Not a single "hate crime" has been reported in the town of Acton, Massachusetts according to the FBI online reports for the last ten years (1995-2005). So why does Acton need a "No Place for Hate" committee?
Reports in the Associated Press and Lowell Sun indicate that Acton is now reconsidering its link to the ADL (Anti-Defamation League, which sponsors the "No Place for Hate" program), after the revelations that the ADL refused to recognize the Armenian holocaust.
We've just learned (8-24-07) that the Acton Board of Selectmen have not yet taken final action, but are still pondering the situation. We certainly hope the Selectmen, and State Rep. James Eldridge (co-chairman of this unneeded committee), will see to it that it disbands.
The planned production this November at the Acton-Boxborough Regional High School of a politically motivated, pro-homosexual propaganda play, "The Laramie Project," is the sort of event the "No Place for Hate" groups promote. It is likewise ill-conceived and should be reconsidered.
Let's repeat: No hate crimes reported in Acton. No hate crimes reported in Boxborough. So please, busy-body leftists, just leave the towns alone! See our earlier posting: "No Place for Hate Now in Acton," 8-6-07.) From the confusing report in the Lowell Sun (8-22-07):
Yesterday morning, officials in Acton also decided to disassociate their No Place For Hate program from the ADL, according to State Rep. Jamie Eldridge, who is co-chairman of the No Place For Hate program in Acton. "With the news that the national ADL reversed their position, we're not taking any action," said Eldridge, also a candidate for Marty Meehan's vacated 5th Congressional District seat.
Showing posts with label No Place for Hate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Place for Hate. Show all posts
Friday, August 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
All Towns Should End Ties to "No Place for Hate"
We're glad to see that Watertown has severed its ties with the hate group, "No Place for Hate." This is an intolerant organization which over and over has shown its bias and bigotry towards people who hold traditional faith and values.The Watertown controversy picked up steam when the Anti-Defamation League's denial of the Armenian genocide was made public by a concerned citizen. How could the Boston Globe join in denying that genocide? They were forced to make critical comments about the ADL! It would be too much to hope the Globe would take its blinders off, and recognize ADL/No Place for Hate's other denials regarding the abortion genocide, the health risks of homosexuality, the rights of parents to the moral education of their own children, etc. See our earlier reports on "No Place for Hate":
David Parker's Civil Disobedience the Only Way He Could Be Heard (5-12-05)
Pink Triangles and Police Lists in Bedford (6-11-05)
Lexington Radicals Still Calling Names (7-3-05)
Watertown Declares Itself "Place for Hate" -- of Traditional Values (5-23-07)
"No Place for Hate" Sponsor ADL Denies Holocausts (8-3-07)
No Place for Hate Now in Acton (8-6-07)
Recent stories in the Boston Globe:
Town ends ties with No Place for Hate (8-15-07)
We wonder what the "good works" are supposedly done by the group? "Diversity days"?
Pressure mounting on ADL program; Armenian groups expand initiative (8-16-07)
"The controversy over No Place For Hate, a national program that had encountered no controversy until now, centers on what critics say is the ADL's refusal to acknowledge the genocide."
There has been controversy over this program before (see our reports above); the Globe just chose not to cover it, since it was over their pet project, pushing homosexuality.
". . . in 1999 [the ADL] it launched the No Place For Hate program. Under the program, communities organize diversity days and other events focused on challenging bigotry, and after a year they receive placards to be posted in public, declaring the community as "No Place For Hate."
Now what "bigotry" would those "diversity days" have in mind?
Local chapter breaks with ADL position; Armenian genocide at issue (8-17-07)
A painful truth (8-18-07) By Rachel Kaprielian [State Rep., Watertown] and Alan Dershowitz
ADL local leader fired on Armenian issue; Genocide question sparked bitter debate (8-19-07)
2 members of regional ADL board quit (8-19-07)
Jewish groups pressure the ADL (8-21-07)
Friday, August 03, 2007
"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...
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...
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Watertown Declares Itself "Place for Hate" -- of Traditional Values
Reading about State Senator Jarrett Barrios' selection to head the Mass. Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation made us think about some of the bad programs it supports. Like the campaign to get towns to join the "No Place for Hate" network. Coincidentally, we were just referred to a hateful editorial in Watertown Tab, celebrating that town's admission to this "Limit Free Speech" club called "No Place for Hate". Hate is not defined, of course, by this campaign. As we wrote two years ago:
Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER! ... How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
The "No Place for Hate" campaign is an imitation of the extra-governmental organizations ("Civil Rights Tribunals") that pushed the envelope for ultra-leftist and homosexual causes in Canada. These are community-based "Brown Shirt" clubs, and only haters of traditional Judeo-Christian values need apply. Ironically, a nominally Jewish group -- the Anti-Defamation League -- is behind "No Place for Hate"! But then, the liberal Jews threw out their Bible-based beliefs and values a long time ago. They're wandering in the desert again, ignoring the word of God.
While this will take up a lot of space, we believe the exchange below regarding Watertown's naming as a "No Place for Hate" community is worth preserving (and the local papers remove their links quickly). First, we reprint the hateful, irrational editorial by the Watertown Tab; then, a good response by Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the Fatherhood Coalition of Massachusetts.
Watertown Tab Editorial
Editorial: The left finally wins one in the culture war (5-10-07)
Bellevue Road curmudgeon Ralph Filicchia, to no one’s surprise, is “offended” that Watertown has declared itself “No Place for Hate.”
The Town Council voted unanimously in 2005 to adopt the “No Place for Hate” resolution, which says in part that “all acts of subtle or overt racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry substantially undermine our communities, schools and the promise of equal justice…”
Not exactly incendiary stuff. But Filicchia strode to the mic at Town Council on Tuesday to demand that the “No Place for Hate” sign be torn down and the resolution rescinded.
“The proclamation is discriminatory and a violation and infringement upon my civil rights as an American citizen,” Filicchia said. “I want the right to speak out without being guilty of a hate crime.”
There’s one way in which Filicchia makes an interesting argument. Labeling homophobia “hate” short-circuits debate over whether gay folks should be tolerated. After all, who could possibly be in favor of “hate?”
This paper has no sympathy for Filicchia and his right-wing fellow travelers, however few they may be. The right is simply reaping the whirlwind of years of its own highly successful debate-framing.
Let’s start with the term “pro-life.” How can anyone be against life? It’s a cunning coinage, though, that has done much to help the anti-abortion cause.
Or how about those on the right who proclaim or imply a monopoly on “patriotism?” Leftists are finally realizing they can reclaim the word in the name of virtues like peace.
Of course there’s also “family values,” which begs the questions “What kind of family?” and “Whose values?”
So the left’s successful conversion of the term “hate” to include opposition to homosexuality and diversity is a nice coup. It’s a joy to see the sour looks on the faces of right-wingers as they get a taste of their own medicine.
Response:
Mark Charalambous (Fatherhood Coalition Spokesman)
It comes as no surprise that the Tab editors consider the anti-abortion movement's use of "pro-life" as "cunning coinage" ("Editorial: The leftfinally wins one in the culture war," May 10). After two generations worth of politically correct indoctrination in our educational system, logical reasoning has become a rare commodity.
The word "choice" describes a countless number of events experienced daily in every single person's life, starting at the very beginning of the day with, perhaps, "Should I get up now or snooze for a few minutes?" Perhaps followed soon after with "Do I have time for a third cup of coffee?" Choices are made every moment of our lives. In fact, one could argue that consciousness itself is nothing more than a series of choices, constituting our very sense of existence.
The use of this neutral and innocuous word to describe the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child/fetus remains the single greatest example of the cultural left's corruption of language. "Affirmative action" as a euphemism for racial discrimination runs a close second. Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.
In comparison, it requires no stretch of the imagination or strained logic to recognize that "pro-life" is in fact a completely reasonable choice ofwords to describe the anti-abortion position. The issue at stake is life --human life, I might add -- and those opposed to abortion wish to prevent its taking.
So let's see now. I find rap music repellent, and I consider this "art form"and lifestyle representative of a degenerate culture. Under Watertown's "No Place for Hate" resolution, that would easily qualify as "hate speech." Similarly, I believe that homosexuality -- which is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior -- is abnormal. (Once again, for the logic-challenged Tab staff and readers: "normal" is not just a word with some fuzzy, malleable definition; it means "that which functions according to its design.")
It is to me a no-brainer that any healthy society would draw clear distinctions both in custom and law between biological nuclear (heterosexual) families and homosexual "families" that require artificial means to produce or obtain their children. That, undoubtedly, also qualifies as "hate speech," and might cost me my job or even worse if the 'No Place for Hate' crowd continue to have their way.
I'm not sure if Mr. Filicchia is representative of a substantial proportion of the Watertown population who, except for him, have been mugged and muzzled by the PC thought police. I fear that he is the lone boy in the crowd of sycophants crying out that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps his example of "speaking truth to power," to borrow a phrase from the cultural left's history, will motivate others to follow suit.
-- Mark Charalambous, Leominster
Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER! ... How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
The "No Place for Hate" campaign is an imitation of the extra-governmental organizations ("Civil Rights Tribunals") that pushed the envelope for ultra-leftist and homosexual causes in Canada. These are community-based "Brown Shirt" clubs, and only haters of traditional Judeo-Christian values need apply. Ironically, a nominally Jewish group -- the Anti-Defamation League -- is behind "No Place for Hate"! But then, the liberal Jews threw out their Bible-based beliefs and values a long time ago. They're wandering in the desert again, ignoring the word of God.
While this will take up a lot of space, we believe the exchange below regarding Watertown's naming as a "No Place for Hate" community is worth preserving (and the local papers remove their links quickly). First, we reprint the hateful, irrational editorial by the Watertown Tab; then, a good response by Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the Fatherhood Coalition of Massachusetts.
Watertown Tab Editorial
Editorial: The left finally wins one in the culture war (5-10-07)
Bellevue Road curmudgeon Ralph Filicchia, to no one’s surprise, is “offended” that Watertown has declared itself “No Place for Hate.”
The Town Council voted unanimously in 2005 to adopt the “No Place for Hate” resolution, which says in part that “all acts of subtle or overt racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry substantially undermine our communities, schools and the promise of equal justice…”
Not exactly incendiary stuff. But Filicchia strode to the mic at Town Council on Tuesday to demand that the “No Place for Hate” sign be torn down and the resolution rescinded.
“The proclamation is discriminatory and a violation and infringement upon my civil rights as an American citizen,” Filicchia said. “I want the right to speak out without being guilty of a hate crime.”
There’s one way in which Filicchia makes an interesting argument. Labeling homophobia “hate” short-circuits debate over whether gay folks should be tolerated. After all, who could possibly be in favor of “hate?”
This paper has no sympathy for Filicchia and his right-wing fellow travelers, however few they may be. The right is simply reaping the whirlwind of years of its own highly successful debate-framing.
Let’s start with the term “pro-life.” How can anyone be against life? It’s a cunning coinage, though, that has done much to help the anti-abortion cause.
Or how about those on the right who proclaim or imply a monopoly on “patriotism?” Leftists are finally realizing they can reclaim the word in the name of virtues like peace.
Of course there’s also “family values,” which begs the questions “What kind of family?” and “Whose values?”
So the left’s successful conversion of the term “hate” to include opposition to homosexuality and diversity is a nice coup. It’s a joy to see the sour looks on the faces of right-wingers as they get a taste of their own medicine.
Response:
Mark Charalambous (Fatherhood Coalition Spokesman)
It comes as no surprise that the Tab editors consider the anti-abortion movement's use of "pro-life" as "cunning coinage" ("Editorial: The leftfinally wins one in the culture war," May 10). After two generations worth of politically correct indoctrination in our educational system, logical reasoning has become a rare commodity.
The word "choice" describes a countless number of events experienced daily in every single person's life, starting at the very beginning of the day with, perhaps, "Should I get up now or snooze for a few minutes?" Perhaps followed soon after with "Do I have time for a third cup of coffee?" Choices are made every moment of our lives. In fact, one could argue that consciousness itself is nothing more than a series of choices, constituting our very sense of existence.
The use of this neutral and innocuous word to describe the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child/fetus remains the single greatest example of the cultural left's corruption of language. "Affirmative action" as a euphemism for racial discrimination runs a close second. Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.
In comparison, it requires no stretch of the imagination or strained logic to recognize that "pro-life" is in fact a completely reasonable choice ofwords to describe the anti-abortion position. The issue at stake is life --human life, I might add -- and those opposed to abortion wish to prevent its taking.
So let's see now. I find rap music repellent, and I consider this "art form"and lifestyle representative of a degenerate culture. Under Watertown's "No Place for Hate" resolution, that would easily qualify as "hate speech." Similarly, I believe that homosexuality -- which is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior -- is abnormal. (Once again, for the logic-challenged Tab staff and readers: "normal" is not just a word with some fuzzy, malleable definition; it means "that which functions according to its design.")
It is to me a no-brainer that any healthy society would draw clear distinctions both in custom and law between biological nuclear (heterosexual) families and homosexual "families" that require artificial means to produce or obtain their children. That, undoubtedly, also qualifies as "hate speech," and might cost me my job or even worse if the 'No Place for Hate' crowd continue to have their way.
I'm not sure if Mr. Filicchia is representative of a substantial proportion of the Watertown population who, except for him, have been mugged and muzzled by the PC thought police. I fear that he is the lone boy in the crowd of sycophants crying out that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps his example of "speaking truth to power," to borrow a phrase from the cultural left's history, will motivate others to follow suit.
-- Mark Charalambous, Leominster
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Lexington Radicals Still Calling Names
We know how popular MassResistance is among the homosexual radicals and their fellow-traveller allies in Lexington. So we thought we'd respond to their most recent name-calling in the Lexington Minuteman (June 30).
Brian Camenker (director of Article 8 Alliance) had a guest commentary in the June 23 issue of the Lexington Minuteman, which answered their nonsensical earlier attacks on traditional moral values defended by his group. He wrote:
"They harangue that Article 8 is a 'hate group' because we oppose homosexual marriage. Across America, this is a mainstream position. Last November, 11 states voted that way, and [the] gay lobby in Massachusetts is afraid of a vote here. We're also critical of homosexuality being presented in schools, and of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view, arguably supported by a majority of parents in this country."
Oh, the horror! How could he say there's something objectionable in homosexual behavior?!! This especially angered one Susan Cyr of Revere Street, who continued to try to link Camenker with the predestinationists from Kansas, and racists during the civil rights struggle:
"So thanks for helping clarify their [Article 8, David Parker, Rev. Snyder] positions as well. I'd like to use your quote to illustrate your position, 'We're also critical .... of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view.' Thanks for that information. I think this quote speaks volumes about what you represent and I think Fred Phelps would agree with your position. So you are saying it's not really about school programs, families or marriage — it is about being gay. You are critical of people just because they are gay. You said you don't think this position is similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle. Again, thanks for shining this very bright light on who you are!"
Ms. Cyr, think about this: Most Americans (including most of those who object to homosexual behavior) would say that what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. At the same time, most Americans still believe that not only is homosexual behavior objectionable morally, it is against nature, it is perverted, and it is a grave concern for the public health. (People are just more hesitant to say so now, because they don't like being called "homophobes".)
But when homosexuals push their behavior in our faces, promote it, and demand societal approval, it's an altogether different thing. That's the problem now: homosexuals' sexuality is no longer a private matter. The homosexual radicals have politicized it and now brazenly insist:
"We will do it in our bedrooms, AND ... we will label our homosexuality a 'right' in the State House, we will proclaim it moral in your churches, we will publish it in your newspaper wedding pages, we will exhibit it on the sidewalks, we will throw out first pitches and cruise at Fenway Park, and WE WILL INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BRING AS MANY OF THEM INTO THE LIFESTYLE AS POSSIBLE."
But, according to Ms. Cyr, to object is hateful and equivalent to racism!
Getting back to Camenker's guest opinion, he also wrote:
"There's the Orwellian comparison, constantly repeated, describing the school's imposition of homosexuality on David Parker's child as 'inclusive' but Parker's concerns as 'divisive' and similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle.
"They wail that Article 8 is an 'outside group.' That's where the real hypocrisy sets in. From the beginning, everything they've done has had the fingerprints of outsiders, from the ADL [Anti-Defamation League, connected to 'No Place for Hate'] to Human Rights Campaign to GLSEN to Freedom to Marry Coalition. It's everywhere.
"For example, Meg Soens claims she's just a concerned parent. But she taught a workshop, sponsored by the national homosexual organization GLSEN, titled, 'Getting Gay and Lesbian Issues Included in Elementary School Staff Development, Curriculum Development, and the PTA.' Earlier this year a GLSEN representative gave a presentation at the middle school. And isn't Carol Rose [who wrote a guest commentary against Parker and appeared on Boston TV criticizing him] the executive director of the Mass. ACLU?"
This same Meg Soens [click here for wedding photo] had a letter in the recent Minuteman which mentioned her wife's name twice. (Repetition is a key device in de-sensitizing the masses.) And she went on about how happy they were with the wonderful Lexington schools (where Soens wields tremendous influence), where their children are so fortunate to be enrolled. (It's all about happy children and families. Repeat that over and over. Also be sure to insinuate that those hateful people are trying to break up families!) She worries this paradise is threatened by evil forces:
"Celia and I moved here for the public schools , and we continue to appreciate what the school system and the town provides for our entire family. What has been a great year for our children, however, could easily have been tarnished by the recent effort to make our town’s public elementary school classrooms less safe and welcoming for children like our own, kids who have two moms, kids whose parents are gay or lesbian. Fortunately, the interim superintendent supported the school staff as they worked together to keep Estabrook’s classrooms safe and inclusive to all kids, regardless of what kind of family they come from."
So, she asserts David Parker and Brian Camenker wanted to make the schools "less safe" for her children! Camenker had answered that the week before:
"All David Parker asks is to be notified when adults discuss homosexual relationships or transgenderism with his 6-year-old son, and to be able to opt his son out of such discussions. That's it. By any objective measure, his requests are completely valid. And the Lexington parents who came to his side are serious and thoughtful. I had worked with these kinds of situations in Newton, so last January David called me for some advice. He needed some support, especially since so much of this emanates from national groups. Article 8 Alliance agreed to work with him."
Not a good enough explanation for the arrogant and condescending activists in Lexington. Reaching a new low, The Minuteman even published a reprimand from a 15-year-old calling Camenker immature!
Brian Camenker (director of Article 8 Alliance) had a guest commentary in the June 23 issue of the Lexington Minuteman, which answered their nonsensical earlier attacks on traditional moral values defended by his group. He wrote:
"They harangue that Article 8 is a 'hate group' because we oppose homosexual marriage. Across America, this is a mainstream position. Last November, 11 states voted that way, and [the] gay lobby in Massachusetts is afraid of a vote here. We're also critical of homosexuality being presented in schools, and of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view, arguably supported by a majority of parents in this country."
Oh, the horror! How could he say there's something objectionable in homosexual behavior?!! This especially angered one Susan Cyr of Revere Street, who continued to try to link Camenker with the predestinationists from Kansas, and racists during the civil rights struggle:
"So thanks for helping clarify their [Article 8, David Parker, Rev. Snyder] positions as well. I'd like to use your quote to illustrate your position, 'We're also critical .... of homosexual behavior in general. That's also a legitimate point of view.' Thanks for that information. I think this quote speaks volumes about what you represent and I think Fred Phelps would agree with your position. So you are saying it's not really about school programs, families or marriage — it is about being gay. You are critical of people just because they are gay. You said you don't think this position is similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle. Again, thanks for shining this very bright light on who you are!"
Ms. Cyr, think about this: Most Americans (including most of those who object to homosexual behavior) would say that what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. At the same time, most Americans still believe that not only is homosexual behavior objectionable morally, it is against nature, it is perverted, and it is a grave concern for the public health. (People are just more hesitant to say so now, because they don't like being called "homophobes".)
But when homosexuals push their behavior in our faces, promote it, and demand societal approval, it's an altogether different thing. That's the problem now: homosexuals' sexuality is no longer a private matter. The homosexual radicals have politicized it and now brazenly insist:
"We will do it in our bedrooms, AND ... we will label our homosexuality a 'right' in the State House, we will proclaim it moral in your churches, we will publish it in your newspaper wedding pages, we will exhibit it on the sidewalks, we will throw out first pitches and cruise at Fenway Park, and WE WILL INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BRING AS MANY OF THEM INTO THE LIFESTYLE AS POSSIBLE."
But, according to Ms. Cyr, to object is hateful and equivalent to racism!
Getting back to Camenker's guest opinion, he also wrote:
"There's the Orwellian comparison, constantly repeated, describing the school's imposition of homosexuality on David Parker's child as 'inclusive' but Parker's concerns as 'divisive' and similar to racists in the Civil Rights struggle.
"They wail that Article 8 is an 'outside group.' That's where the real hypocrisy sets in. From the beginning, everything they've done has had the fingerprints of outsiders, from the ADL [Anti-Defamation League, connected to 'No Place for Hate'] to Human Rights Campaign to GLSEN to Freedom to Marry Coalition. It's everywhere.
"For example, Meg Soens claims she's just a concerned parent. But she taught a workshop, sponsored by the national homosexual organization GLSEN, titled, 'Getting Gay and Lesbian Issues Included in Elementary School Staff Development, Curriculum Development, and the PTA.' Earlier this year a GLSEN representative gave a presentation at the middle school. And isn't Carol Rose [who wrote a guest commentary against Parker and appeared on Boston TV criticizing him] the executive director of the Mass. ACLU?"
This same Meg Soens [click here for wedding photo] had a letter in the recent Minuteman which mentioned her wife's name twice. (Repetition is a key device in de-sensitizing the masses.) And she went on about how happy they were with the wonderful Lexington schools (where Soens wields tremendous influence), where their children are so fortunate to be enrolled. (It's all about happy children and families. Repeat that over and over. Also be sure to insinuate that those hateful people are trying to break up families!) She worries this paradise is threatened by evil forces:
"Celia and I moved here for the public schools , and we continue to appreciate what the school system and the town provides for our entire family. What has been a great year for our children, however, could easily have been tarnished by the recent effort to make our town’s public elementary school classrooms less safe and welcoming for children like our own, kids who have two moms, kids whose parents are gay or lesbian. Fortunately, the interim superintendent supported the school staff as they worked together to keep Estabrook’s classrooms safe and inclusive to all kids, regardless of what kind of family they come from."
So, she asserts David Parker and Brian Camenker wanted to make the schools "less safe" for her children! Camenker had answered that the week before:
"All David Parker asks is to be notified when adults discuss homosexual relationships or transgenderism with his 6-year-old son, and to be able to opt his son out of such discussions. That's it. By any objective measure, his requests are completely valid. And the Lexington parents who came to his side are serious and thoughtful. I had worked with these kinds of situations in Newton, so last January David called me for some advice. He needed some support, especially since so much of this emanates from national groups. Article 8 Alliance agreed to work with him."
Not a good enough explanation for the arrogant and condescending activists in Lexington. Reaching a new low, The Minuteman even published a reprimand from a 15-year-old calling Camenker immature!
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Pink Triangles and Police Lists in Bedford
The Phelps "God-hates-America" crew from Kansas came to Bedford last week (to protest the rainbow flag in the middle school). That's the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-anyone-who-hasn't-yet-recognized-God's-grace hate group. Oh, by the way, the Phelps people don't approve of homosexuality either.
Those who don't think clearly, i.e. homosexual activists and their fellow travelers, use this latter element -- the Phelps disapproval of homosexuality -- to try to connect them with anyone who disapproves of homosexuality, or same-sex "marriage". Well, it doesn't wash.
One group of Bedford clergy tried to make it look like they spoke for all churches in town (when of course they didn't). They led a "diversity vigil" on the town common Monday night. Two hundred participants (including young children) smugly marched around, pumped up by their spiritual pride. The Bedford Minuteman played along, and spoke of of the "voice of unity" at this demonstration:
"A handful of anti-gay protesters from Kansas succeeded in galvanizing opposition on Bedford's Town Common Monday night as several hundred residents gathered at the stairs of First Parish [Unitarian] on the Common to hear the voice of unity.
" 'We are here to say that today is also a day that we may confirm the power of love that will not allow hate to grow,' the Rev. John Gibbons said from the steps of his church.
"He was joined by many members of Bedford's religious communities, including additional members from First Parish, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, First Church of Christ, Congregational, First Baptist Church and Burlington's Temple Shalom Emeth."
(The Catholic and Lutheran churches did not participate, as they do not support homosexual extremism and the coercive indoctrination of Bedford schoolchildren.)
The extremist demonstrators wrapped themselves in rainbow flags and wore pink triangles imprinted with "No Place for Hate". Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER!
"We in this town will not let voices of division prevail," said one minister. Another praised the town's teachers and school administrators (who fly rainbow flags and propose middle school cross-dressing days) for "ensuring safety for the student population." A few days earlier, the Bedford Selectmen had adopted a "Unity Statement", which says "[W]e maintain a zero-tolerance policy of any and all forms of hate speech and hate crimes."
How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
Apparently, the police agree with the minister who's worried "hate" might "grow" in town. We hear they are keeping a list of citizens who MIGHT be haters.
Those who don't think clearly, i.e. homosexual activists and their fellow travelers, use this latter element -- the Phelps disapproval of homosexuality -- to try to connect them with anyone who disapproves of homosexuality, or same-sex "marriage". Well, it doesn't wash.
One group of Bedford clergy tried to make it look like they spoke for all churches in town (when of course they didn't). They led a "diversity vigil" on the town common Monday night. Two hundred participants (including young children) smugly marched around, pumped up by their spiritual pride. The Bedford Minuteman played along, and spoke of of the "voice of unity" at this demonstration:
"A handful of anti-gay protesters from Kansas succeeded in galvanizing opposition on Bedford's Town Common Monday night as several hundred residents gathered at the stairs of First Parish [Unitarian] on the Common to hear the voice of unity.
" 'We are here to say that today is also a day that we may confirm the power of love that will not allow hate to grow,' the Rev. John Gibbons said from the steps of his church.
"He was joined by many members of Bedford's religious communities, including additional members from First Parish, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, First Church of Christ, Congregational, First Baptist Church and Burlington's Temple Shalom Emeth."
(The Catholic and Lutheran churches did not participate, as they do not support homosexual extremism and the coercive indoctrination of Bedford schoolchildren.)
The extremist demonstrators wrapped themselves in rainbow flags and wore pink triangles imprinted with "No Place for Hate". Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER!
"We in this town will not let voices of division prevail," said one minister. Another praised the town's teachers and school administrators (who fly rainbow flags and propose middle school cross-dressing days) for "ensuring safety for the student population." A few days earlier, the Bedford Selectmen had adopted a "Unity Statement", which says "[W]e maintain a zero-tolerance policy of any and all forms of hate speech and hate crimes."
How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
Apparently, the police agree with the minister who's worried "hate" might "grow" in town. We hear they are keeping a list of citizens who MIGHT be haters.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
David Parker's Civil Disobedience the Only Way He Could Be Heard
It's no wonder David Parker, the father arrested in Lexington, Mass., had to engage in civil disobedience to be heard! Parker, who was protesting homosexual propaganda in his kindergartner's school and the school's violation of the Parental Notification law, has been subjected to a barrage from the Lexington LGBTQI Fourth Reichers.
MassResistance has researched the coverage of Parker's arrest in the Lexington Minuteman newspaper. Clearly, the fascists of Lexington are marching in lockstep! (Our scores include editorials, guest commentaries, feature columns, and letters to the editor; but do not include a biased news story or the uncontested press release from the Superintendent.)
May 5, 2005 issue:
15 Anti-David Parker
2 Pro-David Parker
May 12, 2005 issue:
10 Anti-David Parker, or pro-same-sex "marriage"
2 Pro-David Parker
(In both weeks' issues, a "weighted" score, considering the type of item, would yield a much more unbalanced score, say 30-2, or 20-2.)
In the May 5 issue, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU (who lives in Lexington) had a guest commentary. There were 13 letters to the editor against Parker and his "bigotry" and "intolerance", plus an article entitled "When Hate Comes to Town" (by the local "No Place for Hate" Committee--that loving group!). And the lead "news story" was hardly balanced. Only two letters supporting Parker.
The May 13 issue includes a glowing front-page article on gay & lesbian "married" couples in Lexington, "Legal year of bliss". We hear from happy couples -- Peter and his "husband" Wayne, Bonnie and her "wife" Sherry.
Then lesbian radical activist Meg Soens weighs in with a guest commentary. We hear that Soens pops up all over town, including the Estabrook School anti-bias committee. How interesting that Soens also led a session at the infamous "Fistgate" GLSEN workshop in 2000, on how to incorporate gay and lesbian issues into an elementary school curriculum.
The lead editorial says "there is still hate out there." There's another guest commentary from the chairman of the Estabrook School "anti-bias committee" (which sponsors the diversity book bags). A guest commentary on the "best interests of the child." An article on kids offering a lesson in diversity. Plus four letters protesting Parker's "homophobic bigotry".
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE BIRTHPLACE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY???
MassResistance has researched the coverage of Parker's arrest in the Lexington Minuteman newspaper. Clearly, the fascists of Lexington are marching in lockstep! (Our scores include editorials, guest commentaries, feature columns, and letters to the editor; but do not include a biased news story or the uncontested press release from the Superintendent.)
May 5, 2005 issue:
15 Anti-David Parker
2 Pro-David Parker
May 12, 2005 issue:
10 Anti-David Parker, or pro-same-sex "marriage"
2 Pro-David Parker
(In both weeks' issues, a "weighted" score, considering the type of item, would yield a much more unbalanced score, say 30-2, or 20-2.)
In the May 5 issue, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU (who lives in Lexington) had a guest commentary. There were 13 letters to the editor against Parker and his "bigotry" and "intolerance", plus an article entitled "When Hate Comes to Town" (by the local "No Place for Hate" Committee--that loving group!). And the lead "news story" was hardly balanced. Only two letters supporting Parker.
The May 13 issue includes a glowing front-page article on gay & lesbian "married" couples in Lexington, "Legal year of bliss". We hear from happy couples -- Peter and his "husband" Wayne, Bonnie and her "wife" Sherry.
Then lesbian radical activist Meg Soens weighs in with a guest commentary. We hear that Soens pops up all over town, including the Estabrook School anti-bias committee. How interesting that Soens also led a session at the infamous "Fistgate" GLSEN workshop in 2000, on how to incorporate gay and lesbian issues into an elementary school curriculum.
The lead editorial says "there is still hate out there." There's another guest commentary from the chairman of the Estabrook School "anti-bias committee" (which sponsors the diversity book bags). A guest commentary on the "best interests of the child." An article on kids offering a lesson in diversity. Plus four letters protesting Parker's "homophobic bigotry".
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE BIRTHPLACE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)