The Attack on Christmas Continues – Boston Style

Ready for a Boston-style assault on Christmas? Check out “The Slutcracker” coming to the Somerville Theatre. It’s a celebration of strippers, sadomasochism, transsexuals, and “the carefree realm of sexual fantasy.” Of course, the blurbs in Boston Magazine, the Boston Herald, or the Boston Globe only hint at how raunchy it is.

Unbelievably, the Boston Herald even jokes about sexual abuse of children in its Holiday Arts Preview:

And if the Santa Claus in your life needs some lovin’, “The Slutcracker” may be just the thing to set the mood. A parody retelling of the classic, written and directed by Vanessa White, this sexy, freaky, holiday, zeitgeist spectacular runs at the Somerville Theatre Dec. 10-20. Let’s just hope Drosselmeyer doesn’t do anything illegal with the kids.

What a holiday message.

Boston Magazine downplays the content:

Bringing Burlesque back to Boston, The Slutcracker dance-theater production features can-can dancers, drag kings, hoopers, ballerinas, acrobats, belly dancers, and more. In the "adults only" performance, the virginal Clara takes a detour from her trip through The Land of Snow and The Land of Sweets to embark on a journey into her own sexual awakening.

A photo from the 2008 production rehearsal illustrates the S+M content: 


Instead of dancing around a nutcracker, "Slutcracker" provides a giant candycane dildo:

All worthy of praise from the Boston press:

“This is some next-level shit.” – Boston Phoenix

“Destined to be a holiday classic.” – Fox 25 News

The Boston Globe recommends “Slutcracker” along with other “edgy” holiday time shows, beginning with a mention of a "holiday" event at the vile Ramrod gay bar. Also:

The Salem Theatre Company is offering … Jeff Goode’s “The Eight: Reindeer Monologues,’’ a show open only to audience members 18 and older. “Monologues’’ follows a scandal at the North Pole when one of Santa’s reindeers accuses him of sexual harassment. The company is calling its holiday programming “Naughty & Nice.’’ Gary LaParl, the Salem company’s executive director [says] “Christmas isn’t always about the nice stuff. We wanted to do something a little edgier.’’ The same can be said for “The Slutcracker,’’ a holiday burlesque show running at the Somerville Theatre next month. It’s definitely only for viewers 18 and older.

The “carefree sexual fantasy” show stars a troupe of strippers and a transsexual male-to-female stripper who brags of working “in NYC as a professional domme for various houses of domination” and proudly relates his “safe sex” education work:

I began volunteering at Gay Men’s Health Crisis as a Peer for the House of Latex Project in 1998 and eventually became a full time staff member. I was “Big Sis” of the House of Latex, a legendary ever-walking, ever-serving HIV prevention and education house that represents at balls within the ballroom community.... I have been an advocate for the health and wellness of the Transgender community and Sex Industry workers since 1997. I am very well-known and respected within the LGBTQ community nationally.... I became a full-time staff member at Cambridge Cares About AIDS in March 2009 as the Health Educator and Web Designer of TransCEND; a community-based HIV prevention and health education program of Cambridge Cares About AIDS (CCA) by and for transgender women. TransCEND provides 1 on 1 counseling and group support, HIV counseling and testing, referrals to transgender friendly legal and medical providers, safer sex and injection supplies, hygiene products, complimentary cosmetics and have a welcoming community safe space.

Massachusetts taxpayer funds have gone to Cambridge Cares About AIDS (associated with AIDS Action Committee of Mass.). Note that this transsexual exhibitionist is listed as Health Educator/Web Designer for the TransCEND program at "Cambridge Cares About AIDS."

Why Is Google Harassing the MassResistance Blog?

Brian Camenker at MassResistance sent out the following email, laying bare (uh-oh ... is that "nudity"???) Google's absurd excuse for blocking this blog with a warning page. Yes, it's "nudity":

FOX News in New York asks Google: Why are you blocking the MassResistance blog?
(MassResistance email alert, July 24, 2009)

Google has finally given its reason for blocking the MassResistance blog, but it took a call from Fox News in New York to get it. And it seems to be more political - and frightening - than anything else.

Since 2005 the MassResistance blog has been hosted on Google's blogspot blogging site with few problems. For the last several weeks Google has been blocking the MassResistance blog with a warning screen alleging "objectionable content", and requiring readers to click through to get in. The block was put on almost immediately after researcher Amy Contrada posted some articles and photos from transgender and gay-pride related public events, in preparation for the July 14 transgender bill hearing. Several news outlets, including WorldNetDaily, have covered this incident.

WorldNetDaily: Google blocks blog exposing homosexual agenda; "Actions represent trial balloon for government censorship of 'hate' speech"

Fox News gets involved
Earlier this week FoxNews.com in New York called the MassResistance office asking about Google blocking our blog. Fox reporter Josh Miller said they were interested in the story and could see that given Google's huge power it could lead to censorship issues across the Internet. We discussed the details with him. Later that day Miller called us back and said that Fox finally got through to Google headquarters in San Francisco about this. Google told him that we had violated their terms of service regarding content by posting "nudity", and therefore they had put an "interstitial" (i.e., block) on our blog.

Not "nudity" by any rational standard - this is political
This is a completely absurd definition of "nudity." They are referring to our June 27 posting on "gender expression" - a political issue. You can go to the blog page HERE (just click through their warning page) and judge for yourself.
First, the photos they object to are of homosexual and transgender activists doing bizarre things at public events on public streets, where uniformed police were present. Why weren't any of the people arrested for obscenity, one might ask, if Google finds it so offensive?

Second, none of the pictures show genitals or fully "nude" people. Interestingly, they are mostly pictures of women who have amputated their breasts to "become" men, and who are marching shirtless as a statement of their "masculinity". (Ironically, according to Google's own absurd transgender-support policies these women would be considered "men" anyway since that's their "gender identity"!)

Google clearly knows that these are photos of public political events, not Playboy pinups or pornography. And, of course, Google certainly knows what happens at homosexual-related events because Google participates in them. Google is a frequent participant in Gay Pride events around the country, including the ones in San Francisco and New York which are particularly obscene. Furthermore, Google's blogspot site also hosts some of the most obscene, hateful and outrageous homosexual blogs. It's hard to believe that people would even write some of that stuff. Somehow they don't get flagged by Google for anything "offensive". Most people around the country who see this have agreed that this is viewpoint censorship: unquestionably a political act by Google, not an "anti-pornography" move. And as we said to Fox News - it's MassResistance now, but later it could be you.

Scene from in a recent San Francisco Gay Pride Parade

Story dropped by Fox News
We spoke to FoxNews.com today and they informed us that at the last minute they decided not to publish the story on their site. They didn't give a reason. However, the reporter reiterated that these facts still stand and it's definitely a concern.

As we've said before, we think people need to take this seriously. Certainly WorldNetDaily and others are...

Weakness of "Marriage-is-about-children" Argument

This story from Washington state points out the weakness of the argument that we must protect marriage so every child will have a mother and father. This is the exclusive line used by Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage to justify real marriage.

"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."

All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.

No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07

This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.

Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.

DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.

GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.

KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.

LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.

KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.

PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.

STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.

GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.

More Romney on Abortion

Time to reread this interview by Chris Wallace (FoxNews Sunday) with Romney from last February, posted on the NewsBusters blog:

Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006

Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.

Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"

Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."

Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"

Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."