Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Just last weekend, Lowell implemented a "No-Free-Speech Zone" -- at least for one conservative candidate. Kevin Thompson, Constitution Party candidate for Congress in the 5th District (Marty Meehan's old seat), ran into an unexpected problem as he was trying to gather signatures at Lowell's Folk Festival. He was told he had to move away from City Hall Plaza into a "Free-Speech Zone". Check out Thompson's amazing report:
Well, we had a most interesting time at the Lowell Folk Festival this past weekend. I was there on Saturday collecting signatures for ballot access, when I was approached by the park police. This official approached as I was talking with a couple from Lowell who were willing to sign. The official stood there for a moment and waited till they were about to pick up the pen and she then informed me that I would have to leave the particular area. I was in City Hall Plaza (in front of, not in, the stage area). She asked me to move into the “Free Speech Zone.” Yes, apparently in this woman’s mind, free speech can only take place in designated zones. I could not believe what I was hearing! So, I took out my camera and shot some footage. You will want to see this for yourself. http://www.thompson07.com/folkfestival.htm
We first encountered a "free speech zone" at the Democrat National Convention in Boston in 2004. (Even the ACLU objected then.) It was hideously located under a still-standing segment of the expressway -- a small area caged in by 12-foot chain-link fence. We gave a great speech about our eroding Constitutional freedoms that a few young Leftists seemed to appreciate. (Sadly, it wasn't recorded for posterity.) Also posted some really great signs about John Kerry and Margaret Marshall and homosexual "marriage".
Our second experience with a "free-speech zone" was later that week in the birthplace of American liberty, Lexington. Some town fools had an idea of breaking tradition to honor the Democrat Convention, and put on a special re-enactment of the battle. (This was a sacrilege for anyone into the specialness of the Patriots' Day re-enactment! And it was fitting that hardly anyone showed up for that July show.) A great crowd of our Article 8 activists showed up with banners advocating the removal of our tyrannical "gay marriage" judges. The police corralled us into a little pen off on the other side of the street -- the "free speech zone" -- and wouldn't even allow any standing or walking in the closed-off street (where nothing else was scheduled to happen).
Expect to see more of this ... depending on which side you're on.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation was still into open donations to state legislators and candidates in 2004. But since that time, after the establishment of his Gill Action Fund PAC -- with former Mass. pol Patrick Guerriero at its head -- he's been funneling his money more secretively. How many little MassEquality activists have volunteered to launder his funds (and for sure, activists outside the state as well)?
Look at this list of 2004 recipients of Gill's largesse [click on "search contributions" then enter name of donor and dates]. Why don't we see Gill's name any more on the Secretary of State's records? We do, however, see his operative Guerriero running the show at the June 14 Constitutional Convention (photo above), where they buried VoteOnMarriage's amendment with Gill's money. (In the Mass. Elections Division report, Gill variously identifies his employer as: retired; philanthropist; attorney; investor; unemployed; self-employed; Quark Express, and Gill Foundation. In one entry, he is listed as Tina Gill. Maybe that explains his support of tranny causes?)
461 RACE STREET DENVER, CO 80206
9/14/2004 $500.00 Resor, Pamela P.
10/19/2004 $500.00 O'Leary, Robert
10/28/2004 $500.00 Augustus, Edward M.
12/11/2004 $500.00 DiMasi, Salvatore F.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Fargo, Susan C.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Stanley, Thomas M.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Palacios-Boyce, Monica
09/01/2004 $500.00 Turner, Cleon H.
09/01/2004 $500.00 Canessa, Stephen R.
09/07/2004 $500.00 Sannicandro, Tom
09/08/2004 $500.00 Meoni, Paul J.
09/10/2004 $500.00 McQuilken, Angus
09/10/2004 $500.00 Sheehan Jr., Kenneth
09/10/2004 $500.00 Mazza-Moriarty, Rosemarie
09/12/2004 $500.00 Patrick, Matthew C.
09/15/2004 $500.00 Sciortino, Carl
10/20/2004 $500.00 Purinton, Timothy A.
10/20/2004 $500.00 Peake, Sarah K.
10/20/2004 $500.00 Thomas, John
10/21/2004 $500.00 McFeeley, John J.
10/22/2004 $500.00 Teahan, Kathleen M.
10/22/2004 $500.00 Peisch, Alice Hanlon
10/30/2004 $500.00 Howitt, Steven
10/12/2006 $500.00 D'Amico, Steven J.
10/20/2006 $500.00 Smith, Stephen Stat
10/12/2006 $500.00 Sandlin, Rosemary
10/20/2004 $500.00 Speliotis, Theodore C.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) of which MassEquality is a member organization, on July 17 sent a letter to the MassEquality board of directors asking that the organization step up to the plate on the effort to pass a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression and enhance penalties against perpetrators of crimes motivated by the victim’s gender identity or expression....
Ryan [MTPC co-chair; a "transwoman"] said that this is the first time MTPC has reached out to the MassEquality board for help on the transgender rights bill. Both she and fellow MTPC Co-Chair Gunner Scott ["transman"] said that though they have long had conversations with MassEquality staff members about the bill, they recognized that the organization’s primary focus was on securing marriage equality. Now, said Scott, “If they’re going to continue as a GLBT equality organization we’d like, of course, for them to focus on the trans bill that’s currently pending.” Solomon [MassEquality director] agreed that the LGBT community must turn its attention to securing protections for transgender people. “Passing an aggressive transgender civil rights bill that protects transgender people from hate crimes and discrimination has got to be a top community priority,” he said. [emphasis added]
Not mentioned in the Bay Windows article: MassEquality is also now quietly working hard to be sure they have the votes to actually LEGALIZE "gay marriage" -- with an actual LAW! Though why they think the law is important, we don't know. They certainly don't want the public to know about this little glitch -- that Mass. statutes still don't allow same-sex "marriage"! While he didn't mention that issue, Marc Solomon of MassEquality did say (immediately after the defeat of the marriage amendment on June 14) that he was working on the best timing to overturn the 1913 law barring out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying here. Though we're not sure why they need to do that either, since Massachusetts bureaucrats claim they are now empowered to tell other states what to do. (See yesterday's news on the Mass. DPH bureaucrat who issued a fiat allowing New Mexico homosexual couples to marry here.) MassEquality and the Trans Caucus have a sure ally in Gov. Deval Patrick for these bills, which will probably all be heard by the Judiciary Committee in the Fall:
- legalizing their same-sex "marriages" H1710, S918
- overturning the 1913 law barring marriages by out-of-state same-sex couples S800, S1029
- "transgender rights and hate crimes" H1722.
As the MassEquality board weighs the organization’s future, daily work continues. Most importantly, the organization has set about offering support to the nine legislators who switched from supporting to opposing the amendment between the Jan. 2 ConCon and the June 14 session and the two freshman lawmakers who had campaigned on support for the amendment last fall but ultimately decided to vote against it. To that end, MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov [who once donated to MassResistance in an attempt to get on our email alert list] has been working with some of the organization’s major donors — gay and straight — to steer campaign contributions to the newest crop of pro-equality legislators, who may be vulnerable in next year’s elections because of their vote switch. Gortikov declined to name specific legislators who have benefited from his work thus far. ...
Besides steering major donors toward potentially imperiled pro-equality legislators, MassEquality is also encouraging its members to attend fundraisers for their respective lawmakers. On July 12, for example, members of the affiliate group Quincy for Marriage Equality were a visible presence at Sen. Michael Morrissey’s annual fundraiser at Waterworks, a Quincy nightspot. ... Beyond campaign contributions, MassEquality members are making their support for vote switchers visible in other ways, said Solomon. For instance, in a Fourth of July parade in state Sen. Gale Candaras’s Western Mass. district, a crowd of marriage equality supporters turned up waving signs thanking Candaras for coming around to the cause of equality after several years of anti-equality votes.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Anyhow, Trevor's having a "coming out trans" party, and using it to raise money for the trannies. Maybe the partygoers will help clarify their terminology for us? Their word "transgender" seems quite flexible. It could mean a male who dons a female-style wig from time to time, just for fun; or a person who publicly dresses and identifies as a member of the opposite sex. Or, it could mean a full-fledged transitioning person, hormone shots, operations and all. And how does "transgender" connect to the "tops and bottoms" terminology? Could a "bottom" be considered a "trans" person, i.e. a male acting as a female? And then there's the Q in "GLBTQIP" for "questioning" -- and that can cover just about anybody doing or contemplating anything.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
All pro-abortion Leftists are Holocaust deniers. That's why they don't want these photos posted. They can't face the truth, for whatever personal reasons. And they don't want you to confront the truth either.
Botsford is cited for her ruling in a high-profile case on "a controversial runway at Logan International Airport." She has the "intellectual firepower to handle some of the state's most complex cases," says a past president of the American Bar Association. Problem is that abortion and runways are not equivalent. In fact, abortion is quite simple: It's the pre-meditated murder of an innocent human being. Can Botsford handle that?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
GSAs: not as innocent as they may seem; Gay Straight Alliance promotes sex-toy workshop for youth.
California Catholic News, June 25, 2007
The Gay Straight Alliance [of California], which has clubs for homosexual and lesbian students on college, high school, and, now middle school campuses, this month promoted a “Pleasure Physiology and Sex Toys” workshop in its internet publication, GSA Network News. The workshop ... “will encourage your personal sexual exploration in this fun, informative workshop ... on pleasure physiology and sexual response, and learn how to choose and use sex toys safely.” The workshop, the News, “is for youth 14 and over” ... [and other] workshops on masturbation, anal sexuality, gay sexuality, porn, and “sex club etiquette” [are given].
Massachusetts High Schools with "Gay-Straight Alliances" (GSAs)
ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REG HS
ALGONQUIN REG HS (NORTHBORO)
AMHERST REG HS
APPONEQUET REG HS (LAKEVILLE)
ATHOL-ROYALSTON REG HS
BANCROFT SCHOOL (WORCESTER)
BAY PATH REG VOC TECH HS (CHARLTON)
BEACON HS (BROOKLINE)
BEAVER COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL (CHESTNUT HILL)
BILLERICA MEM HS
BISHOP FENWICK HS (PEABODY)
BLACKSTONE VALLEY HS (UPTON)
BOSTON LATIN HS
BRIDGEWATER-RAYNHAM REG HS
BROOKS SCHOOL (ANDOVER)
BUCKINGHAM BROWNE & NICHOLS SCHOOL (CAMBRIDGE)
BURNCOAT HS (WORCESTER)
CAMBRIDGE RINDGE & LATIN HS
CAPE & ISLANDS HS
CAPE COD ACADEMY (OSTERVILLE)
CAPE COD REG TECH HS (HARWICH)
CHICOPEE COMPREHENSIVE HS
COMMONWEALTH SCHOOL (BOSTON)
CONCORD-CARLISLE REG HS
DANA HALL SCHOOL (WELLESLEY)
DENNIS-YARMOUTH REG HS
DIGHTON-REHOBOTH REG HS
DOHERTY MEMORIAL HS (WORCESTER)
DOVER-SHERBORN REG HS
DRURY HS (N. ADAMS)
DURFEE HS (FALL RIVER)
FRANCIS W PARKER CHARTER SCHOOL (DEVENS)
FRANKLIN COUNTY TECH
GOVERNOR'S ACADEMY (BYFIELD)
GRAHAM AND PARKS ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL (CAMBRIDGE)
GREATER LAWRENCE VOC TECH HS
GROTON-DUNSTABLE REG HS
HAMILTON-WENHAM REG HS
HAMPSHIRE REG HS (WESTHAMPTON)
HIBBARD ALTERNATIVE HS OF COMMERCE
HIGH SCHOOL OF SCIENCE & TECH (SPRINGFIELD)
HOPEDALE JR/SR HS
KING PHILIP REG HS (WRENTHAM)
LANDMARK SCHOOL (PRIDE'S CROSSING)
LENOX MEMORIAL HS
LINCOLN-SUDBURY REG HS
LYNN ENGLISH HS
MAHAR REG HS (ORANGE)
MANCHESTER JR/SR HS
MARTHA'S VINEYARD REG HS
MASCONOMET REG HS (TOPSFIELD)
MASS. ACADEMY OF MATH & SCIENCE (WORCESTER)
MIDDLESEX SCHOOL (CONCORD)
MINNECHAUG REG HS (HAMPDEN-WILBRAHAM)
MOHAWK TRAIL REG HS (SHELBURNE FALLS)
MONUMENT MOUNTAIN REG HS (GREAT BARRINGTON)
MOUNT GREYLOCK REG HS (WILLIAMSTOWN)
NASHOBA BROOKS SCHOOL (CONCORD)
NASHOBA REGIONAL HS (BOLTON)
NASHOBA VALLEY TECH HS (WESTFORD)
NAUSET REGIONAL HS (N. EASTHAM)
NEWTON NORTH HS
NEWTON SOUTH HS
NIPMUC REGIONAL MIDDLE/HS (UPTON)
NOBLE & GREENOUGH SCHOOL (DEDHAM)
NORFOLK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL HS (WALPOLE)
NORTH ANDOVER HS
NORTH ATTLEBORO HS
NORTH MIDDLESEX REG HS (TOWNSEND)
NORTH QUINCY HS
NORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON SCHOOL
OAKMONT REGIONAL HS (ASHBURNHAM)
OLIVER AMES HS (N. EASTON)
PEABODY MEMORIAL HS
PHILLIPS ACADEMY (ANDOVER)
PINGREE SCHOOL (S. HAMILTON)
PIONEER VALLEY PERFORMING ARTS CHARTER SCHOOL (S. HADLEY)
PIONEER VALLEY REG HS (NORTHFIELD)
PLYMOUTH NORTH HS
PLYMOUTH SOUTH HS
PUTNAM VOC TECH HS (SPRINGFIELD)
QUABBIN REGIONAL MIDDLE/HS (BARRE)
QUABOAG REGIONAL HS (WARREN)
SHORE COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL (BEVERLY)
SMITH VOC & AGRICULTURAL HS (NORTHAMPTON)
SOMERVILLE CHARTER SCHOOL
SOUTH HADLEY HS
SOUTH SHORE CHARTER SCHOOL (NORWELL)
SOUTHWICK-TOLLAND REG HS
SPRINGFIELD CENTRAL HS
ST. JOHN'S PREPARATORY SCHOOL (DANVERS)
TACONIC HS (PITTSFIELD)
TAHANTO REG HS (BOYLSTON)
TANTASQUA REG HS (FISKDALE)
THAYER ACADEMY (BRAINTREE)
TRITON REG HS (BYFIELD)
TURNER'S FALLS HS (MONTAGUE)
WACHUSETT REG HS (HOLDEN)
WAHCONAH REG HS (DALTON)
WAYSIDE HS (MARLBORO)
WEST BOYLSTON JR/SR HS
WEST SPRINGFIELD HS
WEYMOUTH HIGH/VOC TECH
WHITMAN-HANSON REG HS
WILBRAHAM AND MONSON ACADEMY
WINSOR SCHOOL (BOSTON)
WORCESTER VOC HS
Monday, July 23, 2007
You can't pussyfoot with the culture of death. You can't allow that destructive force to choose the terms of the debate. How can killing a human baby be a "choice" or a "right"? (Similarly, how can we allow sexual perversion such as sodomy be called a proper basis for state-sanctioned "marriage", or homosexual "marriage" be called a "right"?) And you can't let that mindset infiltrate your forces, and hint that you should moderate your tone, oppose with gentleness and politeness.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Well, we do have an aversion toward those homosexuals who -- as "parents" to young children -- encourage them in a GLBT identity. Besides the questionable "love life" models they show their children, it's common for homosexual "parents" to include their children in unseemly adult events such as "Pride" parades. (See the popular homosexual "parenting" book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.)
We documented that Meg Soens, a leader of the GLBT extremists (attacking David Parker) in Lexington, was at Boston Pride with two of her young children in 2006. What did her boy learn there? He certainly saw the ManHunt.net float, which encourages anonymous sexual encounters. What did her young daughter learn there? She saw women with bare breasts riding motorcycles, and other women whose breasts had been surgically removed, dressed as "drag kings", and "tranny" parents. Is this the kind of good parenting the Parents' Paper is promoting?
See the paper by Real Women of Canada which points out these documented dangers inherent in "same-sex parented" households: higher incidence of domestic violence; higher incidence of mental health problems in parents; reduced life expectancy of parents; higher incidence of "same-sex orientation" in children; greater risk of sexual involvement with parents*; greater risk of social or psychological problems in the children; higher incidence of child molestation.**
See also Dawn Stefanowicz's web site. Dawn's childhood experiences with a homosexual father, who included her in his depraved and dangerous activities, are a warning to our too accepting society. (Her book is coming out in the fall.)
Parents' rights in the schools are not jeopardized only through "sex ed." "Family" topics of any sort should NOT even be discussed. No newly manufactured stories about Mommy & her boyfriend. No stories about two "daddies". No stories about divorce. No stories about Daddy undergoing sex-change surgery. No stories about Mommy's (or is it Daddy's?) collection of whips. No stories about "Daddy died." No stories about "Grandma's Alzheimer's."
Can't we just leave all this stuff out of the schools? Read classic literature instead. Keep it neutral, non-controversial. It's the old argument we've been putting forward for years: Return to academics, and leave the family therapy for families to deal with on their own. Schools -- and the government -- cannot solve these problems for our children. (It would be nice, however, if the schools didn't worsen things by assaulting our kids with sensitive, emotional materials -- and the government didn't create more problems by financial incentives for family dysfunction.)
2. Parenting Resources Sidebar (p. 28) How can any "parenting" guide that mentions Fenway Community Health and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) be taken seriously?
Fenway Community Health Center is the group that passed out the Little Black Book to teenagers at the GLSEN Boston Conference in 2005 at Brookline High School. Fenway runs ads in the Boston "gay" newspaper seeking practitioners of "barebacking" anal intercourse -- for "tops and bottoms" -- to take part in HIV drug tests. They send bizarre "entertainers" to the Fens anonymous sex cruising grounds to hand out anal lubricants and condoms. (Some of their advice: "Safer sex is not necessarily about wrapping yourself in latex until no part of you is exposed. Although some people may find this appealing, for many people it comes across as a complete turn-off. So what else can you do?"... read more. And check out their Dr. Cox.) This is a "parenting" resource?
PFLAG bills itself as a group that supports parents whose children "come out" as G L B or T. (Are you ready for your teenage daughter to tell you she wants her breasts removed? If not, PFLAG will help you!) PFLAG is pushing hard for homosexualizing and transgenderizing your children. (See their pamphlet, "Our Trans Children.")They do teacher and counselor training and "GLBT pride days" in our public schools promoting homosexuality and transgenderism. We've drawn attention to their more secretive Transcending Boundaries conference which also promotes transsexuality, poly sexuality and "families" (multiple partner relationships), BDSM (whips & chains), and now hormone-blocking injections to pre-pubescent "transgender children" (making their later transitioning surgery less complicated). PFLAG also has a "straight spouse group"! (We think this means a spouse whose opposite-sex spouse is actively bisexual? So their child is seeing who knows what in the home?) This is a "parenting" resource?
From Real Women of Canada report:
*According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.
**Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.
Friday, July 20, 2007
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Denver Post reported recently that Mitt Romney met with James Dobson and other top officers of Focus on the Family. See "Romney faces skepticism" (7-16-07):
... "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon, but that remains to be seen," James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based but nationally influential Focus on the Family evangelical ministry, said in a radio interview in October. The observation is momentous. Dobson's first-ever endorsement to the Christian faithful of a presidential candidate is cited by political operatives as crucial to President Bush's 2004 re-election.
Dobson currently is "sequestered," busy writing his latest book and unavailable for interviews. But a top Focus on the Family official said Dobson's observation remains valid, despite a recent visit Romney paid to Dobson at his offices this spring.
During a round of fundraising in Colorado Springs, Romney spoke with Dobson, Focus on the Family senior vice president Tom Minnery and others for a little more than 30 minutes. ... "If Mitt is the (Republican) nominee, I think he'll get a large portion of evangelical votes," Minnery said. ... "I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative." ...
John Haskins comments:
Is Tom Minnery still delusional about Slick Willard? So sad, and so destructive. What would it take to open this man's eyes?
"I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative."
Huh? Mitt Romney? "Obviously very conservative"? "On social issues"?
Based on decisions he's made? On which planet?
Here on planet Earth, in full public view, while we and our "legal experts" had our eyes tightly shut, Mitt Romney made illegal, unconstitutional decisions tearing down religious freedom, destroying marriage, nullifying parents' rights. He:
* forced public officials to perform sodomy-based "marriages" or resign;
* forced Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals or close down -- citing a law that, as even liberal former governor Mike Dukakis pointed out, does not exist;
* forced Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacients, violating their Constitutional freedom of religion and reversing the ruling of his own Commissioner of Health that no law required such orders;
* designed and signed a law creating a state health care system that will kill not fewer, but more, babies in the womb, and permanently and unconstitutionally gives Planned Parenthood an official voice as part of state government;
* expanded government funding for pro-homosexuality propaganda for children;
* failed to enforce, even once, the parents' rights law intended to guarantee that parents can protect their children from monstrous, evil homosexual brainwashing.
Romney's anti-moral, anti-parent, anti-constitution, anti-marriage record goes on and on. The sheer volume and cravenness of it sickens the stomach. Never in my years of following politics closely have I known of any candidate whose record offered more abundant and meticulously documented proof that he is NOT conservative, than the record of Willard Mitt Romney. Yet Focus On the Family's Tom Minnery still calls Romney, "obviously very conservative on social issues"!
Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we believe political lies not because they are believable, but because we want to. It is truly sad and discouraging to read that someone with the influence that Minnery is so completely in denial about Mitt Romney's willing role in the relentless debauching of childhood, the natural human family, and our constitutional form of government. This is freakish, tragic denial, utterly divorced from reality. What terrible damage such public statements do to Americans' -- and especially Christians' -- efforts to identify moral leadership. Every such public denial of the proven facts about Romney is instantly seized upon by the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-Christian establishment and by their enablers in the "conservative" establishment. If a Democrat had done such things he would be opposed at every turn by "pro-family conservatives." Only a clean-cut Republican with a photogenic family and "great presidential hair" could have pulled this off and still have the Minnerys, Sekulows, David Frenches and Hugh Hewitts covering up for him.
We are witnessing a truly poisoned placebo "conservatism" collaborating in its own destruction. This "pro-family social conservatism" has many of the characteristics which George Orwell, Whittaker Chambers and Malcolm Muggeridge found among the writers, clergy. lawyers and intellectuals of the first half of the 20th Century, whose relentless, aggressive, self-righteous denial served communism's liquidation of over 100 million human beings. Imagined intellectual and moral superiority is a truly addictive and dangerous thing. Facts no longer mean anything, as Orwell, Muggeridge and others warned.
Whittaker Chambers' biographer Sam Tanenhaus wrote that Lenin's authoritarianism was "precisely what attracts Chambers… He had at last found his church." We are witnessing something very similar as "conservative" and "pro-family" careerists deny the provable anti-constitutional, anti-child, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-morality legacy of Willard Mitt Romney. What is the fatal attraction? It is Romney's utter moral emptiness -- beautified by the total aesthetic picture of his wealth, Ivy League credentials, photogenic family, endless repetition of assigned conservative mantras, and that great hair. These are precisely what attracts many "conservatives" to him. This moral hollowness, dignified by the lovely and seductive picture of worldly success, is the essence of the church that calls itself "conservatism."
How revealing of the obsession with outward appearances that has made spiritually impotent the elite of what we trusted as "social conservatism," the pro-family movement and the Christian Church. Orwell, Chambers and Muggeridge at least finally saw and accepted the obvious truth and escaped the ambush their own willful delusions had prepared for them. The will to be seduced that Muggeridge described is exactly what the reaction will be among many when the Antichrist finally gets his turn to seduce them: "And power was given to him to deceive the peoples."
Other than that, this is just another article shifting attention from Romney's rampage through the Massachusetts Constitution, his sodomy-based "marriages," etc. to the unrelated issue of his Mormonism -- a win-win for liberals, since they mock Mormonism, but they get to paint Christians as intolerant bigots for rejecting Mormonism as a cult.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Monday, July 16, 2007
Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."
Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."
Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."
So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."
Of course that's not nearly good enough.
It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.
If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.
So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.
The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).
Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.
The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:
Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
Experts: Credit Romney
for homosexual marriage
'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
Friday, July 13, 2007
(1) a video of a press conference by pastors speaking out against this assault on Christianity in Washington, D.C. last Wednesday (July 11);
(2) an alert from the Liberty Counsel;
(3) an alert from the transgender crowd (the most radical left).
(1) Here is the video of the recent Hate Crime rally -- calling America to wake up -- that we videotaped in Washington DC this last week. ... PLEASE consider what [hate crimes legislation] is going to do to ALL Christians who preach using God's word to condemn sin. PLEASE pass this on.....
(2) From the Liberty Counsel:
The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new formyesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)introduced the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as thisweek. Introduced as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Kennedy amendment is one of more than 100 amendments attached to the Defense Reauthorization bill. An ABC 20/20 investigation showed that the Matthew Shepard murder, portrayed by activists as a hate crime because Shepard was homosexual, was in fact a bungled robbery that had nothing to do with Shepard's homosexuality.
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime. In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. Liberty Counsel has published alegal memo that explains the dangers of hate crimes legislation.
The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Hate Crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation is bad law because it criminalizes speech and does nothing toprevent violent crimes. All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate Crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values."
(3) From the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition:
Today Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), which is being debated in the Senate this week and next. This amendment could be voted on as early as today. In short, today transgender people are one giant step closer to gaining federal hate crimes protections! The language of today's amendment is identical language to that of S. 1105, which the Senators introduced in April.
"[T]he Radical Right is mobilizing their base to oppose the federal hate crimes bill. They're using scare tactics and flat-out lies in hopes of killing Kennedy's amendment. Make sure that your Senators hear your voice and the true importance of this bill. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would:
- Extend existing federal protections to include "gender identity, sexual orientation, gender and disability"
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
- Mandate that the FBI begin tracking hate crimes based on actual or perceived gender identity
- Remove limitations that narrowly define hate crimes to violence committed while a person is accessing a federally protected activity, such as voting
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...
Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...
If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...