How Homosexual Extremists Have Controlled the Debate

DECIPHERING 'GAY' WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION
By Scott D. Lively, Esq. (2002)

If you've never stopped to think about the danger of accepting and employing the term "sexual orientation", you'd better read this article. Lively is the co-author of The Pink Swastika (which documents the important role of pagan homosexual perversion in the Third Reich), and heads Abiding Truth Ministries.

"He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the 'gay' movement. ...

"Among the most common terms and concepts in the 'gay rights' debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by 'gay' sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, 'gay' arguments are easily refuted."

Note the date of the article, 2002, before the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that states do not have the right to outlaw sodomy. Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Scalia said of that decision: "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."

This 2003 Lawrence ruling was the ultimate victory for the gay "newspeak" Lively analyzes: The new concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, defined as innate characteristics as opposed to behavior, had won the day and paved the way for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's "legalizing" same-sex marriage.

Southern Poverty Law Center a Hate Group

What a great strategy. Set up a phony organization that collects millions of dollars by labeling any effective voices dissenting from the far-left agenda as a "hate group". Lump the legitimate conservative organizations  in with true hate groups (neo-Nazis, Fred Phelps -- assuming they're even "real" and not SPLC or Anti-Defamation League creations). Voila`: another bludgeon to hit us with.

That's all the Southern Poverty Law Center is. An empty shell filled with useful idiots, giving ammo to those who wish to bring this country down. The Left has used this smear tactic against us.

Their latest target is Lou Dobbs at CNN, whose sins are opposing illegal immigration and suggesting that Obama's birth status should be looked into... And now, Dobbs's very life is being threatened. WorldNetDaily reports today:

CNN's Lou Dobbs: Shot fired into my home
'We'd had threatening phone calls ... it's now become a way of life'
Opponents of Dobbs include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti Defamation League, the National Council of La Raza, Internet media watchdog Media Matters and Fox News host Geraldo Rivera.

SPLC has called on CNN to fire Dobbs. We say that SPLC is inciting hate crimes, and should be taken to court.

For more background, see MassResistance's post from March 2009. Excerpt:

It's a common theme of the left, going back to the Saul Alinsky tactics in the 1930s, to demonize your enemies if they become effective. This was adopted by the homosexual movement. In their classic manifesto After the Ball, Marshall Kirk & Hunter Masden advised activists to compare people with traditional values to the Ku Klux Klan (which lynched blacks).

For the second year in a row, the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC) has declared MassResistance, along with other pro-family / Christian / traditional values groups around the country, as "hate groups". In most cases, the "crime" is publicly disagreeing with the homosexual agenda. There are no specific reasons given, besides a general label.

Other groups include the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), Scott Lively's Abiding Truth Ministries, the Family Research Institute, and the Chalcedon Foundation. Along with MassResistance, SPLC's reason for declaring them hate groups is that they're "Anti-Gay".

(Actually, SPLC is angry because they're effective. MassResistance, IFI, Traditional Values Coalition, and the Chalcedon Foundation expose the homosexual agenda to a national audience. Family Research Institute does studies on the dangers of homosexual behavior. SPLC particularly despises Scott Lively's book, The Pink Swastika, which documents homosexuality in Nazi Germany.) 

A number of other Christian ministries are listed, labeled as "General Hate". Several Catholic groups are labeled "Radical Traditionalist Catholic" and thus declared hate groups.

SPLC is also big in promoting and defending illegal immigration. Thus, illegal immigrant watchdog groups around the country are listed, labeled as "Anti-Immigrant." One of those is Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement (CCFILE) located in Framingham. It's run by Jim and Joe Rizoli. We know them. They're decent guys, and it's a legitimate community group -- which liberals happen to dislike. For SPLC to do this is the worst type of slander.

Young Americans for Freedom at Michigan State University is listed under "General Hate", apparently because they hosted Rep.Tom Tancredo for a speech on illegal immigration. But as reported on The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, it was the fascist left that disrupted the event and assaulted participants. But none of the attacking groups apparently qualifies as a "hate group"....

What constitutes a "hate group"?  We couldn't find it on the SPLC website. But in the MetroWest Daily News article referenced above, the SPLC spokesman told the reporter:

[A] hate group is one that "in its platforms or statements says that a whole other group of people is less by virtue . . . These are people who attack other groups of people based on their group characteristics." 

But that's a rather exotic definition of "hate", certainly not found in any dictionary. This absurd use of the word "hate" makes the word essentially meaningless.

Suppose Republicans say that Democrats are "less by virtue" because of their liberal characteristics.  Or smoking advocates who demean smokers. Or alcohol safety groups that demean drunk drivers. Does that make them "hate" groups? Don't people have the right to demean others who do bad or destructive things?...

Read more...

"Hate" Never Defined

As we watch the out-of-control homosexual activists in Massachusetts, we still wonder how they can get away with throwing the "hater" and "bigot" labels around so freely, never being called to define the terms. And how can the American people be so gullible? Scott Lively has a good article on DefendTheFamily on this name-calling tactic:

Is Hating "Haters" Hateful?
... the “gay agenda” is to stop everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters. It is, after all, their stated goal to “stamp out homophobia.” No more religious freedom. It’s also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don’t like, especially if it helps people to change their homosexual orientation back to a heterosexual one (ask the doctors and scientists at narth.com what they’ve had to endure). If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication, it’s homophobic and can‘t be used.

There’s a queer reasoning behind all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I’m a “hater.” But if I’m a “hater” for civilly opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

I admit I have some hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like AIDS. I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles. I hate having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and academics. And I hate seeing my God being treated like a homophobe for what He teaches in His Bible....

The End of Free Speech in Britain

We recently received the email below from an oppressed citizen, discriminated against on the basis of his traditional values. Now whether or not you think the language is a bit raw, we believe people should be allowed to so express themselves! And we're printing the comment as a little exercise in free speech. If you lived in Britain or Canada, where NO speech disapproving of homosexuality is allowed, you'd be frustrated too.

Comments:
I wish a group such as yours could exist here in the UK, where any dissent is prosecuted as a "hate crime" with NO DEFENCE PERMITTED, and where, since April it has been illegal NOT to indoctrinate children - even toddlers - with disgusting homosexual propaganda.
Putting your (censored) in someone's (censored) is NOT sex. It's masturbation. It's no different to putting it in a farmyard manure heap. It does retard emotional development though, and that's what those in power really want, a population of immature pansies incapable of resisting attempts to control our every thought, word and deed.
For the sake of America you MUST keep up the fight, and you MUST win. I wish you every success.
- Barney

And that reminded us of a much more refined (but related) recent posting at Defend the Family:
"Requiem for the Magna Carta"
Scott Lively, J.D., ThD.

On June 15, 1215, an intrepid group of English lords stood on the field of Runnymede and faced down the leviathan of arbitrary governmental power, represented at that moment by the heavy-handed King John. They called the list of concessions which they extracted from him that day the Magna Carta Libertatum, and this "Great Charter of Freedoms" has served as a mighty foundational pillar of constitutional law and human rights law for nearly 800 years.

From the Magna Carta have come such legal essentials to democracy as the right of habeas corpus (clauses 36, 38-40) and the right to due process of law (clause 29). But the clause to which the barons gave preeminence, placing it first in the list, was the one which provided that "the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired."

On March 21, 2007, another group of English lords, those seated in the upper house of the English Parliament, dealt the death blow to that great clause, which has protected not only the integrity of the English Church, but the notion that the church can stand as a moral authority independent of a nation's ever-changing social policies and political currents. Ironically, this long-standing freedom was cancelled by the approval of the Sexual Orientation Regulations of the Equality Act, a document which has all the appearance of a human rights instrument. In its implementation, however, this set of rules will have the effect of (among other things) prohibiting private Christian schools throughout the United Kingdom from teaching students the Biblical position that homosexual sexual behavior is morally wrong, and that it violates the evident heterosexual design of the human body.... Read more...

"GLBT Holocaust Commemoration" Tonight

Tonight, the Boston Pride festival held its "GLBT Holocaust commemoration" as part of their week-long bacchanal. We doubt they were handing out copies of The Pink Swastika -- because it debunks the "gay" myth that homosexuals were a major target of the Nazis in the same manner as the Jews and Gypsies. The commemoration was at Boston's Holocaust Memorial near Faneuil Hall, close by lots of great bars.

See Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika (available online). From their Preface:

[The book contradicts] the common portrayal of homosexuals as exclusively victims of the Nazi regime. For this reason we were scrupulous in our documentation of homosexuals as the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities. We purposefully drew heavily upon homosexual writers and historians for our source material and used direct quotations from their writings whenever possible. The remainder of our sources are primarily mainstream historians of the Nazi era. ...

In the [pre-"politically-correct"] 1960s, Nazi homosexuality was so widely acknowledged in America (at least among the “social elites”) that the portrayal of Nazi thugs as homosexual was a frequent occurrence in Hollywood movies. One of the best examples is in Exodus (United Artists, 1960), the film adaptation of the Leon Uris novel about the creation of the State of Israel after World War II. In the film, actor Sal Mineo, playing a young man attempting to join the Irgun (the Jewish underground movement), fails to convince Irgun leaders that he is a genuine Nazi concentration camp survivor. Finally they are convinced — only when he breaks down and confesses that the Nazi guards “used me as a woman.” To the Irgun, this was definitive proof that he had been a Nazi prisoner.

Allen Ginsberg, the homosexual “beat” poet was asked by a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1966 (during an obscenity trial related to the book Naked Lunch, by William Borroughs) whether at “some time in the future there will be a political party, for instance, made up of homosexuals.” Ginsberg replied, saying “this has already happened in a sense -- or of sex perverts -- and we can point to Hitler, Germany under Hitler” (The New York Times, August 10, 1997).

These are but two examples which reveal the extent to which homosexuality was openly associated with Nazism in the past.

Kevin Jennings GLSEN Fistgate: More Student X-Rated Questions Revealed

More background on Kevin Jennings' GLSEN “Fistgate” workshop in 2000:

In the week after the Fistgate audiotapes were made public and the first articles on the incident had appeared in Massachusetts News, a defense of the fisting workshop appeared on a website called “Bridges Across the Divide.” The author, Cindy Beal, claims to have spoken directly with Margot Abels (consistently misspelled “Ables”), the DOE employee who led the teen “gay sex” workshop.

There is much of interest in the article, which claims the Fistgate workshop can only be properly understood in “context” (that would be the context of radical sexuality education). The author claims Abels revealed to her the complete list of sex questions submitted by students as written on notecards, which were then answered by the three instructors. Note the “non-judgmental” response to kids inquiring about fisting and sadomasochism (at end of the excerpt below). Abels told Beal:

"We made it clear that for some people that's [sadomasochism] what they're interested in, and for many people it's not what they want to be doing.  We didn't want people who engage in non-traditional activities to feel judged, but in no way did we say ‘go out and try this' because we wanted to make people who weren't interested in it to feel just as good and not judged [for their decision not to participate in these activities.]" 

Also note that the instructors led the kids to a “resources” at the conference, and “peer support groups for gay youth.” That would be Boston GLASS, Youth Pride and BAGLY. See our recent report on the X-rated materials those groups handed out to teens at the conference.

Abels asked the kids in the workshop to write down their questions after a role-playing session did not go as well as she’d hoped, because the kids were acting “silly” – basically acting as the children they were. Which makes the discussion that followed all the more shocking. (Yet Beals, Abels, and Kevin Jennings would still say the subject matter was “age-appropriate”.)

EXCERPT from Beal’s report on Fistgate:

Ms. Ables reflection on the role-play was that it got "silly" and the students began to focus on silliness and theatricality rather than on the content.  "The kids came to talk about questions they have that haven't yet been answered." 

They then decided to do anonymous question cards, a back-up exercise they had come prepared with.  These cards provide youth the opportunity to ask questions they have without risking judgement from their peers or adults for the content of the questions. Anonymous question cards also help guarantee that the material being asked is the students' agenda rather than the adults. 

Ms. Ables provided me with a list of the questions they asked, which she had typed up because the teachers who were present at the next workshop felt it important to know what gay youth wanted to know. 

"These are typed as written originally by the students. 

 Is oral sex better with tongue rings? P.S. I hope so.

Cum? Calories? Spit versus swallow?  Health concerns?

What age do most GLB first have sex? Is it different from the age of straight kids?

What is an anal ball? [See Wikipedia.]

 Should some kind of protection be used in lesbian sex?

 Women’s vaginal wall can expand to any dick size… Can anal walls do the same?

 Are girls who primarily like guys and are only attracted to other girls sexually (not in the love-y) way considered bisexual?

 How is protection used in lesbian sex since it’s mostly oral, where does the protection go?

 My ex said she enjoys pain, what the hell is that about?

 What is fisting?

 Define fetish.

 What is lesbian sex anyway?

 How do I find out if someone is bi?  Homo?

 What are the technicalities of transsexual and hermaphrodite sex?

 How long do you have to wait to get tested for HIV or any STD after the "act" is committed?

 A question on the ethics of oral sex: would it be considered rude not to swallow?

 Can you answer the fish question? [bad smelling vagina?]

 Do lesbians rub their clits together?  Is that even sex?

How do GLB kids determine loss of virginity?"

The procedure for this exercise was to read the questions in the order they arrived in on the pile of question cards, to turn the question back to the group so peers could do some of the education, and then to add, clarify, or correct any misinformation. 

Ms. Ables described Michael [Gaucher, DPH AIDS educator] as an actor, very dramatic and entertaining.  She said that youth love him because he presents information in a lively and humorous manner. He did most of the education on about where and how to you get tested for HIV, the different kinds of tests there are for HIV, on HIV/AIDS treatment, and responded to questions about transmission risk for different people, sexual practices and lesbian sex.  At one point he was writing on the board demonstrating the differences between the Western Blot and ELISA tests. 

The youth seemed to have a good understanding of the importance of safety in sexual activity.  One of the questions was, -- "Is it rude to spit after oral sex?" One of the students answered "whether or not it's rude, it's good HIV prevention to not swallow." 

There was a long talk about how to make decisions around sex activity and how to decide when to begin sexual activity.  They didn’t talk about abstinence in this context, but "postponement." They talked about not making a decision to enter any sexual activity until you're ready, and discussed how someone might know that they are ready.  They discussed that for some people sexual activity has feelings attached to it, and for others, it’s just physical. They discussed the context of making decisions about sex, with knowledge about what those choices were about sexual activity and emotional maturity and other things.  Ms. Ables reports that they asked the youths,  "How do you make those decisions? As you think about it, you might find it’s not the right time for you." 

There were a couple of subjects in which they purposely avoided making or implying value judgements.  The questions when to become sexually active, what is fisting, and a question about sadomasochism were answered as factually as possible to avoid stigmatizing anyone in the room who participated in those behaviors, and to maintain the educational atmosphere that there is no shame in asking questions or talking about anything.  Therefore, both Mr. Gaucher and Ms. Ables described the practice of "fisting" in an accurate way. 

As with all the questions, they turned it first back to the students. One student said that fisting was "slamming your fist up into somebody." That is a factually inaccurate statement, and they didn't want that kind of judgement and image left in the minds of these youth, so they both answered it – "not to encourage it -- we gave them clear messages that some people like it and most don’t."  That "it's not painful and we didn’t want people there or their friends to be judged" on the basis of inaccurate information. 

They responded the same way when there was a question about sadomasochism.  "We made it clear that for some people that's what they're interested in, and for many people it's not what they want to be doing.  We didn't want people who engage in non-traditional activities to feel judged, but in no way did we say ‘go out and try this' because we wanted to make people who weren't interested in it to feel just as good and not judged [for their decision not to participate in these activities.]" 

One question asked by the youth was "Is oral sex better with tongue rings?"  Another youth answered, "I have one.  My girlfriend has one.  It is." 

One young woman stated at one point that people don’t even know what vaginas look like, and jumped to the board to draw one. It was "anatomically inaccurate."  The presenters made a joke about the size of the clitoris so as not to embarrass the student, and then corrected the misinformation. 

They talked about at what age most gay kids have sex.  They talked about the statistics  from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey – (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/survey99.htm ) and asked the students why they though gay kids had sex at a younger age than their heterosexual peers.  The students primarily hypothesized that it might be because of the isolation, or ignorance, or acting out, only one student said that she became aware of her desire, thought it was a good thing and wanted to try it. 

"One kid asked about resources – he said he was sexually active at 14 and now at 15, he was thinking that he was disconnected from people as people" and was thinking that he needed to not be sexual.  He asked after about dating, how to find a community, how to find a boyfriend.  He was supported in choosing to not be sexual, and "after the workshop Mr. Gaucher went with him to the table and connected him with peer support groups for gay youth." 

THE WORKSHOP ENDED BY ENCOURAGING THEM TO FIND ADULTS THEY could talk to and ask questions to. …

Who Are Financial Supporters of "QueerToday" and BAGLY?

This caught our eye on QueerToday.com. Ringleader Mark is upset about many things, most curiously "the corporate take-over of queer pride"! What he doesn't seem to get is that he wouldn't have any platform except through the extravagant support from corporate America.

Some companies are just plain scared of lawsuits, so cave to every possible request from radical homosexuals. They curry favor in the homosexual community by throwing enormous donations to their radical groups. Then there are wealthy and multimillionaire GLBT business people who give to GLBT groups.

Now, Mark is employed as office manager at BAGLY, which receives lots of donations from corporate sources. Who's paying his salary?


QueerToday.com Thursday, May 11, 2006

Queer Liberation Not Assimilation! Pride '06

Are you sick of the corporate take-over of queer pride? Sick of the conformity? Sick of war, racism, and injustice? Are you eady to stand up for the transgender and queer youth communities? Let's create a lively proud and queer anti-war, anti-racist, pro-immigrant, anti-assimilation, anti-corporate presence in boston's pride parade. There's no pride in war and occupation. There's no pride in assimilation! Open planning meeting Thursday, May 18th at 6:30PM at the office of the Stonewall Warriors in Jamaica Plain at 284 Armory Street. It's time to take back pride!
posted by Mark D. Snyder

"Safe Schools"? "Safe Zones"?

It's back-to-school time. Time for parents to pay attention to the latest ploy by GLSEN, the queer propagandameisters who have infiltrated our schools.

One of GLSEN's newer strategies is to demand our schools be "Safe Schools", and to declare "Safe Zones" within a school. Confused, upset, distressed teens are encouraged to go to a teacher's or counselor's office displaying a "safe zone" emblem, where they will be told that maybe their problems are related to repression of their "sexual identity or expression".

MassResistance knows of a teen girl at a Massachusetts high school, assigned to sessions with the school psychologist because of learning disabilities, who was prodded by this school "professional" to talk about whom she had a crush on: "Do you want to tell me about him or her?" This is what's called a "safe zone"! (The psychologist is also the adviser to the gay-straight alliance at the high school.)

Of course, none of this is done with parental knowledge or permission. The very term "safe zone" implies to the student that there's something available at school that he doesn't have at home, at a relative's, at a friend's, or at his church: a "safe" place where he can "just be himself."

See Scott Lively's analysis of the strategy, "The Danger of 'Safe Schools' ", and Newton Tab columnist Tom Mountain's description of how it plays out at Newton North High School.

Hitler on Education: The Ultimate Anti-Judeo-Christian Plan

A friend sent us this quote from Adolf Hitler on educating the young:

"In my castles of the Teutonic Order a youth will grow up before which the world will tremble. I want a brutal, domineering, fearless, cruel youth. Youth must be all that. ... There must be nothing weak and gentle about it. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from its eyes... That is how I will eradicate thousands of years of human domestication... That is how I will create the New Order."

-- Adolf Hitler, in 1933 on his program for public education and obliterating Judeo-Christian values from society

For further reading, MassResistance recommends The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin E. Abrams.

Gay Newspeak Strikes Again!

Truly unbelievable ... but then they took control of the language some years back in the culture war. [See the piece by Scott Lively below.] Bay Windows, the Boston GLBT newspaper, reports:

Pro-Marriage candidates win!

What does this mean in gay newspeak? That the candidates supporting homosexual "marriage" won. Only 10% of the voters turned out for the election in former House Speaker Finneran's district. -- Advantage goes to the well-funded, well-organized homosexual activists. They have plenty of spare time, few family responsibilities, lots of money. [Wait--I thought they suffered from discrimination??] They're very adept at seeking out such opportunities: special elections, primaries, no one paying attention.