Saturday, March 25, 2006
Friday, March 24, 2006
More "Hate Speech" Accusations: Howie Carr, John DePetro, Alain's Newsletter !!
Bay Windows, Boston's GLBT newspaper, is reporting that WRKO 680AM is being hit hard by a sponsor, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, for the station's supposedly "gay-bashing" talk-show hosts -- Howie Carr and John DePetro. What sort of a weird world are we living in? A major health care provider, HPHC, is promoting sexual practices which entail serious physical and mental health risks, while trying to silence reasonable, common-sense talk about the perversion that's taken hold in Massachusetts. (We must admit we enjoy Howie's sound effects whenever referencing "gays".)
[From Bay Windows:]
“We’ve expressed our concerns about the topics recently discussed at WRKO to the station management,” said Harvard Pilgrim Health Care spokeswoman Sharon Torgerson in an interview Tuesday. Togerson added that the concerns were raised following the publication of a column in Bay Windows March 9 calling for a boycott of WRKO advertisers. Torgerson said that WRKO station management said that comments documented in the column had been made by callers. Those comments included Depetro’s having talked about the arrest of State Police Sgt. O’Hare who has been accused of soliciting sex over the Internet from a 14-year-old boy, who in reality was an undercover FBI agent. It was Depetro — and not a caller — who said that gay men have a propensity to molest boys and the entire gay community now wears O’Hare’s alleged crime around its “neck.”
... WRKO’s on-air gay bashing by talks show hosts, particularly Carr and former WRKO host Michael Savage, has long been documented in the local media. Former Boston Phoenix media critic Dan Kennedy has written extensively about their on-air antics. In an open letter to former WRKO program director Mike Elder, published in the Phoenix July 11, 2003, Kennedy noted that Carr “has made seventh-grade-level tee-hee gay-bashing a staple of his program.” The Harvard Pilgrim ads on WRKO have become a common feature on the AM station. The advertisements feature Harvard Pilgrim CEO Charles Baker, a former cabinet member in the William F. Weld administration who recently considered a bid for the G.O.P. nomination for governor. Baker is generally considered progressive on social issues.
Also along these lines, Alain's Newsletter ("conservative, Christian, and politically active"), is being blocked by Google from its news engine. Alain explains this is censorship -- based on Google's opinion that the content of his newsletter is "Hate Speech". Alain writes:
... [Nowhere] on this site are I, or any of my contributing columnists, advocating violence against [gays] or anyone else. We argue in the political and spiritual arenas. People who stoop to physical violence against people are in my opinion the lowest of the low.
I am speaking from experience here. A few years ago I was attacked by two homosexual men in Pasadena California. I have a two inch scar on my right arm from the knife they cut me with.
I also have had my home broken into, walls punched full of holes, furniture shredded and loving messages about what homosexuals were going to do to me, and my son (two years old at that time) spray painted throughout the interior of almost every room in the house.
This site is not about violence, this site is about reform, protecting our children from what we view as dangerous immorality, and the direction of our country in general. I know something about real hate ... and this site is not it.
... They disagree with the viewpoint of my newsletter, so they will censor it under the guise of "Hate Speech", even though there is nothing hatefull about it.... I never claimed to be a news site. My site is an opinion editorial site. Other such sites are included in google news, as anyone who uses it can attest. If they happily include leftist sites, why is mine singled out as Hate Speech? As stated by you above, they disagree with my point of view. So they block the public from being exposed to my point of view. The public never gets to form their own opinions. It is not googles place to decide what is right and what is wrong. This even goes against their number four point in google philosphy ["Democracy on the web works"] .
Gary Kelly writes in Alain's Newsletter:
The real "hate crime" violators are bigots that hate Christians and Scriptures, because Christians shed light into the darkness (John 3:19-21) advanced by those with " reprobate minds" (Romans 1:18-31) and teaching our children that that "which goes against nature" as being “normal.”
Hate-crime legislation is NOT about anti-violence. It is a deception being used to legitimize homosexuality and discriminate against Judeo-Christian Scriptural traditional family and marriage values.
The real hate crime is Outlawing the Bible, as they did prayer, and the Ten Commandments.
[From Bay Windows:]
“We’ve expressed our concerns about the topics recently discussed at WRKO to the station management,” said Harvard Pilgrim Health Care spokeswoman Sharon Torgerson in an interview Tuesday. Togerson added that the concerns were raised following the publication of a column in Bay Windows March 9 calling for a boycott of WRKO advertisers. Torgerson said that WRKO station management said that comments documented in the column had been made by callers. Those comments included Depetro’s having talked about the arrest of State Police Sgt. O’Hare who has been accused of soliciting sex over the Internet from a 14-year-old boy, who in reality was an undercover FBI agent. It was Depetro — and not a caller — who said that gay men have a propensity to molest boys and the entire gay community now wears O’Hare’s alleged crime around its “neck.”
... WRKO’s on-air gay bashing by talks show hosts, particularly Carr and former WRKO host Michael Savage, has long been documented in the local media. Former Boston Phoenix media critic Dan Kennedy has written extensively about their on-air antics. In an open letter to former WRKO program director Mike Elder, published in the Phoenix July 11, 2003, Kennedy noted that Carr “has made seventh-grade-level tee-hee gay-bashing a staple of his program.” The Harvard Pilgrim ads on WRKO have become a common feature on the AM station. The advertisements feature Harvard Pilgrim CEO Charles Baker, a former cabinet member in the William F. Weld administration who recently considered a bid for the G.O.P. nomination for governor. Baker is generally considered progressive on social issues.
Also along these lines, Alain's Newsletter ("conservative, Christian, and politically active"), is being blocked by Google from its news engine. Alain explains this is censorship -- based on Google's opinion that the content of his newsletter is "Hate Speech". Alain writes:
... [Nowhere] on this site are I, or any of my contributing columnists, advocating violence against [gays] or anyone else. We argue in the political and spiritual arenas. People who stoop to physical violence against people are in my opinion the lowest of the low.
I am speaking from experience here. A few years ago I was attacked by two homosexual men in Pasadena California. I have a two inch scar on my right arm from the knife they cut me with.
I also have had my home broken into, walls punched full of holes, furniture shredded and loving messages about what homosexuals were going to do to me, and my son (two years old at that time) spray painted throughout the interior of almost every room in the house.
This site is not about violence, this site is about reform, protecting our children from what we view as dangerous immorality, and the direction of our country in general. I know something about real hate ... and this site is not it.
... They disagree with the viewpoint of my newsletter, so they will censor it under the guise of "Hate Speech", even though there is nothing hatefull about it.... I never claimed to be a news site. My site is an opinion editorial site. Other such sites are included in google news, as anyone who uses it can attest. If they happily include leftist sites, why is mine singled out as Hate Speech? As stated by you above, they disagree with my point of view. So they block the public from being exposed to my point of view. The public never gets to form their own opinions. It is not googles place to decide what is right and what is wrong. This even goes against their number four point in google philosphy ["Democracy on the web works"] .
Gary Kelly writes in Alain's Newsletter:
The real "hate crime" violators are bigots that hate Christians and Scriptures, because Christians shed light into the darkness (John 3:19-21) advanced by those with " reprobate minds" (Romans 1:18-31) and teaching our children that that "which goes against nature" as being “normal.”
Hate-crime legislation is NOT about anti-violence. It is a deception being used to legitimize homosexuality and discriminate against Judeo-Christian Scriptural traditional family and marriage values.
The real hate crime is Outlawing the Bible, as they did prayer, and the Ten Commandments.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Massachusetts Law: "Sexual Orientation" Includes Pederasty! -- Sexual Orientation Defined, Part III
In our continuing search for a definition of "sexual orientation" in the law, we made this shocking discovery: Massachusetts law actually declares PEDOPHILIA* &/or PEDERASTY** a "sexual orientation" !
Don't believe us? Read Ch. 272, Sec. 92A for yourself:
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 92A. Advertisement, book, notice or sign relative to discrimination; definition of place of public accommodation, resort or amusement
Section 92A. No owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or another, publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display, or cause to be published, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description, intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, nationality, or because of deafness or blindness, or any physical or mental disability, in the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges offered to the general public by such places of public accommodation, resort or amusement.
[Emphasis added.]
*pedophilia
noun: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
**pederasty
noun: sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner)
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
[See Part I and Part II of our series on "sexual orientation" defined.]
Well, that really clarifies things, doesn't it? And note that, in seeming contradiction, Ch. 272 (of Massachusetts General Laws) purportedly addresses "CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER."Don't believe us? Read Ch. 272, Sec. 92A for yourself:
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 92A. Advertisement, book, notice or sign relative to discrimination; definition of place of public accommodation, resort or amusement
Section 92A. No owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or another, publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display, or cause to be published, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description, intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, nationality, or because of deafness or blindness, or any physical or mental disability, in the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges offered to the general public by such places of public accommodation, resort or amusement.
[Emphasis added.]
*pedophilia
noun: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
**pederasty
noun: sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner)
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Sexual Orientation Defined, Part II
We're continuing our discussion of the linguistic, conceptual, and legal confusion being sown by homosexual activists regarding the meaning of "sexual orientation." (See Part I.) In recent years, they've added a new qualifier to what may not be discriminated against: so-called "gender identity and expression", and then they further add "actual or perceived". This will cover any conceivable weirdness and public displays you can imagine, plus allow incredible latitude for litigation. Who will determine one's "identity" (presumably, only that individual), or what is included in "expression", or what the perceiver "perceived"?
We've read in Bay Windows that Rep. Carl Sciortino will be pushing a bill including these phrases in the state legislataure. And U.S. Rep. Barney Frank is doing the same at the federal level.
In Maine, a new law including such language was passed in 2005. It goes farther than any other in the country. The Christian Civic Leage of Maine (which led the fight to stop it) explained: "The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education. It defines sexual orientation as 'a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression.' "
And now there's a bill in Vermont proposing essentially the same thing. Kevin Blier of Vermont Renewal writes that House Bill 478:
... is intended to add "gender identity and expression" to the list of protected classes in housing, real-estate purchases, employment and membership in employee organizations, such as labor unions. This bill targets a small minority of people for a set of special protections. ... It creates a classification that does not have clearly defined characteristics. This makes it difficult to predict the consequences of the bill if it is passed.
[While...] Gender Identity Disorder is a defined and treatable psychosexual dysfunction according to the American Psychiatric Association, it isn't clear that people will need to prove the presence of GID in order to qualify for the special protections.
What is also unclear is that since the bill protects gender "expression", cross-dressers and transvestites may also receive protections despite the problems such behavior could cause at a place of business or in a classroom.
While it would be unfair to discriminate against someone who is trying to decide a gender that nature had failed to define, such as in the case of hermaphrodites [an extremely rare circumstance], someone whose sex is clearly defined should not be entitled to play "sexual identity bingo" as retribution against an employer or as a tool to initiate frivolous litigation.
... Just because someone has strange or unusual sexual proclivities doesn't mean they are entitled to special protection under the law.... After all, couldn't a sadomasochist make the same argument? A polygamist?" ...
[Vermont Renewal newsletter, "A Closer Look" Jan/Feb 2006]
We've read in Bay Windows that Rep. Carl Sciortino will be pushing a bill including these phrases in the state legislataure. And U.S. Rep. Barney Frank is doing the same at the federal level.
In Maine, a new law including such language was passed in 2005. It goes farther than any other in the country. The Christian Civic Leage of Maine (which led the fight to stop it) explained: "The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education. It defines sexual orientation as 'a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression.' "
And now there's a bill in Vermont proposing essentially the same thing. Kevin Blier of Vermont Renewal writes that House Bill 478:
... is intended to add "gender identity and expression" to the list of protected classes in housing, real-estate purchases, employment and membership in employee organizations, such as labor unions. This bill targets a small minority of people for a set of special protections. ... It creates a classification that does not have clearly defined characteristics. This makes it difficult to predict the consequences of the bill if it is passed.
[While...] Gender Identity Disorder is a defined and treatable psychosexual dysfunction according to the American Psychiatric Association, it isn't clear that people will need to prove the presence of GID in order to qualify for the special protections.
What is also unclear is that since the bill protects gender "expression", cross-dressers and transvestites may also receive protections despite the problems such behavior could cause at a place of business or in a classroom.
While it would be unfair to discriminate against someone who is trying to decide a gender that nature had failed to define, such as in the case of hermaphrodites [an extremely rare circumstance], someone whose sex is clearly defined should not be entitled to play "sexual identity bingo" as retribution against an employer or as a tool to initiate frivolous litigation.
... Just because someone has strange or unusual sexual proclivities doesn't mean they are entitled to special protection under the law.... After all, couldn't a sadomasochist make the same argument? A polygamist?" ...
[Vermont Renewal newsletter, "A Closer Look" Jan/Feb 2006]
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Sexual Orientation Defined, Part I
The term "sexual orientation" is never defined. Not in public discourse, not in law. Yet there is law banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" -- whatever that is. How absurd.
Even the participants in the GLBT counterculture don't agree on definitions, or even terminology. New vocabulary is added monthly, it seems, and definitions are changed constantly. For instance, look at these newly-minted definitions in GLSEN's "Day of Silence" organizing manual, being disseminated to young people across the country. (GLSEN = Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network.)
So you thought you knew what "gay" or "lesbian" meant? Check again. Note that, according to GLSEN, the concept of reality-based or biologically-based gender is obsolete. Gender confusion is the new order! And note the new "spiritual" component claimed for GLBT sexuality. (Interestingly, whether these sexualities are inborn or learned is sidestepped in these definitions.)
Sexual orientation - The preferred term used when referring to an individual's physical, emotional, romantic, and/or spiritual attraction to another person.
Gay - A term used to describe one who identifies as a man and who is attracted to other male-identified people.
Lesbian - Refers to a woman-identified person who is attracted to other women-identified persons.
Bisexual - A term used in describing an individual who expresses attraction for males and females. [Is bisexuality inborn? Did they mean to say the attraction is to "male- and female-identifying people"?]
Queer - Terms [sic] used to describe persons who are not heterosexual [or heterosexual identifying?] because of its gender-neutrality and its implication of social non-conformity.
Transgender - This term loosely [sic] refers to people who do not identify with the gender roles assigned to them by society based on the [sic] biological sex. Transgender is also used as an umbrella term for all those who do not conform to "traditional" notions of gender expression and includes people who identify as transsexual, or as a drag queen/king.
Even the participants in the GLBT counterculture don't agree on definitions, or even terminology. New vocabulary is added monthly, it seems, and definitions are changed constantly. For instance, look at these newly-minted definitions in GLSEN's "Day of Silence" organizing manual, being disseminated to young people across the country. (GLSEN = Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network.)
So you thought you knew what "gay" or "lesbian" meant? Check again. Note that, according to GLSEN, the concept of reality-based or biologically-based gender is obsolete. Gender confusion is the new order! And note the new "spiritual" component claimed for GLBT sexuality. (Interestingly, whether these sexualities are inborn or learned is sidestepped in these definitions.)
Sexual orientation - The preferred term used when referring to an individual's physical, emotional, romantic, and/or spiritual attraction to another person.
Gay - A term used to describe one who identifies as a man and who is attracted to other male-identified people.
Lesbian - Refers to a woman-identified person who is attracted to other women-identified persons.
Bisexual - A term used in describing an individual who expresses attraction for males and females. [Is bisexuality inborn? Did they mean to say the attraction is to "male- and female-identifying people"?]
Queer - Terms [sic] used to describe persons who are not heterosexual [or heterosexual identifying?] because of its gender-neutrality and its implication of social non-conformity.
Transgender - This term loosely [sic] refers to people who do not identify with the gender roles assigned to them by society based on the [sic] biological sex. Transgender is also used as an umbrella term for all those who do not conform to "traditional" notions of gender expression and includes people who identify as transsexual, or as a drag queen/king.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Massachusetts' Most Dangerous Legislators, IV
Homosexual PAC Endorsements for Mass. Legislature, 2004 election
Part IV in our series. [See Part I, II, and III.]
Here's the list of Massachusetts legislators who received formal, public endorsements from homosexual PACs (political action committees) before the 2004 election. In many cases, these candidates got help in the form of campaign workers, consultants, and district-wide-mailings. Some of the groups also state that there are others they helped, but who were not identified publicly.
Our count shows 22 Senators and 65 Representatives who have sold out to the homosexual lobby. This is out of 87 out of 200 legislators in the combined Mass. Senate and House. [Note that Senator Shannon, now deceased, was replaced by Rep. Jehlen; who was replaced by a newly elected Rep. who fully supports the homosexual agenda. So the count stays the same.]
Note that two legislators recently in the MassResistance /Article 8 news, Senator Cynthia Creem (sponsor of a bill lessening penalties for bestiality) and Rep. Patricia Haddad (House Chair of Education Committee, who headed up the recent hearing on H1641 and earlier on our opt-in bill H1050) are on this list.
The endorsing groups include: MassEquality, SupportEquality, Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, Freedom to Marry Coalition, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, LGBT of Western Mass., Bay State Stonewal Democrats, Religious Coalition for Freedom to Marry, Cambridge Lavender Alliance, OutSomerville. (Also, those receiving praise from Bay Windows.)
SENATORS
Antonioni, Robert
Augustus, Edward
Baddour, Steven
Barrios, Jarrett
Chandler, Harriette
Creem, Cynthia
Fargo, Susan
Havern, Robert
Joyce, Brian
McGee, Thomas
Montigny, Mark
Nuciforo, Andrea
O'Leary, Robert
Resor, Pamela
Rosenberg, Stanley
Shannon, Charles [deceased; replaced by Rep Jehlen]
Spilka, Karen
Tisei, Richard
Tolman, Steven
Tucker, Susan
Walsh, Marian
Wilkerson, Dianne
REPRESENTATIVES
Atkins, Cory
Balser, Ruth
Blumer, Deborah
Bosley, Daniel
Canessa, Stephen
Costello, Michael
Donelan, Christopher
Eldridge, James
Fallon, Christopher
Falzone, Mark
Festa, Michael
Finegold, Barry
Forry, Linda Dorcena
Fox, Gloria
Galvin, William
Grant, Mary
Guyer, Denis
Haddad, Patricia
Honan, Kevin
Jehlen, Patricia [now Senator]
Kaprielian, Rachel
Kaufman, Jay
Keenan, John
Khan, Kay
Kocot, Peter
Kulik, Stephen
Linsky, David
L'Italien, Barbara
Malia, Liz
Marzilli, J. James
Murphy, Charles
Patrick, Matthew
Paulsen, Anne
Peisch, Alice
Petersen, Douglas
Pignatelli, Smitty
Reinstein, Kathi-Anne
Rivera, Cheryl
Rushing, Byron
Sannicandro, Tom
Scibak, John
Sciortino, Carl
Smizik, Frank
Speliotis, Theodore
Spellane, Robert
Stanley, Thomas
St. Fleur, Marie
Story, Ellen
Swan, Benjamin
Teahan, Kathleen
Toomey, Timothy
Torrisi, David
Turner, Cleon
Walsh, Martin
Walsh, Steven
Walz, Mary
Wolf, Alice
In addition to these legislators, MassEquality posted a list of "Voices of Equality" incumbents after the 2004 election. Here are names that didn't appear on the pre-election list. (Does this mean they took the homosexual PACs' help, but didn't want it known before the election?)
REPRESENTATIVES
Cabral, Antonia
DiMasi, Sal (Speaker of the House)
Harkins, Lida
Koutoujian, Peter
Mariano, Richard
Sanchez, Jeffrey
Stanley, Harriet
Sullivan, David
Part IV in our series. [See Part I, II, and III.]
Here's the list of Massachusetts legislators who received formal, public endorsements from homosexual PACs (political action committees) before the 2004 election. In many cases, these candidates got help in the form of campaign workers, consultants, and district-wide-mailings. Some of the groups also state that there are others they helped, but who were not identified publicly.
Our count shows 22 Senators and 65 Representatives who have sold out to the homosexual lobby. This is out of 87 out of 200 legislators in the combined Mass. Senate and House. [Note that Senator Shannon, now deceased, was replaced by Rep. Jehlen; who was replaced by a newly elected Rep. who fully supports the homosexual agenda. So the count stays the same.]
Note that two legislators recently in the MassResistance /Article 8 news, Senator Cynthia Creem (sponsor of a bill lessening penalties for bestiality) and Rep. Patricia Haddad (House Chair of Education Committee, who headed up the recent hearing on H1641 and earlier on our opt-in bill H1050) are on this list.
The endorsing groups include: MassEquality, SupportEquality, Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, Freedom to Marry Coalition, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, LGBT of Western Mass., Bay State Stonewal Democrats, Religious Coalition for Freedom to Marry, Cambridge Lavender Alliance, OutSomerville. (Also, those receiving praise from Bay Windows.)
SENATORS
Antonioni, Robert
Augustus, Edward
Baddour, Steven
Barrios, Jarrett
Chandler, Harriette
Creem, Cynthia
Fargo, Susan
Havern, Robert
Joyce, Brian
McGee, Thomas
Montigny, Mark
Nuciforo, Andrea
O'Leary, Robert
Resor, Pamela
Rosenberg, Stanley
Shannon, Charles [deceased; replaced by Rep Jehlen]
Spilka, Karen
Tisei, Richard
Tolman, Steven
Tucker, Susan
Walsh, Marian
Wilkerson, Dianne
REPRESENTATIVES
Atkins, Cory
Balser, Ruth
Blumer, Deborah
Bosley, Daniel
Canessa, Stephen
Costello, Michael
Donelan, Christopher
Eldridge, James
Fallon, Christopher
Falzone, Mark
Festa, Michael
Finegold, Barry
Forry, Linda Dorcena
Fox, Gloria
Galvin, William
Grant, Mary
Guyer, Denis
Haddad, Patricia
Honan, Kevin
Jehlen, Patricia [now Senator]
Kaprielian, Rachel
Kaufman, Jay
Keenan, John
Khan, Kay
Kocot, Peter
Kulik, Stephen
Linsky, David
L'Italien, Barbara
Malia, Liz
Marzilli, J. James
Murphy, Charles
Patrick, Matthew
Paulsen, Anne
Peisch, Alice
Petersen, Douglas
Pignatelli, Smitty
Reinstein, Kathi-Anne
Rivera, Cheryl
Rushing, Byron
Sannicandro, Tom
Scibak, John
Sciortino, Carl
Smizik, Frank
Speliotis, Theodore
Spellane, Robert
Stanley, Thomas
St. Fleur, Marie
Story, Ellen
Swan, Benjamin
Teahan, Kathleen
Toomey, Timothy
Torrisi, David
Turner, Cleon
Walsh, Martin
Walsh, Steven
Walz, Mary
Wolf, Alice
In addition to these legislators, MassEquality posted a list of "Voices of Equality" incumbents after the 2004 election. Here are names that didn't appear on the pre-election list. (Does this mean they took the homosexual PACs' help, but didn't want it known before the election?)
REPRESENTATIVES
Cabral, Antonia
DiMasi, Sal (Speaker of the House)
Harkins, Lida
Koutoujian, Peter
Mariano, Richard
Sanchez, Jeffrey
Stanley, Harriet
Sullivan, David
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Lt. Gov. Healey Wants to Remove Bad Judges!
Wow! Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey thinks bad judges should be removed! It's good she's focusing on judges who let off rapists and murderers.
But we wish she'd also address judges who defy the Constitution and contribute to the destruction American society!
[From the Boston Herald, "Healey Pushes Judge Review," 3-14-06.]
Citing several high-profile cases involving questionable sentences, Healey wants a “thumbs up, thumbs down” panel to review all the state’s judges every seven years.
Her proposal, which would require majority support from the Legislature and the approval of voters, would create a clear-cut removal process for judges for the first time in state history.
“Every year or so one of these cases comes up and you say, ‘Why don’t we have more evaluation of our judges?’ ” said Healey, who is running for governor. “Massachusetts is nearly isolated in having lifetime tenure for their judges. I think that results in a judicial culture that is unaccountable.”
Many states have elected judges. Massachusetts is one of just three - along with New Hampshire and Rhode Island - where judges are given lifetime appointments, Healey said....
She unveiled the proposal to create an appointed Judicial Evaluation Commission a day after the Herald reported that Winchendon serial child rapist Glen Wheeler was put back on probation with an electronic monitoring bracelet March 3 despite repeated probation violations and fleeing to Florida....
[Retired state Judge Rudolph] Kass also argued that there are already systems in place to evaluate judges. The Judicial Conduct Commission handles complaints against judges, while the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Supreme Judicial Court have recently begun issuing “report cards” on justices....
There is also a provision in the state constitution for removing judges, through the Bill of Address, requiring a majority of the Legislature with approval of the Governor and the Governor's Council.
But we wish she'd also address judges who defy the Constitution and contribute to the destruction American society!
[From the Boston Herald, "Healey Pushes Judge Review," 3-14-06.]
Citing several high-profile cases involving questionable sentences, Healey wants a “thumbs up, thumbs down” panel to review all the state’s judges every seven years.
Her proposal, which would require majority support from the Legislature and the approval of voters, would create a clear-cut removal process for judges for the first time in state history.
“Every year or so one of these cases comes up and you say, ‘Why don’t we have more evaluation of our judges?’ ” said Healey, who is running for governor. “Massachusetts is nearly isolated in having lifetime tenure for their judges. I think that results in a judicial culture that is unaccountable.”
Many states have elected judges. Massachusetts is one of just three - along with New Hampshire and Rhode Island - where judges are given lifetime appointments, Healey said....
She unveiled the proposal to create an appointed Judicial Evaluation Commission a day after the Herald reported that Winchendon serial child rapist Glen Wheeler was put back on probation with an electronic monitoring bracelet March 3 despite repeated probation violations and fleeing to Florida....
[Retired state Judge Rudolph] Kass also argued that there are already systems in place to evaluate judges. The Judicial Conduct Commission handles complaints against judges, while the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Supreme Judicial Court have recently begun issuing “report cards” on justices....
There is also a provision in the state constitution for removing judges, through the Bill of Address, requiring a majority of the Legislature with approval of the Governor and the Governor's Council.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Sen. Creem Protecting Cats & Chickens from Rapists!
State Senator Cynthia Creem is not pleased with our analysis of her bill lessening the penalities for bestiality, S938. We never said she wanted to decriminalize it, just lessen the penalties. She says she wants to protect cats and chickens from human rapists! Her Legal Counsel asked us to publish his response explaining their reasoning (below).
(Now we wonder if Rep. David Linsky will come back with a response on our posting on his bill, H819, saying it was a simple error by his secretary when she filed it, and he didn't really mean to decriminalize bestiality?)
Here's what the law in question currently states: "Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years." (Ch. 272, Sec. 34.)
And here's how Sen. Creem's bill (S938) would change it: [First it removes human-to-human sodomy altogether and reads ...] Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
You don't have to be a lawyer to see that one of the proposed penalties is just a fine with no prison time. And that fine could be as low as $1. That looks like "lessening the penalty" compared to some prison time as required in current law!
To MassResistance:
I read your inaccurate portrayal of Senator Creem's bill to revise the bestiality statute on your web site. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of misinformation about the bill posted on the internet without any attempt at fact checking. To help explain the purposes and the need for the bill, I have attached a letter I sent one of our constituents several months ago. Since your posting has generated several calls to our office, I would appreciate it if you would post a retraction.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sean Kealy, Legal Counsel
Office of Senator Cynthia Stone Creem
[He attached an earlier letter to Brian Camenker at Article 8 Alliance:]
Thank you for the opportunity to give you some accurate information about Senator Creem’s proposal to repeal several archaic crimes and to revise and update the bestiality statute. Since you are a constituent of Senator Creem’s, I am surprised that you did not contact us for clarification or explanation for one of her bills. It seems as though you have received bad information from your sources within the State House. Clearly they, like Mr. McMorrow from Weekly Dig, are neither trained in criminal law nor familiar with the drafting of criminal statutes. If they had researched this issue, you would not be so misinformed.
Your internet postings create the impression that Senator Creem is trying to legalize bestiality. This seems to be a poor attempt to give credence to Senator Rick Santorum’s ridiculous and hyperbolic statements that the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts would naturally lead to the legalization of bestiality. This accusation is absolutely baseless—especially since we are taking pains to not only retain the bestiality statute, but also make it more effective.
Secondly, the substitution of the word “animal” for the word beast will absolutely expand the reach of the bestiality statute. You may not be aware of people in Massachusetts having sex acts with ‘dogs, cats or fowl,’ but it is an unfortunate and deviant behavior that occurs throughout the world. In fact, the Humane Society of the United States reported that,
“Cases of sexual abuse of animals include many species, both domestic and wild. Dogs and horses are the most frequently mentioned targets. Their availability and status as companions may make them likely victims. Dogs may be acquired from free-to good home advertisements, pet shops, breeders, animal shelters or as strays. Animals who are kept outside, such as dogs, horses, cows sheep, chickens, may be abused by “fence-jumpers” who trespass to gain access to animal victims. Wildlife in captivity, such as those in roadside zoos, may also be vulnerable to abusers.” (“Animal Sexual Abuse” Report of The Humane Society of the United States, January, 1999).
The Humane Society Report goes on to report 11 cases of charged bestiality with dogs and cats in Florida, Montana, South Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio.
Furthermore, you may not be aware of the problem in Massachusetts because the statute is ineffective and such people are not being charged appropriately. In support of my contention, I would offer Boston Police Officer John Sacco’s “Police Beat” column from the June 18, 1998 edition of South End News (page 9). Officer Sacco reported that:
“[T]he residents of a local elderly building became upset when a 47 –year-old male resident started having sex with his female dog in plain view in the common areas. People complained that on one occasion, in the elevator, ‘He lifted the dog by the hind legs and performed oral sex.’ When asked why he was doing that, he said, ‘The dog was in heat.’ On another occasion he was having digital sex with the dog while saying, ‘You love it.’ The outrage by residents was heard loud and clear. He had to be charged. A research of law revealed that the crime of bestiality, sex with an animal, referred only to ‘hoofed beasts.’ Our law is based on the old English common law. Our forefathers saw sex with a horse, donkey, sheep, etc. as an abomination. Sex with a web-footed animal such as a duck or a pawed animal like a dog or cat was okay.…A court of law will decide the fate of the dog lover—soon, we hope.”
Part of the problem is that the term “beast” is itself archaic within a legal context. The term is not even included in the 8th or 6th editions of Black’s Law Dictionary. Using the 4th edition of Black’s, however, defendants have been able to argue that the term beasts are limited to horses, cows pigs and livestock. See eg. People v. McKnight, 302 N.W.2d 241, 243 (Michigan App. Ct., 1981). Absent a current legally accepted definition, a court might rely upon a common usage dictionary definition. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a beast as a “large four footed mammal.” Even this definition, which does not rely upon the hoofed/pawed/webbed foot distinction, would seemingly exclude a small dog, a cat, or a bird. Some state courts, such as the Appellate Court of Indiana, have judicially expanded the definition of “beast” to encompass all animals, but only through some legal sleight of hand. See e.g. Gates v. Petri, 143 N.E.2d 293 (1957) (finding that defendant’s sex act with a chicken was covered by the Indiana bestiality statute). The Massachusetts appellate courts have not made such a ruling to date, leaving prosecutors and police confused. Changing the word to “animal” would at least remove confusion and at best expand the reach of the statute.
Thirdly, your flippant comment that the courts are “not clogged up with grand jury investigations on bestiality” misses the point. It is a common practice today to give the prosecutor the flexibility to charge and prosecute even serious crimes in the District Court. As a former prosecutor, I can report that there may be many reasons for this decision including: the particular facts of a case, the criminal record of the offender, a multi-defendant strategy (e.g. prosecuting a minor player in a criminal conspiracy at the district court level to elicit a cooperation agreement against a major player), or if the underlying crime was not completed and the only available charge is an attempt or a conspiracy. It should be noted that the maximum sentence would only be 2 ½ years if the prosecutor chose to bring the charges in the District Court. While the District Court did not exist when the bestiality statute was first enacted, this option is very common statutory device today. Such an option is available to prosecutors when charging other extremely serious felonies. Each of the following have a maximum prison sentence of 20 years in prison but also include a District Court option with a 2 ½ year house of correction sentence: Voluntary Manslaughter, Mayhem, Attempted Murder and Armed Carjacking.
Fourthly, the penalties contained in this bill would continue to be the most severe in the United States with a maximum penalty of 20 years. Twenty-eight states have no statutes against bestiality. Only 11 states make this crime a felony, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island penalizing the crime with potential 20 year sentences; Oklahoma, Montana, Mississippi and Maryland penalizing the crime with maximum 10 year sentences, and Louisiana punishes the crime with a maximum of 5 years. Bestiality is only a misdemeanor in the other 17 states.
Finally, you accuse me of being dishonest about the real motivation of this bill, which is to satisfy a legislative goal of the “homosexual movement.” This bill does not seek to repeal the sodomy portion of the “Crime Against Nature” to advance any movement, but because that portion of the statute is truly archaic—charges will not be brought by a state prosecutor and even if they were, no court would allow the case to go forward. This state of affairs is the result of two recent court cases. In 2002, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that consensual conduct in private between adults is not prohibited by G.L. ch 272 § 34. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders v. Attorney General, 436 Mass. 132 (2002). This ruling in accord with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), which struck down the Texas sodomy statute. Even if the State and Federal courts had not ruled, the Mass. Attorney General’s Office and the District Attorneys for Middlesex and Suffolk Counties (comprising 43% of the state by population) stipulated in GLAD v. Attorney General that their offices will not prosecute anyone under the Crime Against Nature for sodomy unless the prohibited conduct occurred either in public or without consent. Either of those two situations would be better charged as Lewd and Lascivious Conduct or Rape. Therefore, the sodomy portion of the “Crime Against Nature” is not needed. An unnecessary crime that has been ruled unconstitutional by two Supreme Courts is archaic and may safely be removed from the books.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I hope this has been helpful.
Sincerely,
Sean J. Kealy, Legal Counsel
Senator Cynthia Stone Creem’s Office
(Now we wonder if Rep. David Linsky will come back with a response on our posting on his bill, H819, saying it was a simple error by his secretary when she filed it, and he didn't really mean to decriminalize bestiality?)
Here's what the law in question currently states: "Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years." (Ch. 272, Sec. 34.)
And here's how Sen. Creem's bill (S938) would change it: [First it removes human-to-human sodomy altogether and reads ...] Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
You don't have to be a lawyer to see that one of the proposed penalties is just a fine with no prison time. And that fine could be as low as $1. That looks like "lessening the penalty" compared to some prison time as required in current law!
To MassResistance:
I read your inaccurate portrayal of Senator Creem's bill to revise the bestiality statute on your web site. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of misinformation about the bill posted on the internet without any attempt at fact checking. To help explain the purposes and the need for the bill, I have attached a letter I sent one of our constituents several months ago. Since your posting has generated several calls to our office, I would appreciate it if you would post a retraction.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sean Kealy, Legal Counsel
Office of Senator Cynthia Stone Creem
[He attached an earlier letter to Brian Camenker at Article 8 Alliance:]
Thank you for the opportunity to give you some accurate information about Senator Creem’s proposal to repeal several archaic crimes and to revise and update the bestiality statute. Since you are a constituent of Senator Creem’s, I am surprised that you did not contact us for clarification or explanation for one of her bills. It seems as though you have received bad information from your sources within the State House. Clearly they, like Mr. McMorrow from Weekly Dig, are neither trained in criminal law nor familiar with the drafting of criminal statutes. If they had researched this issue, you would not be so misinformed.
Your internet postings create the impression that Senator Creem is trying to legalize bestiality. This seems to be a poor attempt to give credence to Senator Rick Santorum’s ridiculous and hyperbolic statements that the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts would naturally lead to the legalization of bestiality. This accusation is absolutely baseless—especially since we are taking pains to not only retain the bestiality statute, but also make it more effective.
Secondly, the substitution of the word “animal” for the word beast will absolutely expand the reach of the bestiality statute. You may not be aware of people in Massachusetts having sex acts with ‘dogs, cats or fowl,’ but it is an unfortunate and deviant behavior that occurs throughout the world. In fact, the Humane Society of the United States reported that,
“Cases of sexual abuse of animals include many species, both domestic and wild. Dogs and horses are the most frequently mentioned targets. Their availability and status as companions may make them likely victims. Dogs may be acquired from free-to good home advertisements, pet shops, breeders, animal shelters or as strays. Animals who are kept outside, such as dogs, horses, cows sheep, chickens, may be abused by “fence-jumpers” who trespass to gain access to animal victims. Wildlife in captivity, such as those in roadside zoos, may also be vulnerable to abusers.” (“Animal Sexual Abuse” Report of The Humane Society of the United States, January, 1999).
The Humane Society Report goes on to report 11 cases of charged bestiality with dogs and cats in Florida, Montana, South Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee and Ohio.
Furthermore, you may not be aware of the problem in Massachusetts because the statute is ineffective and such people are not being charged appropriately. In support of my contention, I would offer Boston Police Officer John Sacco’s “Police Beat” column from the June 18, 1998 edition of South End News (page 9). Officer Sacco reported that:
“[T]he residents of a local elderly building became upset when a 47 –year-old male resident started having sex with his female dog in plain view in the common areas. People complained that on one occasion, in the elevator, ‘He lifted the dog by the hind legs and performed oral sex.’ When asked why he was doing that, he said, ‘The dog was in heat.’ On another occasion he was having digital sex with the dog while saying, ‘You love it.’ The outrage by residents was heard loud and clear. He had to be charged. A research of law revealed that the crime of bestiality, sex with an animal, referred only to ‘hoofed beasts.’ Our law is based on the old English common law. Our forefathers saw sex with a horse, donkey, sheep, etc. as an abomination. Sex with a web-footed animal such as a duck or a pawed animal like a dog or cat was okay.…A court of law will decide the fate of the dog lover—soon, we hope.”
Part of the problem is that the term “beast” is itself archaic within a legal context. The term is not even included in the 8th or 6th editions of Black’s Law Dictionary. Using the 4th edition of Black’s, however, defendants have been able to argue that the term beasts are limited to horses, cows pigs and livestock. See eg. People v. McKnight, 302 N.W.2d 241, 243 (Michigan App. Ct., 1981). Absent a current legally accepted definition, a court might rely upon a common usage dictionary definition. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a beast as a “large four footed mammal.” Even this definition, which does not rely upon the hoofed/pawed/webbed foot distinction, would seemingly exclude a small dog, a cat, or a bird. Some state courts, such as the Appellate Court of Indiana, have judicially expanded the definition of “beast” to encompass all animals, but only through some legal sleight of hand. See e.g. Gates v. Petri, 143 N.E.2d 293 (1957) (finding that defendant’s sex act with a chicken was covered by the Indiana bestiality statute). The Massachusetts appellate courts have not made such a ruling to date, leaving prosecutors and police confused. Changing the word to “animal” would at least remove confusion and at best expand the reach of the statute.
Thirdly, your flippant comment that the courts are “not clogged up with grand jury investigations on bestiality” misses the point. It is a common practice today to give the prosecutor the flexibility to charge and prosecute even serious crimes in the District Court. As a former prosecutor, I can report that there may be many reasons for this decision including: the particular facts of a case, the criminal record of the offender, a multi-defendant strategy (e.g. prosecuting a minor player in a criminal conspiracy at the district court level to elicit a cooperation agreement against a major player), or if the underlying crime was not completed and the only available charge is an attempt or a conspiracy. It should be noted that the maximum sentence would only be 2 ½ years if the prosecutor chose to bring the charges in the District Court. While the District Court did not exist when the bestiality statute was first enacted, this option is very common statutory device today. Such an option is available to prosecutors when charging other extremely serious felonies. Each of the following have a maximum prison sentence of 20 years in prison but also include a District Court option with a 2 ½ year house of correction sentence: Voluntary Manslaughter, Mayhem, Attempted Murder and Armed Carjacking.
Fourthly, the penalties contained in this bill would continue to be the most severe in the United States with a maximum penalty of 20 years. Twenty-eight states have no statutes against bestiality. Only 11 states make this crime a felony, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island penalizing the crime with potential 20 year sentences; Oklahoma, Montana, Mississippi and Maryland penalizing the crime with maximum 10 year sentences, and Louisiana punishes the crime with a maximum of 5 years. Bestiality is only a misdemeanor in the other 17 states.
Finally, you accuse me of being dishonest about the real motivation of this bill, which is to satisfy a legislative goal of the “homosexual movement.” This bill does not seek to repeal the sodomy portion of the “Crime Against Nature” to advance any movement, but because that portion of the statute is truly archaic—charges will not be brought by a state prosecutor and even if they were, no court would allow the case to go forward. This state of affairs is the result of two recent court cases. In 2002, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that consensual conduct in private between adults is not prohibited by G.L. ch 272 § 34. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders v. Attorney General, 436 Mass. 132 (2002). This ruling in accord with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), which struck down the Texas sodomy statute. Even if the State and Federal courts had not ruled, the Mass. Attorney General’s Office and the District Attorneys for Middlesex and Suffolk Counties (comprising 43% of the state by population) stipulated in GLAD v. Attorney General that their offices will not prosecute anyone under the Crime Against Nature for sodomy unless the prohibited conduct occurred either in public or without consent. Either of those two situations would be better charged as Lewd and Lascivious Conduct or Rape. Therefore, the sodomy portion of the “Crime Against Nature” is not needed. An unnecessary crime that has been ruled unconstitutional by two Supreme Courts is archaic and may safely be removed from the books.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I hope this has been helpful.
Sincerely,
Sean J. Kealy, Legal Counsel
Senator Cynthia Stone Creem’s Office
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Exposing a Stalker: It's the little things that trip them up...
Folks, we're getting tired of the constant efforts at intimidation from the homosexual extremists and their bad boys. Just so you don't think this posting is all "inside baseball", you need to know that the foul efforts continue to silence this blog for its political speech opposing judicial tyranny and the homosexual agenda.
If that manly man Howie Carr gets hit, you'll know who went after him (thanks to his book and talk show). Similarly, If MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance/Parents' Rights Coalition staffers and volunteers get hit, you'll know what groups went after them.
This is just one tool in our arsenal of SELF-DEFENSE. Those wishing us ill should also know that there are (believe it or not -- in Massachusetts!) still law enforcement agents who believe in protecting the rights of all citizens, and who are alerted to the various "persons of interest" targeting yours truly. Let's start with definitions and citations:
If that manly man Howie Carr gets hit, you'll know who went after him (thanks to his book and talk show). Similarly, If MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance/Parents' Rights Coalition staffers and volunteers get hit, you'll know what groups went after them.
This is just one tool in our arsenal of SELF-DEFENSE. Those wishing us ill should also know that there are (believe it or not -- in Massachusetts!) still law enforcement agents who believe in protecting the rights of all citizens, and who are alerted to the various "persons of interest" targeting yours truly. Let's start with definitions and citations:
Stalker - (noun) a person who illegally follows and watches someone, especially a woman, over a period of time (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
General Laws of Massachusetts, Ch. 265, Sec. 43 Stalking; punishment:
Section 43. (a) Whoever (1) willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and (2) makes a threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury, shall be guilty of the crime of stalking and shall be punished by ... Such conduct, acts or threats described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct, acts or threats conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications and facsimile communications....
General Laws of Massachusetts, Ch. 12, Sec. 11H Violations of constitutional rights; civil actions by attorney general; venue:
Whenever any person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth ... [and]
General Laws of Massachusetts, Ch. 12, Sec. 11I Violations of constitutional rights; civil actions by aggrieved persons; costs and fees:
Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in section 11H, may institute and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief as provided for in said section, including the award of compensatory money damages...
It's the little things that trip such people up -- the wrongdoers who think they're so smart.
For instance, newspaper wedding announcements that connect the dots, or a curious misspelling that appears in harassing emails then reappears on a hateful intimidation blog.
One stalking blogger seems to "shudder" frequently when confronted with traditional values and Biblically-based moral standards. Problem is, he spells it "shutter" in his three attack aliases. First there was "Gaston", then "Maver" in harassing emails sent to the Article 8 office, then an obsessive stalking hate blog was born, targeting this publication. In a recent posting on his blog, he "shuttered" to think about a child being reared by a parent such as the MassResistance blogger.
I shutter to think of the children being brought up in a hatefilled household. God help those kids who are brought up learning that hate is ok. Now THAT is unnatural.
In response, an acquaintance of ours posted the following comment on that hate blog:
Hey, Buddy, nice to see you still don't know how to spell "shudder." In order for everyone else to ascertain the obsessive-compulsive nature of this "blogger," please visit http://www.article8.org/docs/issues/harassment/gaston28.htm. Take note of the third harassing e-mail from the top....
Well, blogmeister BostonBud (a.k.a. Gaston, Maver, Gay Boy Scout) immediately deleted this comment, and put up this reason:
BloggerÂ’s Note: A comment was posted, but deleted from the site because it directed readers to a posting with inaccurate and personal information. In the interest of disclosure, however, the substance of the post was: (1) to correct my use of the word shutter when I meant shudder (darn those homonyms); and (2) to direct readers to the Article 8 website, which if anyone cares, is available by link on the adjacent panel.
No, they don't like being exposed. The hate blogger's response to the deleted comment could be construed to be self-incrimination. "No -- don't look there!"
BACKGROUND from our Article 8 email alert (Dec. 2, 2005): ...[A] volunteer in our office has over the past few months been stalked by homosexual activists, was threatened in an email that they know where she lives and would come to her house. Recently, she had her house broken into and her credit cards stolen and used. And we described that the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, Denise Barton, a staff attorney who runs the "computer crimes" division at first acknowledged that these threatening emails were clearly criminal acts. But it seemed clear to us that when she realized who WE were, and possibly that the perpetrator was a gay activist, Barton became very difficult and condescending. Read full report on this disgusting incident here.
Since the break in to her house and a second of her credit cards was stolen and used, the volunteer's lawyer had requested a new meeting with Barton to at least discuss re-opening the case. But no. As the lawyer reported back, "[Barton] has reviewed the break in, and the credit card fraud, and has decided that since those are not the type of cases the AG investigates, she does not think it appropriate to have a sit down."
Thanks a lot, Attorney General Tom Reilly. Suddenly, email threats and credit card fraud over the Internet do not constitute "computer crimes." Yes, this is the same Tom Reilly who is running for governor. (And who has a male top staff attorney who just "married" another man.) We can tell you this: The criminal investigation is still continuing (from another government source) ... But as for Reilly and Barton, they're both a disgrace to law enforcement. They both need to be booted out of public service.
Where Are the "Manly Men" in Massachusetts?
Professor Harvey Mansfield of Harvard has just published a book called "Manliness". The Wall Street Journal reviewer wrote:
He would like to return the notion of manliness to the modern lexicon. His new book, "Manliness" (manfully, no subtitle), argues that the gender-neutral society created by modern feminists has been bad both for women and men, and that it is time for men to rediscover, and women to appreciate, the virtue of manliness.
The Boston Globe even deigned to cover it in their Ideas section on Sunday ("The Manly Man's Man"). Trouble is, Mansfield is such a highly respected scholar, the liberals won't be able to dismiss his book. From the Globe review:
While polishing his role as the Last Conservative Standing at Harvard, Mansfield has also built a reputation as a political theorist solid enough that even liberal political scientists see him as a model for how to practice a humanistic brand of political science. His books ''Machiavelli's Virtue," ''Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power," and ''America's Constitutional Soul" are dense, learned, and steeped in classical thought.
''Manliness," which mates his interest in Great Books and culture-war combat, confronts two trends he has long deplored: academic gender studies, which see ''male" and ''female" as fluid categories constructed by society, and feminism, which says there is almost nothing that men can do that women cannot.
And this is a big part of the problem we have in Massachusetts --emasculated men, who have swallowed extreme feminism, which leads to the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality and gender confusion. Where are the real men in leadership anywhere in this state? A few of our state reps -- not surprisingly, older fellows -- have shown real courage, for instance Reps. Goguen and Travis. And we occasionally see someone outside the institutions -- like Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue, or C. J. Doyle of Catholic Action League, or columnists Don Feder and Howie Carr -- who are real men.
But what of Gov. Romney's latest disingenuous speech on why we have homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts? Romney spoke to several thousand Southern Republicans in Memphis on Friday. He told them that the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex "marriage"... implying he was helpless to stop it. But the Court did NOT legalize same-sex "marriage" -- it just produced a fraudulent unconstitutional opinion on the issue.
If anyone was responsible for same-sex "marriage" in this state, it was Gov. Romney. He should have issued an executive order to the Dept. of Public Health and town clerks NOT to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Period. (Search this blog for more on Romney's failure to uphold his Constitutional responsibilities.) Gov. Romney should have followed the Constitutional instructions on how to be a "manly man". The buck stops with him.
He would like to return the notion of manliness to the modern lexicon. His new book, "Manliness" (manfully, no subtitle), argues that the gender-neutral society created by modern feminists has been bad both for women and men, and that it is time for men to rediscover, and women to appreciate, the virtue of manliness.
The Boston Globe even deigned to cover it in their Ideas section on Sunday ("The Manly Man's Man"). Trouble is, Mansfield is such a highly respected scholar, the liberals won't be able to dismiss his book. From the Globe review:
While polishing his role as the Last Conservative Standing at Harvard, Mansfield has also built a reputation as a political theorist solid enough that even liberal political scientists see him as a model for how to practice a humanistic brand of political science. His books ''Machiavelli's Virtue," ''Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power," and ''America's Constitutional Soul" are dense, learned, and steeped in classical thought.
''Manliness," which mates his interest in Great Books and culture-war combat, confronts two trends he has long deplored: academic gender studies, which see ''male" and ''female" as fluid categories constructed by society, and feminism, which says there is almost nothing that men can do that women cannot.
And this is a big part of the problem we have in Massachusetts --emasculated men, who have swallowed extreme feminism, which leads to the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality and gender confusion. Where are the real men in leadership anywhere in this state? A few of our state reps -- not surprisingly, older fellows -- have shown real courage, for instance Reps. Goguen and Travis. And we occasionally see someone outside the institutions -- like Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue, or C. J. Doyle of Catholic Action League, or columnists Don Feder and Howie Carr -- who are real men.
But what of Gov. Romney's latest disingenuous speech on why we have homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts? Romney spoke to several thousand Southern Republicans in Memphis on Friday. He told them that the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex "marriage"... implying he was helpless to stop it. But the Court did NOT legalize same-sex "marriage" -- it just produced a fraudulent unconstitutional opinion on the issue.
If anyone was responsible for same-sex "marriage" in this state, it was Gov. Romney. He should have issued an executive order to the Dept. of Public Health and town clerks NOT to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Period. (Search this blog for more on Romney's failure to uphold his Constitutional responsibilities.) Gov. Romney should have followed the Constitutional instructions on how to be a "manly man". The buck stops with him.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Cruelty to Children & "Gay" Adoptions
As an adoptive parent, I've been watching the Catholic Charities/"gay" adoptions story closely. The other issue here -- besides religious freedom -- that everyone on our side is skirting around is cruelty to children.
How appalling that the angle the Boston Globe is playing is that it's cruelty on the part of the Catholic Church (!!!) to disband their adoption operations. They even interview the president of the Mass. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who says the Catholic action "is a tragedy for kids."
No, it is cruelty to adopted children -- ALL of whom are special-needs children -- to place them in unstable, unnatural households! The Vatican is right: It is "gravely immoral." We just wish the church or Archbishop would expand on this concept a little, instead of leaving things unsaid.
As recently as 20 years ago, potential adoptive parents were carefully screened by even secular adoption agencies for marital stability and spiritual grounding (i.e., were traditional values upheld in the home?). Many other precautions were taken to ensure the child would have a secure, supportive home. The agencies knew then that parenting adopted children is much more demanding than parenting biological children. I didn't want to accept that wisdom at the time, and found the "home study" process intrusive and offensive. But now with hindsight, after bringing up both biological and adopted children, I respect the wisdom of that process.
Things certainly have changed. First, the door was opened to previously divorced parents. Then single parents were allowed to adopt. Then, homosexual couples.
The profound sense of loss adopted children carry (many knowing nothing or little of their biological parent(s), all of them feeling abandoned), plus the lasting effects of disruption in their sensitive early years, and their unpredictable health and developmental problems -- all this requires tremendous commitment, understanding, and stability on the part of the adoptive parent couple. It's a well-known fact that disproportionate percentages of adopted persons seek psychological and psychiatric help, and have other disabilities. Throw in the monkey wrench of abnormal ("gay"-parented) households and higher than average "marital" instability, and it's hard to imagine these children will have the support they need.
It's well established that lesbian and homosexual male couples are less stable. Breakups come more frequently and sooner. Partner abuse, promiscuity and infidelity are much more common than with married heterosexual couples. What transpires in the privacy of many of those homes cannot be pretty. How irresponsible on the part of adoption agencies to place children in such homes without research backing up the safety of such placements.
Only recently has the truth been exposed about the profoundly negative impact of heterosexual divorce on children. How much worse if you add another layer of complexity and abnormality for especially needy children: two parents of the same sex?
Archbishop O'Malley has withdrawn from the fray, deciding to halt adoption work by the Catholic Charities rather than fight in court for a religious exemption to the non-discrimination requirement.
On this church vs. state authority issue, C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts got it right: "It's a defeat for religious freedom. Not only does the church and society suffer, but the church is allowing itself to be marginalized."
How appalling that the angle the Boston Globe is playing is that it's cruelty on the part of the Catholic Church (!!!) to disband their adoption operations. They even interview the president of the Mass. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who says the Catholic action "is a tragedy for kids."
No, it is cruelty to adopted children -- ALL of whom are special-needs children -- to place them in unstable, unnatural households! The Vatican is right: It is "gravely immoral." We just wish the church or Archbishop would expand on this concept a little, instead of leaving things unsaid.
As recently as 20 years ago, potential adoptive parents were carefully screened by even secular adoption agencies for marital stability and spiritual grounding (i.e., were traditional values upheld in the home?). Many other precautions were taken to ensure the child would have a secure, supportive home. The agencies knew then that parenting adopted children is much more demanding than parenting biological children. I didn't want to accept that wisdom at the time, and found the "home study" process intrusive and offensive. But now with hindsight, after bringing up both biological and adopted children, I respect the wisdom of that process.
Things certainly have changed. First, the door was opened to previously divorced parents. Then single parents were allowed to adopt. Then, homosexual couples.
The profound sense of loss adopted children carry (many knowing nothing or little of their biological parent(s), all of them feeling abandoned), plus the lasting effects of disruption in their sensitive early years, and their unpredictable health and developmental problems -- all this requires tremendous commitment, understanding, and stability on the part of the adoptive parent couple. It's a well-known fact that disproportionate percentages of adopted persons seek psychological and psychiatric help, and have other disabilities. Throw in the monkey wrench of abnormal ("gay"-parented) households and higher than average "marital" instability, and it's hard to imagine these children will have the support they need.
It's well established that lesbian and homosexual male couples are less stable. Breakups come more frequently and sooner. Partner abuse, promiscuity and infidelity are much more common than with married heterosexual couples. What transpires in the privacy of many of those homes cannot be pretty. How irresponsible on the part of adoption agencies to place children in such homes without research backing up the safety of such placements.
Only recently has the truth been exposed about the profoundly negative impact of heterosexual divorce on children. How much worse if you add another layer of complexity and abnormality for especially needy children: two parents of the same sex?
Archbishop O'Malley has withdrawn from the fray, deciding to halt adoption work by the Catholic Charities rather than fight in court for a religious exemption to the non-discrimination requirement.
On this church vs. state authority issue, C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts got it right: "It's a defeat for religious freedom. Not only does the church and society suffer, but the church is allowing itself to be marginalized."
Friday, March 10, 2006
Pimping for Polygamy at Boston Globe
If you read a headline, "Fine new series explores monogamy and faith," would you guess that the series is all about . . . POLYGAMY ?? ! Only when you get to the finer print do you read, "Series about polygamy asks what you say after 'I do,' 'I do,' 'I do'."
(Wow, if this isn't newspeak, we don't know what is! The series "explores monogamy" -- when it's really exploring polygamy? !)
This the Boston Globe's latest exercise in socially destabilizing propaganda: a glowing review of a new HBO TV series on a polygamist family in Utah called "Big Love". One husband, three wives, three homes:
''Big Love," which premieres Sunday at 10, is layered enough to do what HBO's ''The Sopranos" and ''Six Feet Under" have done so well: make atypical heroes knowable and universal. It pulls us into its parallel moral universe, rather than keep us standing outside in judgment.
(Wow, if this isn't newspeak, we don't know what is! The series "explores monogamy" -- when it's really exploring polygamy? !)
This the Boston Globe's latest exercise in socially destabilizing propaganda: a glowing review of a new HBO TV series on a polygamist family in Utah called "Big Love". One husband, three wives, three homes:
''Big Love," which premieres Sunday at 10, is layered enough to do what HBO's ''The Sopranos" and ''Six Feet Under" have done so well: make atypical heroes knowable and universal. It pulls us into its parallel moral universe, rather than keep us standing outside in judgment.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to stand outside in judgment! Modern American society demands that we suspend all judgment, whether rational or moral. And since the series is "layered", that will cover all our doubts.
Why is the ultra-Left so eager to jump on the polygamy bandwagon? Is it because polygamy is even more revolutionary extremist-Leftist-socially-destabilizing-deconstructionist-anti-Judeo-Christian than homosexual "marriage"? So it makes homo "marriage" look mild by comparison? We're now beyond boundaries. The slippery slope is undeniable.
As we've pointed out, there is a real movement to legitimize polygamy, not just in breakaway sects in Utah, but in the Unitarian Universalist "Church" which also led the way with homosexual "marriage". And we have yet to hear a reasonable legal argument -- which would meet Empress Margaret Marshall's standards -- that there is a "rational" case to be made to limit marriage to only two people. LOVE is all that matters!
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Massachusetts' Most Dangerous Legislators, III
Here is the list of the Massachusetts legislators officially listed as sponsors of VERY BAD (socially destabilizing) BILLS in the current session.
The GRAND PRIZE LOSER (sponsor of 7 very bad bills) is Rep. Linsky of Natick. Runners-up for sponsoring 4 or more very bad bills: Atkins, Balser, Festa, Jehlen, O'Leary, D. Petersen, Rushing, Story, Walz.
Atkins, Cory: H819, H976, H977, H1641
Balser, Ruth: H806, H818, H819, H976, H977, H1641
Barrios, Jarrett: S835, S967
Blumer, Deborah: H806, H977, H1641
Callahan, Jennifer: H1641
Chandler, Harriette: S967
Costello, Michael: H806, H976, H977
Creem, Cynthia: S835, S938
Falzone, Mark: H1079
Fargo, Susan: H818, H1641, S102
Festa, Michael: H806, H818, H819, H976, H977, S938
Finegold, Barry: H806
Fox, Gloria: H977, H1641
Grant, Mary: H1641
Guyer, Denis: H806, H97, H1641
Haddad, Patricia: H1641
Harkins, Lida: H1641
Havern, Robert: S967
Honan, Kevin: H977
Jehlen, Patricia: H806, H976, H977, H1641
Kaprielian, Rachel: H806, H977
Kaufman, Jay: H806, H977
Keenan, John: H806, H977
Khan, Kay: H806, H977, H1641
Kocot, Peter: H806, H977, H1641
Koutoujian, Peter: H1641
Kulik, Stephen: H977, H1641
L’Italien, Barbara: H977, H1641
Linsky, David Paul: H806, H818, H819, H976, H977, H1641, S938
Malia, Elizabeth: H806, H976, H977
Marzilli, J. James: H806, H977, H1641
Menard, Joan: S102
Montigny, Mark: S835
O’Leary, Robert: H818, H819, S102, S835, S938
Patrick, Matthew: H806, H977
Paulsen, Anne: H976, H977
Peisch, Alice: H818, H819, H977
Petersen, Douglas: H806, H818, H819, H977, H1641
Pignatelli, William Smitty: H1641
Reinstein, Kathi-Anne: H806, H977
Resor, Pamela: S835, S967
Rivera, Cheryl: H977
Rushing, Byron: H806, H976, H977, H1641
Sannicandro, Tom: H977
Scibak, John: H806, H977, H1641
Sciortino, Carl: H806, H977, H1641
Smizik, Frank: H806, H977, H1641
Spellane, Robert: H806, H977
Speliotis, Theodore: H977
Spilka, Karen: H806, H1641
Stanley, Thomas: H806, H977, H1641
Story, Ellen: H806, H818, H819, H977
Swan, Benjamin: H977
Teahan, Kathleen: H977, H1641
Toomey, Timothy: H806, H977, H1641
Torrisi, David: H806, H977
Turner, Cleon: H806, H977
Verga, Anthony: H1641
Walsh, Martin: H977, H1641
Walz, Martha: H806, H976, H977, H1641
Wilkerson, Dianne: H976
Wolf, Alice: H806, H977, H1641
The GRAND PRIZE LOSER (sponsor of 7 very bad bills) is Rep. Linsky of Natick. Runners-up for sponsoring 4 or more very bad bills: Atkins, Balser, Festa, Jehlen, O'Leary, D. Petersen, Rushing, Story, Walz.
Atkins, Cory: H819, H976, H977, H1641
Balser, Ruth: H806, H818, H819, H976, H977, H1641
Barrios, Jarrett: S835, S967
Blumer, Deborah: H806, H977, H1641
Callahan, Jennifer: H1641
Chandler, Harriette: S967
Costello, Michael: H806, H976, H977
Creem, Cynthia: S835, S938
Falzone, Mark: H1079
Fargo, Susan: H818, H1641, S102
Festa, Michael: H806, H818, H819, H976, H977, S938
Finegold, Barry: H806
Fox, Gloria: H977, H1641
Grant, Mary: H1641
Guyer, Denis: H806, H97, H1641
Haddad, Patricia: H1641
Harkins, Lida: H1641
Havern, Robert: S967
Honan, Kevin: H977
Jehlen, Patricia: H806, H976, H977, H1641
Kaprielian, Rachel: H806, H977
Kaufman, Jay: H806, H977
Keenan, John: H806, H977
Khan, Kay: H806, H977, H1641
Kocot, Peter: H806, H977, H1641
Koutoujian, Peter: H1641
Kulik, Stephen: H977, H1641
L’Italien, Barbara: H977, H1641
Linsky, David Paul: H806, H818, H819, H976, H977, H1641, S938
Malia, Elizabeth: H806, H976, H977
Marzilli, J. James: H806, H977, H1641
Menard, Joan: S102
Montigny, Mark: S835
O’Leary, Robert: H818, H819, S102, S835, S938
Patrick, Matthew: H806, H977
Paulsen, Anne: H976, H977
Peisch, Alice: H818, H819, H977
Petersen, Douglas: H806, H818, H819, H977, H1641
Pignatelli, William Smitty: H1641
Reinstein, Kathi-Anne: H806, H977
Resor, Pamela: S835, S967
Rivera, Cheryl: H977
Rushing, Byron: H806, H976, H977, H1641
Sannicandro, Tom: H977
Scibak, John: H806, H977, H1641
Sciortino, Carl: H806, H977, H1641
Smizik, Frank: H806, H977, H1641
Spellane, Robert: H806, H977
Speliotis, Theodore: H977
Spilka, Karen: H806, H1641
Stanley, Thomas: H806, H977, H1641
Story, Ellen: H806, H818, H819, H977
Swan, Benjamin: H977
Teahan, Kathleen: H977, H1641
Toomey, Timothy: H806, H977, H1641
Torrisi, David: H806, H977
Turner, Cleon: H806, H977
Verga, Anthony: H1641
Walsh, Martin: H977, H1641
Walz, Martha: H806, H976, H977, H1641
Wilkerson, Dianne: H976
Wolf, Alice: H806, H977, H1641
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Massachusetts' Most Dangerous Legislators, II
Some Massachusetts legislators went out on the farthest limb, sponsoring a bill (H819) to completely decriminalize bestiality. (See Part I in this series.) Several others thought it should still be a crime, but the penalities lessened.
There's one new name here, Senator Cynthia Creem of Newton, the lead sponsor of S938, the bill which includes lessening the penalties for bestiality (and decriminalizing human-on-human sodomy). Three of its sponsors were also behind the total decriminalization of bestiality (H819). That would be Senator O'Leary, Rep. Festa, and Rep. Linsky -- who apparently can't make up their minds on whether or not it's OK to violate beasties and spread strange diseases to humans.
So here's our second entry on the most dangerous legislators in Massachusetts, those who are tearing down moral and ethical codes going back thousands of years. In addition to these four legislators, "other [unnamed] members of the General Court" stand behind the bill.
Sen. Cynthia Creem, First Middlesex & Norfolk (Newton), 617-722-1639, Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us.
Sen. Robert A. O’Leary, Cape and Islands (Barnstable), 617-722-1570, Robert.O'Leary@state.ma.us.
Rep. Michael E. Festa, 32nd Middlesex District (Melrose), 617-722-2018, Rep.MikeFesta@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. David Paul Linsky (lead sponsor), 5th Middlesex (Natick), 617-722-2210, Rep.DavidLinsky@hou.state.ma.us.
There's one new name here, Senator Cynthia Creem of Newton, the lead sponsor of S938, the bill which includes lessening the penalties for bestiality (and decriminalizing human-on-human sodomy). Three of its sponsors were also behind the total decriminalization of bestiality (H819). That would be Senator O'Leary, Rep. Festa, and Rep. Linsky -- who apparently can't make up their minds on whether or not it's OK to violate beasties and spread strange diseases to humans.
So here's our second entry on the most dangerous legislators in Massachusetts, those who are tearing down moral and ethical codes going back thousands of years. In addition to these four legislators, "other [unnamed] members of the General Court" stand behind the bill.
Sen. Cynthia Creem, First Middlesex & Norfolk (Newton), 617-722-1639, Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us.
Sen. Robert A. O’Leary, Cape and Islands (Barnstable), 617-722-1570, Robert.O'Leary@state.ma.us.
Rep. Michael E. Festa, 32nd Middlesex District (Melrose), 617-722-2018, Rep.MikeFesta@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. David Paul Linsky (lead sponsor), 5th Middlesex (Natick), 617-722-2210, Rep.DavidLinsky@hou.state.ma.us.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Fr. Bob Carr: Demonic Confusion in Massachusetts
The world is truly turned upside down here in Massachusetts. The force behind this is clear. The devil is skilled at sowing moral confusion. Fr. Bob Carr preached on this last Sunday at his parish in Somerville: "The Manifestation of the Demonic in Massachusetts." (See the whole homily online at Catholic.org.)
Excerpts from Fr. Carr's homily on Jesus's temptation in the desert [see Mark 1:9-13; Matthew 4:1-11]:
[O]ne of the signs of the Demonic is moral ambiguity. The light of reason turns dark and there is a loss of a sense of right and wrong. I also pointed out that this reality describes well the current state of affairs in Massachusetts.
The Devil takes reason and twists it into confusion. If you have no wisdom to guide your reason, you will end up seriously confused. I was talking to a parishioner in the Archdiocese and she said to me, Look around you. "Male is female and female is male a complete distortion of creation." Right is wrong and wrong is right. Black is white and white is black. Do not think for one minute you are not dealing with manifestations of the Demonic.
The Spirit leads Jesus to the Devil for his temptation. The Devil’s evil intentions further enable Jesus to define for himself his own mission and ministry. We define ourselves by our choices and Jesus continually chooses against the Devil and for the Father. He gives us the example to do the same.
Now the question is why? Jesus begins his ministry after his time in the desert. He begins to proclaim that the kingdom of God is at hand. The minute he spoke his first word you can imagine a huge digital clock beginning to countdown from 40 years to 0. The nation of Israel to whom he is speaking has only forty years of existence left and nobody knows but Our Lord. It is like they are all on the Titanic and it has just left port. Jesus is warning people to know where their life preservers are. He does not say why. However, He alone knows about the forthcoming iceberg and sinking.
Jesus, however, is not preaching to scare people. He is preaching to begin his role of separating the wheat from the tare. He is dividing the faithful from those just going through the motions. He is dividing the true disciple from the one giving lip service.
We too are beginning to encounter clear signs of the demonic. Here in Somerville, how many Catholic schools are closed. One parish and three schools at last count. Yet, we just opened up here a Planned Parenthood Office. If you have read the Somerville newspapers then you saw the picture of the politicians including graduates of Catholic schools attending a ribbon cutting ceremony for a place that roots itself in destroying human life.
That which imparts God’s wisdom is closing and that which imparts the Devil’s destruction is opening. Good is Bad and Bad is Good. True is false and false is true. Man is woman and woman is man. The Devil is alive and living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Yet, Jesus’ encounter with the Devil was there to strengthen his resolve and his mission. So it is with us. You are now at a time in which you have to make a choice everyday. Are you going to go along to get along or are you going to choose to know, comprehend and believe the wisdom of God.
Are you going to betray your faith, like graduates of a Catholic school smiling at a ribbon cutting ceremony in front of an pro-abortion office or are you going to choose Christ regardless of the circumstances.
Excerpts from Fr. Carr's homily on Jesus's temptation in the desert [see Mark 1:9-13; Matthew 4:1-11]:
[O]ne of the signs of the Demonic is moral ambiguity. The light of reason turns dark and there is a loss of a sense of right and wrong. I also pointed out that this reality describes well the current state of affairs in Massachusetts.
The Devil takes reason and twists it into confusion. If you have no wisdom to guide your reason, you will end up seriously confused. I was talking to a parishioner in the Archdiocese and she said to me, Look around you. "Male is female and female is male a complete distortion of creation." Right is wrong and wrong is right. Black is white and white is black. Do not think for one minute you are not dealing with manifestations of the Demonic.
The Spirit leads Jesus to the Devil for his temptation. The Devil’s evil intentions further enable Jesus to define for himself his own mission and ministry. We define ourselves by our choices and Jesus continually chooses against the Devil and for the Father. He gives us the example to do the same.
Now the question is why? Jesus begins his ministry after his time in the desert. He begins to proclaim that the kingdom of God is at hand. The minute he spoke his first word you can imagine a huge digital clock beginning to countdown from 40 years to 0. The nation of Israel to whom he is speaking has only forty years of existence left and nobody knows but Our Lord. It is like they are all on the Titanic and it has just left port. Jesus is warning people to know where their life preservers are. He does not say why. However, He alone knows about the forthcoming iceberg and sinking.
Jesus, however, is not preaching to scare people. He is preaching to begin his role of separating the wheat from the tare. He is dividing the faithful from those just going through the motions. He is dividing the true disciple from the one giving lip service.
We too are beginning to encounter clear signs of the demonic. Here in Somerville, how many Catholic schools are closed. One parish and three schools at last count. Yet, we just opened up here a Planned Parenthood Office. If you have read the Somerville newspapers then you saw the picture of the politicians including graduates of Catholic schools attending a ribbon cutting ceremony for a place that roots itself in destroying human life.
That which imparts God’s wisdom is closing and that which imparts the Devil’s destruction is opening. Good is Bad and Bad is Good. True is false and false is true. Man is woman and woman is man. The Devil is alive and living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Yet, Jesus’ encounter with the Devil was there to strengthen his resolve and his mission. So it is with us. You are now at a time in which you have to make a choice everyday. Are you going to go along to get along or are you going to choose to know, comprehend and believe the wisdom of God.
Are you going to betray your faith, like graduates of a Catholic school smiling at a ribbon cutting ceremony in front of an pro-abortion office or are you going to choose Christ regardless of the circumstances.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Massachusetts' Most Dangerous Legislators, Part I
Who are the most dangerous legislators in Massachusetts -- those who sponsor bills most destabilizing to society? We'll start with a list of the sponsors of the bill to decriminalize sodomy and bestiality -- a crime against nature, whether committed with mankind or with beast.
Rep. David Paul Linsky (lead sponsor), 5th Middlesex (Natick), 617-722-2210, Rep.DavidLinsky@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Ruth B. Balser, 12th Middlesex District (Newton), 617-722-2060, Rep.RuthBalser@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Michael E. Festa, 32nd Middlesex District (Melrose), 617-722-2018, Rep.MikeFesta@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Alice Hanlon Peisch, 14th Norfolk District (Wellesley), 617-722-2080, Rep.AlicePeisch@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Douglas W. Petersen, 8th Essex District (Marblehead), 617-722-2637, Rep.DouglasPetersen@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Ellen Story, 3rd Hampshire (Amherst), 617-722-2011, Rep.EllenStory@hou.state.ma.us.
Sen. Robert A. O’Leary, Cape and Islands (Barnstable), 617-722-1570, Robert.O'Leary@state.ma.us.
What are these legislators thinking? Why would they want to decriminalize bestiality? Their bill is H819, "An Act Abolishing Certain Laws of the Commonwealth," sodomy/bestiality being only one of them. It is soon to be acted on by the Judiciary Committee. (Urge this committee to kill it!)
H819 would overturn Mass. law Ch. 272, Sec. 34: Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
Bear in mind that there are bills which "only" lessen the penalities for bestiality, or which keep it a crime while decriminalizing human-on-human sodomy. Legislators sponsoring these bills will appear in our upcoming list of Massachusetts' Most Dangerous Legislators, Part II.
Part III will include all those sponsoring very bad bills currently in the legislature. Part IV will list all those publicly taking money from radical homosexual political action committees.
Rep. David Paul Linsky (lead sponsor), 5th Middlesex (Natick), 617-722-2210, Rep.DavidLinsky@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Ruth B. Balser, 12th Middlesex District (Newton), 617-722-2060, Rep.RuthBalser@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Michael E. Festa, 32nd Middlesex District (Melrose), 617-722-2018, Rep.MikeFesta@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Alice Hanlon Peisch, 14th Norfolk District (Wellesley), 617-722-2080, Rep.AlicePeisch@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Douglas W. Petersen, 8th Essex District (Marblehead), 617-722-2637, Rep.DouglasPetersen@hou.state.ma.us.
Rep. Ellen Story, 3rd Hampshire (Amherst), 617-722-2011, Rep.EllenStory@hou.state.ma.us.
Sen. Robert A. O’Leary, Cape and Islands (Barnstable), 617-722-1570, Robert.O'Leary@state.ma.us.
What are these legislators thinking? Why would they want to decriminalize bestiality? Their bill is H819, "An Act Abolishing Certain Laws of the Commonwealth," sodomy/bestiality being only one of them. It is soon to be acted on by the Judiciary Committee. (Urge this committee to kill it!)
H819 would overturn Mass. law Ch. 272, Sec. 34: Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
Bear in mind that there are bills which "only" lessen the penalities for bestiality, or which keep it a crime while decriminalizing human-on-human sodomy. Legislators sponsoring these bills will appear in our upcoming list of Massachusetts' Most Dangerous Legislators, Part II.
Part III will include all those sponsoring very bad bills currently in the legislature. Part IV will list all those publicly taking money from radical homosexual political action committees.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Memo to New Hampshire: Beware Romney
URGENT letter from John Haskins, Citizen of Massachusetts, to New Hampshire State Rep. Maureen C. Mooney (Feb. 27, 2006)
Please take the time to read this short letter before you meet with Governor Mitt Romney. I'm sending you two columns [linked below] I've published recently in a national forum about Romney. I encourage you to share them with other members of the New Hampshire state government, with the media, and any other persons you might choose.
Gov. Romney -- as you will become aware after reading these two short WorldNetDaily commentaries -- despite his loud claims of deep, firm pro-family beliefs, is a very different politician than one sees in public view.
He has been -- in the eyes of many alert and informed pro-family Massachusetts voters and citizens who understand the immutable authority of our written constitutions, state and federal -- a crushing disappointment.
He has demonstrated no awareness that the sovereign constitutional document which he solemnly swore to defend was written by John Adams and ratified not as merely advisory commentary to public officials, but as a protection against politicians who would seize the power of self-government from citizens and force society in a direction that violates the convictions of the citizenry. This is a man whose election as president of the United States would greatly dismay those very people who, believing him to be a man of conviction and principle, are likely to support him.
I do not know your position on the matter of homosexual marriage, but aside from the moral issues and concerns about its ultimate impact on children, there are grave constitutional problems with Mr. Romney's handling of what is widely called "gay marriage."
He flagrantly violated the state constitution and leapt well beyond even the expectations of the four militant, radical justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and used the power of the executive branch to illegally implement homosexual "marriage" -- without even waiting for the legislature to enact a law as the court wanted. All the while he pretended he was only obeying "the law."
Why did Mr. Romney go so far beyond what even the radical justices were asking for? Because he knew that most legislators were unwilling to enact any radical new law that had so little support from the public. Beyond this, the court's ruling is non-binding on the governor and the Legislature, according to the state constitution. But Gov. Romney must vigorously pretend otherwise in order to obscure his responsibility for the social, political, and constitutional crisis of illegal homosexual marriage licenses issued following his personal instructions to state officials. His instructions violated the existing law as ratified by the people's representatives -- despite the fact that the Massachusetts Constitution, by astonishing coincidence, explicitly denies courts any role in matters of marriage.
There is no dispute about these facts, and I will be happy to send you the portions of the Massachusetts Constitution that irrefutably deny the legality of both the court's homosexual marriage ruling and of Gov. Romney's subsequent, opportunistic actions.
Since Gov. Romney (under useful cover of a constitutionally void ruling, but nevertheless, unilaterally) imposed on the population of the state a fundamental change of policy on the basic building block of society, grave consequences have continued to arise. Public schoolchildren are subject to official indoctrination on homosexuality, and concerned parents are shunted aside as if they have no role in the moral and sexual education of their own children. Gov. Romney has publicly said he regards those opposed to homosexual marriage as "right-wing bigots" -- and rebuked his wife, son, and daughter-in-law for signing a petition for a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Again, Gov. Romney is NOT the man he will pretend to be when meeting with you and many inescapable parts of his political record will prove that to your complete satisfaction.
Since Gov. Romney personally imposed "homosexual marriage" in contravention of existing state law, under his administration, state and private adoption and foster care agencies increasingly give children to homosexuals, both single and "married" -- even in preference to traditional families that can offer children both a mother and a father. Is Gov. Romney unaware of the obvious: that children have a fundamental need and desire to be loved by both a father and a mother?
Please take the time to read these two articles and distribute them to others who need to know the facts of Gov. Romney's role in the biggest and most radical deconstruction of Western civilization, at least since the Bolsheviks. (Both are from WorldNetDaily.)
'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders
It's crunch time in Boston
Thanks, for your attention to this very grave matter.
John Haskins
Associate Director, Parents' Rights Coalition
(c) John Haskins
Please take the time to read this short letter before you meet with Governor Mitt Romney. I'm sending you two columns [linked below] I've published recently in a national forum about Romney. I encourage you to share them with other members of the New Hampshire state government, with the media, and any other persons you might choose.
Gov. Romney -- as you will become aware after reading these two short WorldNetDaily commentaries -- despite his loud claims of deep, firm pro-family beliefs, is a very different politician than one sees in public view.
He has been -- in the eyes of many alert and informed pro-family Massachusetts voters and citizens who understand the immutable authority of our written constitutions, state and federal -- a crushing disappointment.
He has demonstrated no awareness that the sovereign constitutional document which he solemnly swore to defend was written by John Adams and ratified not as merely advisory commentary to public officials, but as a protection against politicians who would seize the power of self-government from citizens and force society in a direction that violates the convictions of the citizenry. This is a man whose election as president of the United States would greatly dismay those very people who, believing him to be a man of conviction and principle, are likely to support him.
I do not know your position on the matter of homosexual marriage, but aside from the moral issues and concerns about its ultimate impact on children, there are grave constitutional problems with Mr. Romney's handling of what is widely called "gay marriage."
He flagrantly violated the state constitution and leapt well beyond even the expectations of the four militant, radical justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and used the power of the executive branch to illegally implement homosexual "marriage" -- without even waiting for the legislature to enact a law as the court wanted. All the while he pretended he was only obeying "the law."
Why did Mr. Romney go so far beyond what even the radical justices were asking for? Because he knew that most legislators were unwilling to enact any radical new law that had so little support from the public. Beyond this, the court's ruling is non-binding on the governor and the Legislature, according to the state constitution. But Gov. Romney must vigorously pretend otherwise in order to obscure his responsibility for the social, political, and constitutional crisis of illegal homosexual marriage licenses issued following his personal instructions to state officials. His instructions violated the existing law as ratified by the people's representatives -- despite the fact that the Massachusetts Constitution, by astonishing coincidence, explicitly denies courts any role in matters of marriage.
There is no dispute about these facts, and I will be happy to send you the portions of the Massachusetts Constitution that irrefutably deny the legality of both the court's homosexual marriage ruling and of Gov. Romney's subsequent, opportunistic actions.
Since Gov. Romney (under useful cover of a constitutionally void ruling, but nevertheless, unilaterally) imposed on the population of the state a fundamental change of policy on the basic building block of society, grave consequences have continued to arise. Public schoolchildren are subject to official indoctrination on homosexuality, and concerned parents are shunted aside as if they have no role in the moral and sexual education of their own children. Gov. Romney has publicly said he regards those opposed to homosexual marriage as "right-wing bigots" -- and rebuked his wife, son, and daughter-in-law for signing a petition for a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Again, Gov. Romney is NOT the man he will pretend to be when meeting with you and many inescapable parts of his political record will prove that to your complete satisfaction.
Since Gov. Romney personally imposed "homosexual marriage" in contravention of existing state law, under his administration, state and private adoption and foster care agencies increasingly give children to homosexuals, both single and "married" -- even in preference to traditional families that can offer children both a mother and a father. Is Gov. Romney unaware of the obvious: that children have a fundamental need and desire to be loved by both a father and a mother?
Please take the time to read these two articles and distribute them to others who need to know the facts of Gov. Romney's role in the biggest and most radical deconstruction of Western civilization, at least since the Bolsheviks. (Both are from WorldNetDaily.)
'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders
It's crunch time in Boston
Thanks, for your attention to this very grave matter.
John Haskins
Associate Director, Parents' Rights Coalition
(c) John Haskins
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Scottish Bishop Speaks the Truth on "Gay" Adoptions
"Gay" adoption is a big issue here in Massachusetts. We hope the Massachusetts Bishops stick to their guns and take this issue to court if necessary. By way of comparison, here's a Bishop in Scotland who is unafraid to speak the truth.
Bishop slams “corrupting” gay adoption plans
Gay.com (UK), Monday 27 February, 2006
A senior Catholic Bishop in Scotland has slammed proposals that will allow same-sex couples to adopt children together. The Rt Rev Joseph Devine, Bishop of Motherwell has sent a letter to Scotland’s First Minister Jack McConnell, urging him to drop the proposals and warning that the laws will erode society.
Noting that he will be branded a “bigot” for the letter, Devine says he feels the Catholic Church is being ignored in the row over the new laws. However, he promised that increasing numbers are "not prepared to stand by and watch the destruction of Christian values and truth".
According to The Herald, the letter warns that there is “mounting disquiet” about new pro-gay laws. "I am only too well aware, of course, that the conventional family unit is in decline and society is paying the price,” he writes. “But where the traditional family unit does exist, it should for the sake of the children be deemed a far more appropriate refuge for them than exposure to a homosexual or lesbian way of life.”
"No doubt for refusing to pander to the idea that homosexual and lesbian relationships are equal to heterosexual partnerships, particularly those blessed in the sight of God, I shall be termed a bigot by the politically correct hardcore in the Scottish Parliament," he added.
Bishop slams “corrupting” gay adoption plans
Gay.com (UK), Monday 27 February, 2006
A senior Catholic Bishop in Scotland has slammed proposals that will allow same-sex couples to adopt children together. The Rt Rev Joseph Devine, Bishop of Motherwell has sent a letter to Scotland’s First Minister Jack McConnell, urging him to drop the proposals and warning that the laws will erode society.
Noting that he will be branded a “bigot” for the letter, Devine says he feels the Catholic Church is being ignored in the row over the new laws. However, he promised that increasing numbers are "not prepared to stand by and watch the destruction of Christian values and truth".
According to The Herald, the letter warns that there is “mounting disquiet” about new pro-gay laws. "I am only too well aware, of course, that the conventional family unit is in decline and society is paying the price,” he writes. “But where the traditional family unit does exist, it should for the sake of the children be deemed a far more appropriate refuge for them than exposure to a homosexual or lesbian way of life.”
"No doubt for refusing to pander to the idea that homosexual and lesbian relationships are equal to heterosexual partnerships, particularly those blessed in the sight of God, I shall be termed a bigot by the politically correct hardcore in the Scottish Parliament," he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)