Matt Barber on ENDA

Check out this video from CNN with Matt Barber of CWA (a real man) talking about the problem with ENDA. Americans for Truth has posted the clip:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/matt-barber-discusses-enda-on-cnn.html

Five-Star Totalitarianism

By John Haskins

Christmas lights? Does this story even matter? No, of course not. . . . Except that it does. See:

"Red, green lights to be banned? Committee proposal says colored Christmas twinklers too religious" (WorldNetDaily, 11-6-07)

A special task force in a Colorado city has recommended banning red and green lights at the Christmas holiday because they fall among the items that are too religious for the city to sponsor. "Some symbols, even though the Supreme Court has declared that in many contexts they are secular symbols, often still send a message to some members of the community that they and their traditions are not valued and not wanted. We don't want to send that message," Seth Anthony, a spokesman for the committee, told the Fort Collins, Colo., Coloradoan. He said the recommended language does not specifically address Christmas trees by name, but the consensus was that they would not fall within acceptable decorations.

This is in Colorado -- not Massachusetts or San Francisco.

Why does it matter, you ask, frog that you are, sitting in the pot of water, enjoying the warmth ... as the temperature slowly rises?

Thinking in strategic terms about the Enemy's war plan, as C. S. Lewis was when he wrote his short classic The Screwtape Letters, this little "test balloon" is designed to help lazy Christians and their Lexus-driving pastors get used to the idea of Big Brother gradually evolving into the polar opposite of what our Founding Fathers designed. Can you handle an oppressively, anti-Christian state imposing gradually, more and more aggressively an official ideology that is actually ... AntiChrist-ianity... upon a nation founded by Christians, until every town, every school, every business, every shop, every church and every family has passively accepted the transition? Red and green holiday lights are just too ... religious. But don't worry. Relax. Enjoy the warm water. They're giving you plenty of time to get acclimated.

This is not your grandfather's old-fashioned, concentration-camp totalitarianism. It's the five-star version. An extremely comfortable variation of a hybridized Marxist-Fascist paradise, with no need for an archipelago of concentration camps, no starvation, no tanks in the streets, or firing squads. Just because the Christians may not have freedom and their children may never know what America was, doesn't mean they won't still have their shopping malls, their satellite TV and their SUVs.

Some symbols "... often still send a message to some members of the community that they and their traditions are not valued and not wanted. We don't want to send that message..." No, we don't want to send that message -- not to anyone who might be offended by the religious heritage of the country they are living in. We just want to sent that message to Christians. "You, your traditions and your beliefs are not valued. Shut up and go away. Oh, wait. Not so fast. You can leave the kids with us."

John Haskins is an analyst and writer at the Parents' Rights Coalition of Massachusetts.

"No Place for Hate" Now In Acton

"No Place for Hate", the program pushed on communities across America by the Anti-Defamation League, is now gearing up in Acton, Mass. Why? There haven't been any reported incidents of racial or ethnic bullying or "hate crimes" in Acton. Why is this group needed there? It's a very ethnically and religiously diverse community -- and everyone gets along fine. It's already a community without hate. (Note that "No Place for Hate" as an organization never defines its terms "culture", "bias" or "hate.") Yet, we saw this notice in the local freebie ad magazine, Action Unlimited:

No Place for Hate Committee
The No Place for Hate Committee of Acton is a group of community members who are dedicated to promoting respect for cultural differences, opposing all forms of bias and hatred, and building bridges among the diverse populations in our town. The Committee is sponsored by the Massachusetts Anti-Defamation League, and is officially sanctioned by the Acton Board of Selectmen. New members are welcome! ... Among other actions ... we will view a video from the Peabody Museum and Peabody No Place for Hate Committee [hmm... look at what else Peabody's Committee has done] entitled "What's the Point?" dealing with distorted perceptions that can be held about a neighborhood of immigrants and what can be done to correct the situation."

Is there some hidden agenda???

"No Place for Hate" Sponsor ADL Denies Holocausts

It's good to see that someone's calling the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on its hypocrisy. In Watertown, the Armenian community is challenging the ADL's "No Place for Hate" campaign (which Watertown officially joined in 2005), because the ADL refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century. Even the Boston Globe editorialized today that it is "a genocide not to be denied." (Of course, both the Globe and the ADL agree to deny the ongoing American Holocaust of abortion.)

But, as usual, the Globe does not give the full story on the "No Place for Hate" (NPfH) campaign. It is being used by the homosexual extremists to silence any opposition to their demands. It's not just about the grievances enumerated by the Globe. i.e. prejudice based on "ethnic, racial, and religious" lines. It's part of the national effort advocating for "hate crimes" laws to give extra protection to special groups, like homosexuals or "transgenders" -- or people who just need to "express their gender" in some undefined way. And the Globe ignores the eruption over the "No Place for Hate" campaign in the Watertown Tab newspaper in May, which we've referenced.

Here's a recent post by John DiMascio on a townie blog:
... Now there are also other questions [besides the Armenian genocide] that need to be addressed. It’s not like the Town Council just voted a proclamation and put up a sign. Taxpayer’ resources are being are being spent to support it. Public employees work on the program while on the clock. The program uses other resources as well. I believe they have some sort of diversity seminars for school children. That means they use the schools.
1) Given the genocide question, I don’t think anyone living in Watertown is comfortable having their taxes spent to support a program connected to the ADL.
2) Even the NPTH committee admitted in a recent letter that Watertown has always been welcoming. Why the heck are we spending money on this program? Last time I checked we don’t have history of lynchings, cross-burning, or hosing down innocent children (as Younger fears we’ll do).
Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Town employees working on this program do so with honorable intentions. I’m sure they are just as disturbed at the recent revelations.That said; our Town employees are a valuable resource. We shouldn’t be wasting on a program that is in anyway connected to Abraham Foxman or his ilk. And honestly, we really don’t need NPTH in Watertown.
[emphasis added]

We had a front-line encounter with one of the neighborhood NPfH gangs. As reported by Traditional Values Coalition, "A Blue Cross/Blue Shield funded group called "No Place for Hate" operated in concert with the homosexual organizations to condemn those who favor traditional marriages as engaging in "hate speech." Specifically, in Peabody in 2004, the mayor and his homosexual activist cronies poured out of City Hall with "NPfH" placards, to try to intimidate an Parents' Rights Coalition/Article 8 Alliance (now MassResistance) press conference on the homosexual lobby's challenge to Rep. Joyce Spiliotis. Clearly, that hateful attempt to silence any opposition to sodomy "marriage" (by labeling it "hate") had nothing to do with combatting "ethnic, racial, and religious" prejudice, which is what the Boston Globe claims the NPfH program is all about.

The "No Place for Hate" campaign receives financial support from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts. And remember who just became the Executive Director of that organization: homosexual extremist and former State Senator Jarrett Barrios. Hmm...

"No-Free-Speech Zones" -- the Left's New Silencing Technique

We've observed a trend used by law enforcement officials over the past few years: a new speech-control device at public events called the "Free-Speech Zone." This of course means there's also a "No-Free-Speech Zone" -- that would be exactly where one wants to be when trying to get the word out at a public event! Needless to say, the "zone" is selectively enforced.

Just last weekend, Lowell implemented a "No-Free-Speech Zone" -- at least for one conservative candidate. Kevin Thompson, Constitution Party candidate for Congress in the 5th District (Marty Meehan's old seat), ran into an unexpected problem as he was trying to gather signatures at Lowell's Folk Festival. He was told he had to move away from City Hall Plaza into a "Free-Speech Zone". Check out Thompson's amazing report:

Well, we had a most interesting time at the Lowell Folk Festival this past weekend. I was there on Saturday collecting signatures for ballot access, when I was approached by the park police. This official approached as I was talking with a couple from Lowell who were willing to sign. The official stood there for a moment and waited till they were about to pick up the pen and she then informed me that I would have to leave the particular area. I was in City Hall Plaza (in front of, not in, the stage area). She asked me to move into the “Free Speech Zone.” Yes, apparently in this woman’s mind, free speech can only take place in designated zones. I could not believe what I was hearing! So, I took out my camera and shot some footage. You will want to see this for yourself. http://www.thompson07.com/folkfestival.htm

We first encountered a "free speech zone" at the Democrat National Convention in Boston in 2004. (Even the ACLU objected then.) It was hideously located under a still-standing segment of the expressway -- a small area caged in by 12-foot chain-link fence. We gave a great speech about our eroding Constitutional freedoms that a few young Leftists seemed to appreciate. (Sadly, it wasn't recorded for posterity.) Also posted some really great signs about John Kerry and Margaret Marshall and homosexual "marriage".

Our second experience with a "free-speech zone" was later that week in the birthplace of American liberty, Lexington. Some town fools had an idea of breaking tradition to honor the Democrat Convention, and put on a special re-enactment of the battle. (This was a sacrilege for anyone into the specialness of the Patriots' Day re-enactment! And it was fitting that hardly anyone showed up for that July show.) A great crowd of our Article 8 activists showed up with banners advocating the removal of our tyrannical "gay marriage" judges. The police corralled us into a little pen off on the other side of the street -- the "free speech zone" -- and wouldn't even allow any standing or walking in the closed-off street (where nothing else was scheduled to happen).

Expect to see more of this ... depending on which side you're on.

Pro-Life Activists Who Don't Hold Back the Truth

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that pro-life protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in showing a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (It's encouraging to hear about a good ruling once in a while!) But the attorney for the defendants noted that, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," and urged "they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible."

Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."

That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.

The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.

See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).

... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...

... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."