
This is unacceptable. Jennings' appointment should be withdrawn. Email Arne Duncan today. Tell him to withdraw the appointment of Kevin Jennings.
Email Arne Duncan. Tell him to withdraw Kevin Jennings' appointment
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Duncan Duckin' Criticism (www.frc.org)
The Department of Education is doing its best to shut conservatives out, but that only means we have to speak louder! Earlier this week I shared with you that Education Secretary Arne Duncan had chosen homosexual activist Kevin Jennings to head the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.
We asked you to contact Secretary Duncan and voice your concern about his past, which includes founding the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an endorsement of the book Queering Elementary Education, and his failure to report sexual abuse to the authorities.
Thousands of you contacted Duncan, and as a result the Department of Education (DOE) began blocking emails that came through FRC. We received lots of complaints at our offices yesterday that people were unable to get through the DOE's server. Apparently, officials there tried to filter out your complaints.
If Secretary Arne Duncan won't listen, then go to his boss! E-mail President Obama today by logging on to www.frcaction.org. Urge him to pressure Secretary Duncan to withdraw Jennings' appointment. A man who is overseeing a major federal program on student health and safety shouldn't affirm homosexuality to our schools' youngest children.
Additional Resources
Email President Obama today! Urge him to stop Kevin Jennings' appointment.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
'No truth' in Obama's speech before homosexuals
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/1/2009
Barack Obama 2A black evangelical Christian pastor and former NFL linebacker says there was "absolutely no truth in anything" President Obama said in his speech to homosexuals in the East Room of the White House Monday.
President Obama promised LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) supporters Monday at a White House "gay pride" celebration that he "will continue to be an ally and a champion" for their agenda, once again vowing he will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. (Related article: Obama White House not appealing transgender ruling)
Ken Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Washington state, says it is "a shame" that the president is "supporting what destroys the family."
Ken Hutcherson"There's absolutely no truth in anything he said, from beginning to the end," says Pastor Hutcherson. "There is no such thing as [a] biblical stance for homosexuality, if you use the Bible. If you want to use any other denomination, feel free -- but where I stand is...biblical; it is marriage between one man [and] one woman, and that is the relationship, heterosexual, that is ordained, blessed, and called by God."
In his talk, Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes," he stated. (See related article) Hutcherson says those comments demonstrate the president has contempt for more than just conservative Christians.
"I think this president has a disdain for anyone who disagrees with anything about him -- don't just limit it to Christians and conservatives," he remarks. "Brother, this man doesn't like anyone who doesn't think he's the smartest man in the world."
Hutcherson says until conservative Christians make their small voice a dominating one, there is nothing that will stop President Obama from pushing for the legalization of same-sex "marriage."
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Pastor: Obama has no 'black experience' to speak of
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/3/2009
A conservative black pastor and former NFL linebacker says he's highly offended that President Obama would compare the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks during the Civil Rights Era.
On Monday, President Obama told a gathering of homosexuals at the White House that he is aware that many of them "don't believe progress has come fast enough," and compared their struggles to those of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement.
Ken Hutcherson, the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington, says the comments are especially disturbing from an individual who is supposed to be familiar with "the black experience."
"But I guess we...have to ask, 'Even though he is black because his father was, what is his "black experience"?' He doesn't have any. He was raised by a white mother and a white grandmother, so this man has about as much black experience as my Doberman Pinscher -- and I guarantee [that] my Doberman Pinscher doesn't have any," he points out. "There is nothing, nothing that compares between what the Afro-Americans went through and what homosexuals are going through now."
Hutcherson expresses disgust with evangelicals who still support President Obama, despite his promotion of policies that are at odds with scripture. He says such individuals are part of the "evangellyfish" movement in America.
"A person can be as black as a piece of coal, [but] if he goes against God's biblical views, I would not support him, I would not endorse him, I would not even give a smile in his direction so people could even think that I endorse him," he states, "because God is my God, the Bible is my playbook, and I run it the way it is written."
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
When color trumps Christianity
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 7/6/2009
Star ParkerPresident Obama hosted a reception at the White House celebrating LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Pride month. Black Christians should take note and learn a few things about our black president.
As they say, we are what we do.
It tells us something that Mr. Obama had no time to host an event for the National Day of Prayer.
Nor did he have time to accept the invitation to convey greetings and a few remarks to the couple hundred thousand who came to Washington, as they do every January, for the March for Life.
However, the LGBT Pride event did make it onto the president's busy schedule.
Here are parts of his remarks I think noteworthy for black Christians:
First, we now know that Mr. Obama buys into reasoning equating the homosexual political movement to the black civil rights movement: "...it's not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago."
Perhaps Obama can extend some of his famous empathy to a black Christian woman, Crystal Dixon, who lost her University of Toledo job for writing a column in her local paper challenging this premise. Dixon was fired for being uppity enough to write "...I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims' ...I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman."
Considering our president's priorities, I recall a song popular during the civil rights movement: "Which Side Are You On?"
Second, Obama sees the black community as being a little slow on the uptake to grasp that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are okay. There still are those, according to him, "who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters..." He deals with this, he said, by talking about it in front of "unlikely audiences," such as, "in front of African American church members."
Maybe a lot of us black folks, still readin' our Bibles, just haven't had enough of that Harvard learnin'.
And, third, Obama talked about HIV/AIDS but didn't bother to mention that it's overwhelmingly blacks that this scourge is killing.
Why would our black president discuss HIV/AIDS and not mention that although blacks represent 12 percent of our population, they account for 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases and half of HIV-related deaths? Or that the incidence of HIV/AIDS infection per every 100,000 people is nine times higher among blacks than whites?
Of course, it would have been bad form for Obama to sour the punch bowl at the LBGT Pride month festivities by mentioning the disproportionate toll this lifestyle takes on blacks.
Blacks, of course, made the difference in getting Proposition 8 passed in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They then switched over and voted for Obama.
Obama has said he opposes same-sex marriage. Can this really be so? He said at the White House event that he's called for Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the main obstacle to nationalizing legalization of same-sex marriage.
Black Christians have a lot of soul searching to do. We know the pain of black history. But we also must retain clarity that these many injustices were the result of race and color trumping Christian principles.
How can black Christians do this themselves? How can black Christians allow race and color to trump Christian principles in driving their support for a leader?
Particularly as sexually transmitted diseases kill our people, when a third of all abortions are black babies, and the only hope for future black prosperity is restoration of the black family?
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Frank & Fanny Meltdown
?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fidelity Investments holds big fundraiser for Barney Frank, raising thousands of dollars for his campaign fund. www.massresistance.org
US Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is probably among the despised members of Congress these days. As Chairman of the House Banking Committee, most people have seen his arrogant, condescending manner in various television interviews over the past several months.
Barney Frank's recent activities seem to range across the spectrum (and this is just his recent stuff):
* Financial meltdown. Frank's complicity in this country's financial crisis has become legendary. This includes Frank's very public homosexual affair with Herb Moses, a high-paid executive with Fannie Mae.
At the same time, Frank opposed government restrictions on risky activities by Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae which led directly to terrible consequences. (How's your 401(k) doing?)
* Hate crimes. Barney Frank was a co-sponsor and major proponent of the onerous Hate Crimes bill passed by the US House last week, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which would punish thoughts, rather than actions, regarding sexual orientation and "gender identity" in America. The terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" remain undefined in the legislation.
* Transgender agenda. Rep. Frank recently got a step up on the hate crimes bill (protecting the employment of transsexuals) by hiring a woman with a hormone-induced beard and mustache who dresses as a man to serve on his Washington staff in the US Capitol. (See MassResistance blog report.)
* Homosexual programs in schools. This past weekend Barney Frank came to Boston to raise money for PFLAG, a homosexual activist group that targets kids in the public schools, and puts on various homosexual, bisexual, and transgender events for kids and adults, many extremely radical.
Well, it turns out that not everyone is upset with ol' Barney. Boston-based Fidelity Investments wants to make sure that Frank wins his next election. So a few weeks ago they "reached out" to him and threw a fund-raiser for Frank at their downtown Boston offices, netting $28,000 for Frank's campaign fund, which was reported in the Boston Herald last week, in the article below.
In our eyes, this represents the rock-bottom worst of politics and big business. Is there no such thing as morals and principles? Is there no end to selling out? What about Barney Frank's Republican opponent, Earl Sholley, who has announced he will challenge him again next year? If you have any investments with this company, this ought to tell you something.
Fidelity banks on Barney Frank
Honchos host fund-raiser for finance panel's chief
By Jay Fitzgerald, Boston Herald
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Fidelity chairman Edward "Ned" Johnson wasn't kidding when he recently said his firm was beefing up its clout within Washington circles at a time of expected regulatory changes for the financial sector.
Boston-based Fidelity last month hosted a fund-raiser for U.S. Rep. Barney Frank at its downtown offices, and company executives dished out $28,000 in individual donations to the powerful chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Among executives who gave money to Frank were Abby Johnson, Ned's daughter, and Rodger Lawson, president of Fidelity. Both gave Frank $2,400 each, federal records show.
In all, about 27 Fidelity workers donated to Frank's campaign during the first quarter. Their donations accounted for about two-thirds of all the individual donations Frank received during the three-month period.
Ned Johnson himself was not listed as a donor.
But Frank, a Newton Democrat expected to play a major role in drafting new financial regulations, also received $2,500 last month from Fidelity's political action committee, records show.
Fund-raising "doesn't influence" the congressman, said a spokesman, while adding that Frank appreciates Fidelity's support.
"The fact they (Fidelity executives) reached out is welcome," said Frank spokesman Jim Segel.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
I am wondering how ohso toasted the recent California Supreme Court decision.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
First the Dublin attorney ranted, then he raved and then he ranted some more. Then he wrote something unintelligible in big bold print that he copied from some obscure Rupert Murdoch site.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
ObamAcorn Hate Crime Pogrom - Fear Mongering for the Thought Police.
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(www.lc.org) Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday in support of the anti-faith Hate Crimes bill.
This is a follow up to Attorney General Holder's statements
earlier this week which amounted to nothing more than
politically motivated fear-mongering.
It is clear what the Obama team is doing...
They are laying the political "cover" for the Senate to
pass a Hate Crimes bill that gives special protections
based on "sexual identity" while refusing to protect the
religious liberties of millions of Americans!
+ + Let's Greet Mr. Holder with 100,000 Petitions!
I just asked for a count of our petition opposing this anti-faith
Hate Crimes bill and have been told that -- thanks to you and so
many others who have signed -- we recently crossed 83,000! So
here's my challenge to you:
When you help me reach 100,000 petitions by next
Wednesday NOON, I will make sure these petitions get
delivered to the ranking members on the Senate Judiciary
Committee in time for the 10am Thursday hearing.
Please forward this message to your friends and urge them
to sign the petition now:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=19829&PID=17857958
The fact that the Senate's leadership has been forced to have
hearings on the Hate Crimes bill is a tremendous victory!
The enormous pressure we have brought to bear through previous
petition deliveries, massive fax campaigns and an avalanche
of calls has forced them to change their plans!
++ Now is the time to really turn up the heat!
This new anti-faith Hate Crimes law isn't really about protecting
anyone's rights. It is all about giving Holder's federal
prosecutors more power to prosecute their version of
political correctness!
We simply cannot sit by and let the Obama team dictate on this
issue and paint Christians like you and me as evil doers and
"haters" in this debate!
Again... the hearing is Thursday at 10am. I want to make sure
this Committee receives 100,000 petitions...
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=19829&PID=17857958
Thank you and may God bless you.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Obama Protects Cronies at Taxpayers' Expense
by David Limbaugh
The more we learn about the White House's summary firing of AmeriCorps' inspector general, Gerald Walpin, the more it smells of lawlessness, cronyism and a flagrant disregard for transparency and government accountability.
Remember President Barack Obama's commitment to oversee the expenditure of taxpayer funds to avoid waste and inefficiency -- to the point that he deputized Vice President "Mean" Joe Biden as the executive enforcer?
That was then. This is now. As has proved customary with this administration, the walk has not matched the talk. Biden's casual admissions that the administration "guessed wrong" and that money has been wasted don't begin to describe the fiscal recklessness and corruption that define this White House.
Walpin -- in investigating the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by St. HOPE charity, which is under the direction of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a strong Obama supporter -- discovered that St. HOPE had failed to use the federal monies for the purposes specified in the grant and improperly had used AmeriCorps personnel to drive Johnson to personal appointments, run other errands for him and wash his car. On Walpin's recommendation, an official at the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps, ordered Johnson's suspension.
Walpin also referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office for a criminal inquiry. Though no criminal charges were filed, St. HOPE agreed in a settlement to repay half its $850,000 of AmeriCorps grants.
But the real fireworks didn't begin until Walpin briefed the CNCS board May 20 on his investigation. A few weeks later, the White House called him and gave him one hour to decide whether he would resign or be fired.
He refused to resign, and the White House summarily fired him, as promised, grossly violating the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, which forbids the White House from firing an IG without providing 30 days' notice and the specific reasons for the firing.
Norman Eisen, White House special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, in response to heavy criticism of the administration over this matter, issued a letter explaining its reasons for termination but offering not the slightest justification for its violation of the statute. Its excuses are superficial, bogus and vague. Eisen wasn't any more forthcoming as to the grounds for the termination in his meeting with the staff of Sen. Charles Grassley, who is inquiring into the case.
In his letter, Eisen said that in the May 20 meeting, "Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." Eisen complained that Walpin had worked from his home in New York instead of commuting to Washington. He also cited Walpin's "lack of candor" in providing information to decision-makers, meaning the U.S. attorney.
Though the White House dismissed Walpin without seeking his side of the story, there is another side, and it is compelling. The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed Walpin, who responded to the allegations against him.
Walpin denied that he was confused or that his presentation was disorganized, though he admitted he was less organized after being asked to leave the room for a while and returning to find his papers shuffled and out of order. GOP investigators said Walpin is entirely sharp, focused, collected and coherent, an assessment that Byron York corroborated based on his two-hour interview.
Walpin said his telecommuting from New York had been expressly approved by the chairman, vice chairman and corporation's board, and he described the charge that he lacked candor with the U.S. attorney as "a total lie."
Even more suspicious was counsel Eisen's stonewalling behavior in the meeting with Sen. Grassley's staff, who said he refused to answer several direct questions about the representations in his letter, prompting Grassley to send a follow-up letter to the White House for more information.
What possible justification can there be for the White House to lack candor (to borrow a phrase) in this matter? Why does it view itself as an adversary to the inspector general who investigated the misuse of taxpayer funds?
In view of this stonewalling, it's hard to assume the administration's good faith. It is abundantly clear the White House had a personal interest in protecting Johnson, violated the law in firing Walpin, did not seek his side of the story or show any interest in his response to the allegations, didn't interview him to assess his alleged confusion, and was overtly evasive with Sen. Grassley as to its reasons for termination.
Instead of showing neutrality or erring on the side of the watchdog of government funds, the administration punished the watchdog and his charge, the U.S. taxpayers, and, in the process, exhibited those negative qualities -- cronyism, corruption, waste, recklessness and a lack of transparency -- it forever decries.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Hey ohso, how did you vote on the "why do people become gay" poll? Check in and educate us.
Also, I am curious. Is David Limbaugh related to Rush? Is he just trying to cash in on the family name? Is he obese also?
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
A hate crime against America = Proposed Federal Law
Robert Knight - Guest Columnist - 6/26/2009
"We're not going to win this case, but that's okay. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."
This was a remark made in the gallery by the Clinton White House liaison for "gay" issues during U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the Boy Scouts case in 2000. She had whispered it to the Rev. Rob Schenck, whom she mistakenly thought was one of those liberal clerics who think God is still making up His mind about sexual morality.
The point is that the proposed federal "hate crime" law before the Senate is less about righting wrongs than it is about elevating sexual preferences -- all of them -- to civil rights status so they can be used as a battering ram against people with traditional values.
"Hate crime" laws ensure unequal justice. They empower some groups of victims at the expense of others. A grandma using an ATM machine should have as much protection under the law as a man walking out of a "gay" bar. But under the proposed federal "hate crimes" law, an assailant of a man perceived as homosexual would face greater penalties than grandma's mugger.
Yesterday (Thursday, June 25), the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909), which passed the House on April 29 in a largely partisan vote of 249 to 175, with 10 abstentions.
Named after the Wyoming college student beaten to death in 1998 and whose killers received the maximum in a state without a hate crimes law, S. 909 is not only unnecessary but poses an acute threat to constitutional civil rights. It's a massive federal power grab over state criminal law, giving the attorney general's office the power to intervene into a "hate crime" case whenever they feel it is necessary.
It would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to a list of specially protected classes such as race, ethnicity, sex and religion. If this bill passes, the Congress of the United States will be officially creating a new civil rights category based on sexual confusion.
Like "sexual orientation," "gender identity" is infinitely flexible, and includes transvestitism (cross-dressing) and transsexualism (believing that one is in the wrong sex's body and sometimes surgically changing one's sex organs).
In the House version, an effort to amend the bill to exclude "pedophilia" was defeated in committee along party lines. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) even read a partial list of paraphilias from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including pedophilia, and declared that "all of these philias and fetishes and isms that were put forward – need not live in fear because of who they are."
This is why some of the bill's opponents call it the "Pedophile Protection Act."
Here's how the law would work in practice: It would add penalties on top of those levied for criminal convictions, based on the perpetrators' perceived beliefs or the victims' group identification. In order to prove that the defendant holds particular beliefs, his or her speech, writing, reading materials and organizational memberships would become key evidence. "Have you now, or have you ever been involved with a homophobic organization (like, say, Catholic Charities)?"
Two paragraphs were inserted to mollify such concerns:
(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS - Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
(4) "FREE EXPRESSION - Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs."
But American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) attorney John Armor notes: "This is a head fake for citizens who don't understand freedom of speech protections."
Ken Klukowski, an ACRU senior legal analyst, explains, "Paragraph (3) is only a statement of the obvious, so it has no legal effect. No statute can abridge constitutionally-protected speech. If any speech is burdened, and the speaker files suit, then the process and the result is the same regardless of whether there is any paragraph such as (3). The court then looks to the speech in question, the nature of the burden on that speech, and what protection the First Amendment extends to that particular speech. The court does not look to language such as (3) in deciding the case. If the burden in the specific case is unconstitutional, then it's impermissible whether the statute acknowledges the fact or not. So (3) is just there to help pass the bill by giving people a talking point to say 'this law does nothing to violate anyone's free speech rights.' It makes no difference in court whatsoever."
The bill also would create a federal slush fund for hate crime prevention programs at the state and local levels, including school programs that equate traditional morality with "bigotry." The Justice Department's "hate crime" section relies on material from groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which lumps legitimate conservative and Christian organizations with "hate groups."
Besides its threats to basic freedoms, the law is unnecessary. America is not awash in an epidemic of hate crimes, which constitute a microscopic portion of the more than 11 million crimes reported in the United States annually. In the latest crime report released in October 2008 by the U.S. Justice Department for 2007, nearly 80 percent of the 7,624 incidents of "hate crimes" listed in "crimes against persons" involved "intimidation" (47.4 percent) or "simple assault" (31.1 percent), which could involve nothing more than words.
The proposed federal hate crime law, like all hate crime laws, politicizes crime, leading to pressure on police and prosecutors to devote more of their limited resources to certain victims at the expense of others. For example, homosexual activist groups descended on Wyoming and created a media circus around the Matthew Shepard case, costing the state heavily for public relations. Meanwhile, the story of Kristin Lamb, an eight-year-old girl who a month before Shepard's death was killed in Wyoming and her body thrown into a landfill, received virtually no news coverage or concerns about a possible "hate crime."
Hate crime laws lay the groundwork for assaults on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden, clergy have been investigated and arrested for advocating traditional morality.
"Hate crime" laws are already being used to silence people in the United States. A pastor in New York's Staten Island saw two billboards with a Bible verse on them taken down in 2000 under pressure from city officials, who cited "hate crime" rhetoric.
In Philadelphia, 11 Christians were arrested and jailed overnight for singing and preaching in a public park at a homosexual street festival in 2004. Five of them were bound over and charged with five felonies and three misdemeanors, totaling a possible 47 years in jail. These charges, based on Pennsylvania's "hate crimes" law, hung over them for months until a judge finally dismissed them.
Freedom-loving Americans deplore any violence against innocent victims (including homosexuals), but strongly oppose "hate crime" laws as unjust and dangerous.
All people deserve impartial justice under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The proposed federal hate crime law imperils that cherished right on many levels.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Have you wondered what homosexual activists do when they are alone with kids in the tax-funded "gay clubs" in schools, gay assemblies, and other activities? It's not pretty. In fact, it's very disgusting.
Now you can hear for yourself. The "Fistgate" tapes (with transcripts) are now posted for all to hear.
The Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is a national homosexual activist organization that targets children in the public schools. Among other things, they run the "gay-straight alliance" clubs in high schools and middle schools, the "Day of Silence", teacher training, and myriad other homosexual activities involving kids in schools.
(GLSEN is still using state money to get into the Massachusetts schools, thanks to your Legislature!)
On March 25, 2000, GLSEN held a conference with workshops that included homosexual activists (who were state employees) and children as young as 12. Children were bussed in from around the state. Teachers got state professional "development credits" for participating.
At these workshops the kids were shown in graphic detail how to perform a range of various disgusting and dangerous homosexual sex techniques - including "fisting" -- by homosexual activists. It's so sickening that we are not going to describe it here.
But www.MassResistance.org (then known as Parents' Rights Coalition) was also there. Our executive director witnessed what went on, and had a tape recorder with him.
When we revealed what happened, there was a media firestorm in Boston and to some extent around the country. One radio station, WTKK, discussed the incident every day for several weeks on one of its talk shows.
Lawsuits, etc., by homosexual lobby to silence us
But the homosexual lobby quickly persuaded a Superior Court Judge to ban anyone from distributing or even playing the tapes, on the pretext of an apparent "wiretap law" violation. (It was so absurd that even Alan Dershowitz weighed in on our side!)
There was such an outrage that the three state employees who were recorded in the tapes were fired (though one got reinstated by a friendly arbitrator).
The homosexual lobby initiated two big lawsuits against us to collect "damages" from us and ban the distribution of the tapes forever
After several years, both lawsuits were settled. We will be posting those documents. In the end, the gays were not successful; and we are free to post the tapes without restriction.
Lesbian 'instructor' who said she'd still so it the same way
Interestingly, GLSEN openly acknowledged that tapes were legitimate and that the things we reported actually happened. And afterwards, one of the lesbian activists in the taps arrogantly told a homosexual newspaper, "I don't know that we would have done anything differently. We didn't feel like we had to hide our work. We didn't feel like we had done anything wrong."
Mass. politicians continue to fund GLSEN - and more
Even this has been publicly known, the Massachusetts Legislature has chosen to ignore parents and cave in to the homosexual lobby. Every year they have continued to fund the work of GLSEN from your tax money.
In 2006, they wrote GLSEN into state law as a mandated member of the tax-supported Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth. So GLSEN is now going into schools under force of law.
GLSEN founder appointed by Obama for major Dept. of Education position - Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN . He was running GLSEN at the time of this conference. He defended it and participated in trying to silence us over it.
This past month Barack Obama appointed Kevin Jennings run the "Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools" for the U.S. Department of Education! Parents across the country are outraged. On Wednesday there was a press conference in Chicago to protest it.
This madness must be stopped
Kevin Jennings' appointment and the Massachusetts Legislature's continued support of GLSEN - with your tax money - has underscored the need to publicize this far and wide. And it's a further lesson that unless good people stand up and act, evil will carry the day. It certainly has here.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Hansell and Our Regrettal (www.frc.org)
The Obama administration continues to attack the family from the inside. According to our sources, the Department of Health and Human Services is poised to name David Hansell to a key post in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
This is particularly disturbing since Hansell served in leadership positions at Gay Men's Health Crisis, a nonprofit that actively lobbies for the radical homosexual agenda.
His promotion to Assistant Secretary of ACF is a slap in the face of mainstream America, who relied on this office to promote heterosexual adoption, traditional families, abstinence education, child care, and healthy marriages.
To give you a picture of the extreme makeover underway at ACF, Hansell's predecessor was Dr. Wade Horn, a well-respected family advocate who used to head the Fatherhood Initiative. Under Hansell's direction, ACF would radically morph from a federal program meant to empower traditional families into a government vehicle aimed at sabotaging marriage with your tax dollars.
Additional Resources
Read FRC's Summary: Barack Obama and Homosexuality/Gender issues at www.frc.org
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Marxist Madness Marches On
Ohso wasn't so far off this time. 11 days after the hate crimes bill came out it showed up in a military appropriations bill. You won't find it in the text of the bill, because that would be transparent. It is found in an attached PDF, the new stealth weapon of choice of the loopy liberals in Congress. Read the wording. It's right out of La RAZA. Actually, it 'left' La RAZA to make its way here. It was passed with 22 dissenting votes (rollcall 460)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills....
Pg 152
•HR 2647
SEC. 524. PROHIBITION ON RECRUITMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR RETENTION OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH HATE-RELATED VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR PERSONS OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
Section 504 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(c) PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH HATE GROUPS.—
‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—A person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government, as determined by the Attorney General, may not be recruited, enlisted, or retained in the armed forces.
‘‘(2) DEFINITION OF HATE GROUP.—In this subsection, the terms ‘group associated with hate-related violence’ or ‘hate group’ mean the following:
‘‘(A) Groups or organizations that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies.
‘‘(B) Groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and weapons trafficking and smuggling.
‘‘(C) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.
‘‘(D) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed activity in a ‘race war’.
‘‘(E) Groups or organizations that encourage members to join the armed forces in order to obtain military training to be used for acts of violence against minorities, other groups, or the United States Government.
‘‘(F) Groups or organizations that espouse violence based on race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
‘‘(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.
‘‘(3) EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION OR AFFILIATION WITH HATE GROUP.—The following shall constitute evidence that a person is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence:
‘‘(A) Individuals possessing tattoos or other body markings indicating association or affiliation with a hate group.
‘‘(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities
sponsored by a hate group.
‘‘(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group’s extremist or violent views and goals.
‘‘(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, written testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group. Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hate inspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General.
‘‘(E) Individuals espousing the intent to acquire military training for the purpose of using such training towards committing acts of violence of a purpose not affiliated with the armed forces.
I'll Keep My Freedom -
You Keep The Chains
RealAmerica
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Obama's moral clarity deficit
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 7/7/2009
Relativism is as relativism does -- and Barack Obama does it well. His less than tepid response to evidence of a rigged election in Iran a few weeks ago and the subsequent brutalization of the Iranian people by an Islamofascist regime says more about our President's worldview than it does his foreign policy.
Amid Tehran's bloody election protests, the Internet was awash with images of Iranian citizens – many beaten, even murdered – desperately reaching out to Uncle Sam for cover. "Obama, please help us, they are killing our young children," implored one protester's sign.
Obama's response? He launched the most vapidly uninspired course of inaction since the days of one-term Jimmy: "It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling," he lectured.
Critics pounced, calling the president's hyper-measured reaction "timid" and "passive." So he stepped it up a notch. This time he expressed "deep concerns about the elections," promising to "monitor the situation." Nonetheless he urged calm saying that he was "waiting to see how it plays out." (Just what Granny needs while she's being mugged: A would-be champion to "monitor the situation" and "see how it plays out.")
Of course an abundance of "concern," "monitoring" and about 89¢ will buy you a bitter cup of coffee. So, as Obama's critics got tougher, so did his rhetoric. The next day he again modified his official position, this time mustering enough righteous indignation to upgrade from "deeply concerned" to "appalled" and "outraged."
Still, his instinctive impulse to equivocate was more than Obama could bear. In the same breath he reassured Iran's despotic Mullahs and their puerile presidential puppet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs."
Not really a "tear down this wall" kind of moment, but, with this president, I guess it'll have to do.
All the same, what's most puzzling to me is why anyone's remotely surprised. Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal; a postmodern "progressive"; a committed social and moral relativist.
The moral relativist, by definition, is bereft of moral clarity. The only thing immoral is to reckon there are things immoral. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. No fixed right or wrong; no black or white; only shades of gray.
Indeed our debonair young Commander-in-Chief sees the world through the murkiest of gray-colored glasses. Though evidence of this abounds, I can think of no starker example than his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is "born alive" – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease and steps must be taken to save her life.
In 2002, Born Alive passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support. Yet Obama, while serving in the Illinois Senate, vehemently opposed its Illinois twin. He complained that "adding an additional doctor" (read: an actual doctor) to save the child's life is "really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."
Did you get that? To require that a doctor save the child survivor of a botched abortion would "burden the original decision" of the mother to kill her. The not-so-subtle implication, of course, is that they should, instead, put her aside until she dies. Or – as I attempt to hone that moral clarity, passé though it may be – deliberately kill her through wanton neglect.
This is infanticide by any objective measure; but not to the moral relativist, and not to Barack Obama. There is no such thing as an "objective measure," you see, only a subjective "choice."
So here it is in black and white -- Black: It's always wrong to kill babies. White: Doctors should make every effort to save the life of babies born alive. Gray: To require such would "burden the original decision" of a mother to kill her baby.
Black: It's always wrong to kill peaceful protesters. White: The U.S. demands the killing stop or we will stop it. Gray: We're monitoring the situation to see how it plays out.
Then again, I ask: Why should we expect moral clarity from this president? How can we expect him to value the lives of innocent Iranians halfway around the world when he doesn't even value the lives of the most innocent of his fellow citizens?
We can't.
But we can hold him accountable for it.
...............................................................
Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. This column is printed with permission.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
S.O.S. on 909! (www.frc.org)
Senate Armed Services Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) confirmed that a "hate crimes" bill will make its debut in a matter of days. Levin said he plans to attach an expansion of hate crimes law to the defense policy bill, meaning that a vote on the legislation, S. 909, could be as early as this week. Conservatives have been bracing for a fast and furious push, but we need you to engage immediately. Contact your senators today and urge them to reject the bill. Both Republicans and Democrats need to be reminded that our laws should not create special protections for people based upon their sexual behavior.
And don't assume that Democrats won't listen to your objections. There are plenty of Democrats who are either conservative or represent conservative states, and they can't afford to turn a deaf ear to voters. Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Bob Casey (Penn.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Jim Webb (Va.), and Mark Warner (Va.) promised to govern from the middle. Ask them to prove it by voting against S. 909.
Additional Resources
For more on hate crimes and the dangers it poses, visit www.frc.org
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Hey ohso, where do you stand on guys who dress up as girls and then perform sex acts on straight guys? Should they be prosecuted for some sort of sexual fraud or date rape? Or is it "buyer beware" with accidentally having sexual relations with another man just another potential risk of being a red-blooded promiscuous male? Or is it just a big practical joke on a guy whose gender recognition ability is malfunctioning? These cases are high profile in the media (for example, Eddie Araujo, Angie Zapata), so you should take a stand on this issue.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
OHSO never engages in debate with us resident harpy mau-maus. He just copies and pastes maniacally into the night, and then adds a few disjointed metaphors to make the morning issue of the forum.
Seems like strange cowardly behavior for some one who believes so strongly in his cause. Why doesn't he come out of his closet and debate? The answer you see, is also the subject of most of attacks against lesbians ..... no balls.
His mission is to drive the homo-anals off the earth, and into hell where he figures they belong. He doesn't have to debate, he's on a mission from God.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Why do you think ohso is so zealous about his cause? Did something happen to him when he was young and now he is working to get his revenge? Or is there something inside his heart that racks him with guilt?
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
I think you nailed it. How else could you explain such bazaar behavior? His single minded obsession with homosexuality must drive other parts of his life too. He must be miserable wretch.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Yet ohso never weighs in on the debate about why people become gay...
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
Ohso thinks it's a lifestyle choice, rather than genetics. Many people are born with genetic anomalies. Ohso doesn't attack the others when they demand their rights. What do you think Ohso, a child born blind doesn't have any rights? A child born with a gay preference doesn't have rights?
I'll give OHSO credit for his intelligence. But you would think all that intelligence would overcome his destructive phobia.
Seek help OHSO. Life is too short wasting your time hitting your head on a wall. The wall will not surrender. Gays aren't going away. They have been here a long time. I recall reading 2500 year old Greek literature in college about gay relationships.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Actually, Oh-So-Whacko did weigh in on this issue during the time that the Araujo case was in the news. As I recall, attorney Michael McDermott's position was that a perverted, deviant and probably subhuman transsexual who deceives poor, unsuspecting str8 [bleep]s is worse than the scum of the earth and deserves everything he/she got. Such a christian this guy is!
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Not 'left' enough? Just shift a little...
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/17/2009
A conservative military watchdog says Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is being politically expedient in supporting the effort to overturn the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
Recently The Hill reported that Gillibrand (D-New York), who was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Hillary Clinton, is trying to solidify her support among the left. New York's junior senator has been criticized for being too conservative on social issues -- and at least one or possibly two New York congresswomen could challenge her in the Democratic primary for her seat.
Consequently, Gillibrand may have decided to shore up her support among liberals by supporting the repeal of the 1993 law that bans homosexuals from military service and often has been confused with Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
In doing so, says Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Gillibrand has made a brazen political move.
"It is not a credit to Senator Gillibrand or any senator who would try to play games with an important law regarding the armed forces -- a law that is designed to protect good order, discipline, and moral in the armed forces," Donnelly states.
"To put that at risk for a brazen and personal political reason...is probably the worst motive we've seen so far."
This is not the first incident of Gillibrand moving to the left. The Hill also reports that she has worked on tightening up gun control and has gone left on the issue of illegal
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Ohso Much Harpiness is Like a Worn Pun, Only Different
The message boards have attracted another 'Alleged - Newbie' - in the form of a beany baby poster - who may or may not be one of the Resident Harpies Recycled, only time will tell.
For it is both a sad truth and a minor annoyance that Resident Harpies like 'scream name' (aka - honestlyrandymuffy2u...) and similar slimy Red Herrings - are often one in the same poster trying to evade the filters used to ignore them, and all too often it is the familiar reek of their dumpings which usually confirms that it is the same Harpy trying to hide behind a bogus identity.
For instance, 'scream name' is a Hangover Harpy from the previous incarnation of this message board who is in to 'Cyber Stalking' and 'outing' other posters as a means of promoting the Homosex / Coprophile agenda, and who may or may not also be Times Reporter 'honestly randy muffy 2-u' - another loser who used to roost with the wild media harpies of telegraph hill.
Both were long ago filtered by your correspondent when the odiferous stench of their shrieking homosex hissy fit tantrum theater productions reached a point of olfactory overload; and not being able to create and sustain their own threads they have made a point of Harping after Ohso and other targets as their sad little 'contribution' to the Issues. Scream Name is one typical of a type that couldn't attract flies to a thread they started, and thus like digger wasps must invade others with their toxic larval deposits.
Of course, my favorites amongst the Harpies are those who post in to a thread for the purpose of announcing that they Don't Read the Author (and have filtered all he writes), and now want the Author Removed from the message boards - because No One Else should be Allowed to Read Ohso Either!
Like parasitic paparazzi who love/hate the 'star' they feed on, these Harpies have even started several threads purporting to deal with Ohso and his alleged associates, as well as 'complaint' threads that he and other posters (more articulate and readable than the Harpies) were 'filling up the Internet' with stuff they didn't like - and taking away space that should be used for spam selling cheap shoes and Mexican vacations...
Anywayyyy... Ohso is still the Original Ohso - with a history of posting all the way back to AWOL (Amerikan Womyn On Line / AOL) in the mid 1990s, and while I have never altered my Identity I have had to alter my Screen Name (from Ohso to Ohso1, and then back to Ohso) during the various Censorship Attempts using the Message Board Controls to Destroy Posts and Content deemed Ungood - by the anonymous gnomes of the Old Media Thought Police.
Indeed - for a while before the 08 election it got so bizarre on the CC Times / Media News / Singleton Syndicate message boards that even the Prefix "Homo" was Censored as Ungood. So a post containing the term "Homogenized Milk" would be automatically edited to read "{Bleep}genized Milk" - in the name of enforcing 'tolerance,' for Radical Homosex Thought Policing - if not Free Speech and Open Debate.
Soooo... As for my 'flock' of Loyal Lurkers, and just plain folks reading and posting here - they enjoy an open invitation to join the Discussion - so long as Unlike the Harpies their only goal isn't to Hijack the Thread and change the subject to how much they hate Ohso, and why Ohso is Ungood, and So on and so forth - just so long as it avoids the topic and facts presented for discussion.
After all - how much better to trash Ohso as Ungood, than try and explain how a Hollyweird Homosex Propaganda piece about the 'Father of Aids in Amerika = Harvey Milk' - doesn't even contain the word Aids anywhere in its script?
Like the patron icon of Harpies, the Roman Lawyer Cicero, said of their 'legal system' just before the fall - "When you have no basis for an argument, Abuse the Plaintiff"
If that is all any newbie has to offer - then Cicero already beat you to it and perhaps you should consider a different line, unless you want to quickly join the rest of the Resident Harpies on the Ignore List.
Best keep quiet about it though - wouldn't want to spread any "Ism-Obia" now - what with everything else going around and all.
Ohso.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Dems trying to sneak 'hate crimes' through?
Jim Brown - www.OneNewsNow.com
Senators on Capitol Hill may be forced tomorrow to make a choice between approving an important defense spending bill and voting down "hate crimes" legislation.
Senate Democrats are once again trying to pass a hate crimes bill by attaching it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
The hate crimes legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909), would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law. A vote is expected Thursday on the Defense Authorization bill and its accompanying hate crimes amendment.
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, warns the hate crimes measure will lead to more than just the prosecution of violent crimes that are deemed bias-related.
Bishop Jackson"The problem is that the way that they define violence has to do with name-calling, has to do with an array of different things," he explains. "And the ultimate issue is going to be that it only takes one or two lawsuits, or the threat of a lawsuit, for there to be a chilling effect on pastors from preaching these passages of the Bible like Leviticus and Romans 1, and many, many other passages as our culture slips more into darkness."
Those scriptural passages address homosexual acts, which the Bible says God considers to be an abomination.
Jackson and other conservative activists are hoping to persuade a group of about 14 moderate senators to oppose the bill. They include Arkansas Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, and Republicans John McCain (Arizona) Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Judd Gregg (New Hampshire).
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
While we're on the subject of hate crimes legislation, we should consider adding hippies to the list. It is wrong for violent thugs and short-haired bigots to attack hippies merely because of their hair length, psychedelic outfits, and choice of smokables.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
New “Science Czar” is From a Different Planet
May Forecast Things to Come With “Obamacare“ www.LC.org 72209
Washington, DC – As the debate over President Obama’s socialized healthcare plan heats up, the depth of his radicalism is becoming more evident. John Holdren, Obama’s recent choice for “Science Czar,” provides the latest and perhaps most troubling example of extremism. In the name of population control, Holdren has advocated both forced abortion and compulsory sterilization through government-administered tainting of the water supply.
In a 1977 book he co-authored, called “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” Holdren called for a “Planetary Regime” to enforce mandatory abortions for population control and limit the use of natural resources. Holdren wrote: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Holdren writes that “a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.”
He states that “sterilizing women after their second or third child” may be more practicable than sterilizing men and proposes a “long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin” at puberty and then “might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
He queried: “Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” He wrote “that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.”
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The new science czar’s scheme for a ‘Planetary Regime’ that would force pregnancy and coerce abortion under some bureaucratic population control master plan is beyond extreme. Where in the world does President Obama find these people?
No wonder Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to condemn China’s inhumane one-child policy. The people with whom the President has surrounded himself are the most extreme abortion advocates on the planet.
We cannot continue on this path of human destruction. God is just, and His justice will not sleep forever.”
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Call for ACORN investigation
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/24/2009
A new report issued by congressional Republicans alleges fraud and widespread political corruption in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). A Pittsburgh attorney who sued ACORN for election law violations last year says if Democratic leaders don't exercise their duty of oversight, there needs to be a call for a special prosecutor.
Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report yesterday accusing ACORN of violating several tax and election laws by using tax dollars to support its liberal political agenda.
According to the report, ACORN provided contributions of financial and personnel resources to indicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, and Barack Obama when he was running for president.
Heather Heidelbaugh, vice president of the Republican Lawyers Association, says ACORN has received $53 million from taxpayers and has access to $2.8 billion in the Obama administration.
Heather Heidelbaugh "What we think has happened is that all of that money has gone into one account -- Citizens Consulting, Inc. -- and has been intermingled with members' dues, foundation grants, donors' grants, all sorts of other money; and then that money has been used to further the campaigns of people running for office that ACORN endorses," she explains. "That, clearly, is illegal."
Heidelbaugh, who calls the report "shocking," says ACORN is funneling tax dollars to its 361 affiliated organizations so they can carry out partisan political activity.
Such a scheme, the lawyer argues, warrants a criminal investigation.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
America the Mean: President Obama's Science 'Czar' (www.frc.org)
By one recent count, President Obama has now appointed 34 "czars" to manage a host of projects. One of the most troubling of these is the new White House science czar, Dr. John Holdren. In 1977, Holdren teamed with the long-discredited "population bomb" scientist Paul Ehrlich to write a book titled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Here are some choice quotes from this landmark work:
"Compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society ... It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society ... Adding a sterilant (a drug that would produce infertility) to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control."
And in case anyone thinks Holdren now regrets these statements, consider his comment earlier this year in an exchange with U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) in public testimony: "Population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities; it's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period." "Liabilities?"
Of what kind, Dr. Holdren -- and would such liabilities ever justify the kinds of things (coerced abortions, sterilants in the water supply) you advocated in past years? Holdren has even called the United States "the meanest" of industrialized nations. Really? No people are more generous than the American people -- study after study demonstrates how ordinary citizens have sacrificially helped the impoverished and war-torn of other nations.
Dr. Holdren is now working in the White House shaping national policy. For more, visit http://www.frc.org/contact-elected-officials to find out how you can express your concern to the Obama Administration over this radical appointment.
Additional Resources
Contact the Obama Administration over John Holdren's Appointment
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Bully boys: A brief history of White House thuggery
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 7/29/2009
nSix months into the Obama administration, it should now be clear to all Americans: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.
Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the Today Show that he had met with CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf -- just as the number crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims. Yes, question the timing.
The CBO is supposed to be a neutral scorekeeper -- not a water boy for the White House. But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the healthcare savings claims, Obama's budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy.
Orszag warned the CBO in a public letter that it risked feeding the perception that it was "exaggerating costs and underestimating savings." Message: Leave the number fudging to the boss. Capiche?
Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his healthcare press conference. "Keep up the heat" translated into Organizing for America/Democratic National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against Obamacare's high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.
Looks like there won't be a healthcare beer summit anytime soon.
The CBO and the Blue Dogs got off easy compared to inspectors general targeted by Team Obama goons. Former AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin was slimed as mentally incompetent ("confused" and "disoriented") after blowing the whistle on several cases of community service tax fraud, including the case of Obama crony Kevin Johnson. Johnson is the NBA star turned Sacramento mayor who ran a federally funded nonprofit group employing AmeriCorps volunteers, who were exploited to perform campaign work for Johnson and to provide personal services (car washes, errands) to Johnson and his staff.
Walpin filed suit last week to get his job back -- and to defend the integrity and independence of inspectors general system-wide. But he faces hardball tactics from both the West Wing and the East Wing, where first lady Michelle Obama has been intimately involved in personnel decisions at AmeriCorps, according to youth service program insiders.
At the Environmental Protection Agency, top Obama officials muzzled veteran researcher Alan Carlin, who dared to question the conventional wisdom on global warming. The economist with a physics degree was trashed as a non-scientist know-nothing.
Obama Treasury officials forced banks to take TARP bailout money they didn't want and obstructed banks that wanted to pay back TARP money from doing so. The administration strong-armed Chrysler creditors and Chrysler dealers using politicized tactics that united both House Democrats and Republicans, who passed an amendment last week reversing Obama on the closure of nearly 800 Chrysler dealerships and more than 2,000 GM dealerships.
At the Justice Department, Obama lawyers are now blocking a House inquiry into the suspicious decision to dismiss default judgments against radical New Black Panther Party activists who intimidated voters and poll workers on Election Day in Philadelphia.
The DOJ is preventing Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) from meeting with the trial team in the case. Wolf has been pressing for answers on what communications Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputies conducted with third-party interest groups and other political appointees about the case. So far: radio silence.
In the mafia culture, bully boys depend on a code of silence and allegiance -- omertà -- not only among their brethren, but also from the victims.
The victims of Obama thugocracy are no longer cooperating. Perhaps it won't be long until some of the enforcers start to sing, too.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Questions to ask your Senators and Representative about ObamaCare
August 3, 2009 AFA.net
My friend Gary Bauer has proposed some questions for you to ask your Senators and Representative about ObamaCare. I'm asking all AFA supporters to get a group together and go to your Senators and Representative offices and ask these questions. Most Senators and Representatives have Townhall meetings in their district during their August break. Get the schedule and attend the meetings. Urge others to do the same. Have different groups at different locations to ask these questions to make sure the Congressman is consistent.
Here are Gary's recommendations. Yesterday, President Obama conceded that there probably won't be a vote on healthcare reform until "the end of September or the middle of October." That means you have August to attend town hall meetings with your representative and senators, stop by their congressional offices, write letters to the editor and educate your friends and family members about the dangers of socialized medicine. To help you in that effort, we’ve produced a short list of key concerns and questions, which are copied below. Please share this report with like-minded folks and those who may be undecided and willing to listen. Thank you for everything you do to defend our shared values in your community!
1. ABORTION
Pro-choice groups, like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, are demanding that abortion be covered in any healthcare reform bill. In a recent interview with Politico, Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy at Planned Parenthood, defends this demand by saying, "the alternative would be slashing benefits for millions of women who currently have [private] coverage for abortions..." In addition, key administration officials refuse to rule out abortion coverage. When asked on Fox News Sunday whether taxpayer money would go to pay for abortions, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag replied, "I am not prepared to say e