Finneran-Lang-Eagan Axis of Evil

Came across an amazing column by one of our least favorites, the lisping Margery Eagan. This lovely little piece from May 18, 2004, easily missed in the surreal events surrounding the total breakdown of constitutional government in Massachusetts -- brings together convicted felon/former House Speaker Tom Finneran, Holocaust perverter/KnowThyNeighbor intimidator-in-chief Tom Lang, and Mizz Eagan, Boston Herald columnist. A true rogue's gallery. The column brings home the extent of the conspiracy pushing sodomy "marriage". Mr. Speaker Finneran -- supposedly totally against this travesty -- was ready and eager to congratulate Lang and his "husband" on their "wedding".

How long have we heard over and over that Finneran opposed "gay marriage"? But what did he really do to halt it in 2004? He could have led the Legislature to defy the SJC ruling (just as Gov. Romney could have done with his Executive branch). But he did NOTHING. Stayed behind closed doors and pretended to be working for a constitutional amendment. If you review all the stories from November 2003 through May 2004, you'll be struck by how many times "Finneran had no comment". Reading this column, we realize he was just as much a turncoat as the recent legislators who voted against marriage.

Lang's "wedding" was one of the first after the phony, illegal "gay marriages" began. He married his lovely bride -- oops, "husband" -- Alex, in a rose-bedecked church in Manchester-By-The-Sea. Eagan was apparently a guest of the two grooms. And Finneran issued a proclamation celebrating this sanctification of sodomy. The "husbands" seem to be very wealthy and well-connected, the event complete with bejeweled guests, opera singers, and a mansion to go home to. (Has Eagan returned for a party recently?)

Within two years of his glorious "wedding", Lang went on to publish the names of all who signed the VoteOnMarriage referendum petition on his KnowThyNeighbor site, and become a leading spewer of heterophobic hate speech. Watch him and his friends in this video (he's the chubby guy with glasses), revealing his intention to shut down any speech opposing his. And now how amazing is it that both Eagan and Finneran host talk radio shows? (This used to be the only outlet for conservatives in this state; now station managements are giving it over to the leftists.) From Eagan's column,"Same-Sex Marriage: Ordinary ceremony turns unique" (Boston Herald, 5-18-04).

... Five minutes after Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang, in tails and tux, walked down a white-carpeted aisle here last night, their wedding became not about same-sex or any sex, but about two people promising their lives to each other.

In many respects this wedding is "like any wedding," said officiating minister the Rev. Peter J. Gomes of Harvard University . "Preservice jitters . . . anxiety . . . confusion," he said. "And so we celebrate the ordinariness of the occasion."
But Gomes also said there's "something quite unique and special" happening in this small chapel.

You expected Gomes then to speak of history: Yesterday, for the first time, homosexual couples could wed in Massachusetts . Before yesterday this union would have been illegal. Instead, Gomes referred to the two men before him as "unique" in their love. Men who put "16 years' worth of thought and care and consideration" into getting married.

And so it was in many ways a traditional marriage. Each pew a garland of baby roses. Best man Alex Filias handing over the rings. Traditional vows: "I give you this ring as a symbol of my promise," said Westerhoff. "All that I am is yours, as long as we both shall live," said Lang.

Here's what was different: As the couples joined hands, Gomes pronounced them, not man and wife, but "partners for life" and "truly married in the sight of God and man." Lang and Westerhoff kissed twice - very quickly - then they received a proclamation of congratulations from the Massachusetts House of Representatives, signed by Speaker Thomas Finneran, who has long opposed gay marriage. It read: "What the SJC has granted, let no vote put asunder."

... last night in Manchester-by-the-Sea, about 100 guests - men in black ties and women in bejeweled gowns - celebrated their marriage with them. Singers from the Boston Lyric Opera sang arias by Puccini and Lehar. Lang and Westerhoff marched out of the church to a gospel rendition of "Oh, Happy Day," sung by the red-robed Majestic Ensemble. Westerhoff was occasionally in tears as the wedding party adjourned to the massive home the couple just built together.

Missing from the party, however, was Alex's mother, who disowned him, the couple said, after their Vermont civil union....

CNN Joins Transsexual Propaganda Push

Right: Patrick Guerriero, former Mass. pol and now Executive Director of Gill Foundation's Action Fund, doling out millions in Massachusetts State House. On left: Arline Isaacson, chief GLBT lobbyist.

Below: Mara Keisling, "male-to-female" transsexual "personal mentor" of Patrick Guerriero, addressing trans rally at Harvard. [photo credits: InNews Weekly]

First we had ABC and Barbara Walters telling us that little children -- whose apparently unbalanced mothers give them (at the very earliest ages) haircuts, clothes, and toys of the opposite sex --are really "transgender" from birth. And last night on CNN, reporter Rick Sanchez hits us with another all-out assault on biological sexual reality. The dinner-hour show was chock full of fawning discussion of "transgenderism" and how people are born that way. (So how come every time we see one of these shows, we hear the mothers talk about how they encouraged their very young child in this bizarre direction?)

This is clearly part of a national media push to pass "transgender rights and hate crimes" bills, both at the federal and state levels. The Boston Globe magazine hit us on Easter Sunday with a piece on college girls removing their breasts. And Newsweek had a huge spread in May pushing transgender propaganda.

Reporter Sanchez interviewed a doctor from Children's Hospital in Los Angeles (Dr. Marvin Belzer) who subscribes to the Dr. Spack school of medicating "transgender" children prior to puberty in order to ease their sex change operations later. The report did mention that the American Academy of Pediatrics has no guidelines drawn up on this practice.

CNN also spoke with Mara Keisling (director of the National Center for Transgender Equality), a man dressing as a woman with his deep male voice intact. Why this person is given any credence is unimaginable. His challenge to biological reality and demands for special rights are over the top. But remember that Patrick Guerriero, recently spreading around the Gill Foundation millions in the Mass. State House, called Keisling his "personal mentor"! That is surely a sign that there will be ample funding to push for the passage of Bill #H1722, the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" bill, currently in the Massachusetts legislature. Gov. Deval Patrick has pledged his support to whatever the transgender group demands.

From our posting on September 4, 2006:
A few months ago, while still head of the National Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero signaled his commitment to the trans cause, and named the "male-to-female" leader of the National Center for Transgender Equality as his "personal mentor": Coalitions with choice and environmental groups and hot button issues like the Schiavo matter represent an evolution in Log Cabin strategy. So too is a stronger focus on transgender rights that Guerriero has introduced in Log Cabin since he took over in 2002. “I have actually brought a level of discussion of that issue to the organization over the past couple of years,” he explained, saying that Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, has served as “a personal mentor” to him.“I think we need us all to move forward and we should be wary of leaving anyone behind,” Guerriero said.

Is the American public really buying this trans propaganda? How can the reporters buy into this? Do transgenders throw really good parties, or what?

CNN links:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/24/sanchez.what.is.transgender.NY1&wm=10

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/lgbt.america/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2007/06/07/rao.indonesia.transgender.cnn

Macy's Thinks Being "Gay" Means Holding Hands?

Top: Macy's offensive 2006 window display, before breasted male mannequins were removed due to our pressure (MassResistance photo). Bottom: Macy's 2007 window (Boston Herald photo).

So Macy's has toned it down its "celebration" of Pride Week in its display window in Downtown Crossing. But it's still there: the calendar, and a big pride flag.

Yesterday's Boston Herald reported that the GLBT community is still hurt by "something that was really painful for the community" --namely, by Macy's removal of its transgender mannequins from last year's window -- after our photograph appeared revealing the breasted men. Now the Herald is reporting that these were two "presumably 'gay' " mannequins, saying nothing about the odd breasts that made the window even more disturbing to normal people. More accurately, they were presumably transgendered mannequins. Why is the Herald engaging in this cover-up?

So to make it up to the GLBT community, Macy's is the lead sponsor of the AIDS Action Committee's walk today. And the Herald can report that Macy's has actually "stepped up it support" of Boston Pride. We guess the AIDS Action message they're sponsoring is still: "Go out and do it all. Have fun! Just use a condom -- if you remember; and get tested for HIV/AIDS -- if you're emotionally ready." This is how they plan to "stop the spread of AIDS."

See MassResistance's recent report on AIDS Action Committee -- and Mitt Romney's misguided donation to that organization.

Now if Macy's REALLY wants to stop the spread of AIDS (we thought their business was selling clothes?), maybe their window display should have some mannequins showing how to put on a condom properly, recommending the right lube, and sending a message about asking one's anonymous partner if he has HIV/AIDS before engaging in anal intercourse. Now who could be offended by that message? (No, Macy's, it's not just about hand-holding.)

See the Boston Herald: "Apologetic Macy’s supporting Pride" (6-2-07).

Macy’s has stepped up its support of Boston Pride Week this year, its first as presenting sponsor of tomorrow’s AIDS Walk Boston. The chain’s increased backing of the annual gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered celebration follows what was considered a public relations debacle last year, when Macy’s bowed to an anti-gay group and removed presumably “gay” mannequins [or were they presumably transgendered?] from its Boston Pride window display at its Boston store. The CEO of Macy’s East later apologized for the move, blaming an “internal breakdown in communication.” This year, Macy’s allowed a Boston Pride Committee member to design the window display, which went up Thursday and depicts a silhouette of two men holding hands [so innocent and sweet] against a rainbow flag backdrop, a calendar of the week’s events and the words: “Macy’s celebrates Boston Pride 2007. Pride, united for equality.” ...

Who Is Hugh Hewitt?

Mr. Hugh Hewitt. Big in Salem Radio Network. Editor of TownHall.com (owned by Salem). HUGE Romney booster, wrote fawning biography, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney (2007). Romney posts frequently on Hewitt's (Salem Network's) TownHall. Hewitt is clearly more "center" than "right".

From Wikipedia:
Hewitt became Executive Editor of Townhall.com in 2006, when Salem Communications purchased it and re-engineered it from a web magazine into a conservative new-media and activism forum. ...Hewitt's nationally syndicated radio show, The Hugh Hewitt Show, is broadcast from Los Angeles and can be heard from 6pm-9pm eastern time; 3pm-6pm pacific. The show can be heard on 112 stations on weekdays and is syndicated by the Salem Radio Network. ... A self-described "Center-Right" opinion machine and "the best in intelligent political talk," The Hugh Hewitt Show covers a wide variety of subject matter. ...

But Mr. Hewitt does not want to honestly cover Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts.

Third Anniversary of Nothing Real -- Just the Fiction of "Legal" Homosexual Marriage

(Source: Boston Globe, 5-17-07)

The Boston Globe is just bursting with excitement that MassEquality may be only four votes away from blocking the marriage amendment. Thanks to $millions flowing in from somewhere (the Gill Foundation?) enabling them to hire 13 new operatives. And thanks to a totally corrupt legislative leadership and Governor, buying votes with patronage jobs.

Note the Globe's usual erroneous statement that "the nation's first legal same-sex weddings took place in Massachusetts" in May 2004. No, not legal. There was only a Court opinion, followed by Romney's unconstitutional reprinting of the marriage licenses and orders to Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks.

Also, note the tiny numbers of homosexual couples "marrying" last year (1472) and since January (only 87). That's really not what homosexuality is about -- monogamous commitment. So after the first flurry, we see this huge drop-off.

Slippery Slope Confirmed by Time Magazine

The slippery slope of legalized depravity is real and now being confirmed, even by Time Magazine. The effect of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas 2003 ruling is far-reaching, just as Senator Santorum and Justice Scalia warned at the time. Jeff Jacoby wrote about it in last Sunday's Globe. Now WorldNetDaily has posted an article.

So look again at our posting yesterday: the list of some of the sick behaviors which will soon be protected by laws barring discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression." Take the warning seriously. This is what's coming our way, unless Massachusetts Bill H1722 is stopped, and the phrase "sexual orientation" is removed from our statutes.

The liberal elite and mainstream media laugh at you and call you names to attempt to silence your warnings. Then, after their filthy plan is in place, a few stories may trickle out from the mainstream media confirming our warnings were right after all. But by then it may be too late to reverse course. Mission accomplished by the forces of depravity.

Time Magazine, "Should Incest Be Legal?" (4-5-07):
When the Supreme Court struck down Texas's law against sodomy in the summer of 2003, in the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, critics warned that its sweeping support of a powerful doctrine of privacy could lead to challenges of state laws that forbade such things as gay marriage and bigamy. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, in a withering dissent he read aloud page by page from the bench. It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest....

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, "Lawful incest may be on its way" (4-2-07):
...Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time asks. Over time, expect more and more people to answer yes.

WorldNetDaily: "Court ruling does support incest, polygamy; Time admits critics of 'gay' rights decision were right" (4-8-07):
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Texas law "demeans" the lives of homosexuals. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.
At the time of the 2003 decision, Time, in its "A Yea for Gays," said, "Lawrence v. Texas turns an issue that states have historically decided for themselves into a basic constitutional tenet."
"The decision was not, strictly speaking, a 'liberal' one," the magazine said then, noting, "Thus the activists' notion that gay marriage is an inevitable outcome of the ruling may be little more than wishful thinking."
The magazine also at that time questioned whether there even was a "culture war" that would involve moral issues. "It is clear … that the court has taken sides in the culture war,' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote last week in his abrasive dissent from the Supreme Court's decision to decriminalize homosexuality. Excuse me, but what culture War?" the magazine wrote.
"Most Americans aren't extremists, and they are not at war. The lovely paradox of 21st century America is that we seem to be increasingly united by the celebration of our differences. That is what the Supreme Court acknowledged in its decisions on homosexuality and affirmative action last week," the magazine wrote then.

Are ABC & Barbara Walters Advocating Child Abuse?

Is it child abuse to give a 12-year-old opposite-sex hormone injections? Is it child abuse to schedule your teenage daughter for breast-removal surgery? Is it child abuse to send your little boy to first grade in a dress, and decorate his room in lavender and pink? Is it child abuse to let your child sleep with a 4-foot-long live snake? Is it child abuse to discuss with a little boy how he can have his penis chopped off when he's older?

Isn't this just as bad or worse than an adult sexually assaulting a child? Why is this country so up in arms over homosexual pederast priests, but accepting a major network's promotion of breast removal surgery for a teenage girl?

Hormonal manipulation and genital mutilation of CHILDREN: Sounds like a Nazi medical experiment. And it's blessed by ABC.

If you saw ABC's outrageous 20/20 show yesterday (4-27-07), you would probably say YES -- this is child abuse. The show was a sympathetic and promotional look at so-called "transgender children", called "My Secret Self." But it was more accurately a look at very confused parents and health professionals, and a media personality who's lost all common sense. Barbara Walters was at her simpering worst, putting leading questions to very troubled children and their possibly more troubled parents. ABC has truly reached a new low, instructing us bigoted plebes to "open our hearts and our minds" and thank these "courageous and loving parents."

Unbelievable. If anything illustrates how far this country is sliding into unimaginable evil, this show does. What is wrong with the endocrinologists, psychiatrists, and school staffers who advise parents that their child should "transition" to the opposite sex? What about Dr. Spack here in Boston at Children's Hospital "Gender Management Service Clinic" who advises "early [hormone] intervention is best"? (More on him in an upcoming post.) And the young female doctor at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles who administers hormone injections to children, rendering them forever infertile? Is this child abuse? It goes beyond the promotion of sodomy and other unhealthy sex practices in our schools and media -- because it's actual physical manipulation and mutilation of the child's body -- and soul.

Three children and their parents were profiled:

6-year-old boy: We learn from his mother that we're bigoted if we don't accept "children's transgenderism". We need to listen to the child, she says. He knows if he's really a girl. How could the parent possibly know? The mother recounts him asking as a 2-year-old when the good fairy will come and take his penis off. (Not believable if you've ever had a 2-year-old.) Then we learn that the parents had a "coming out" party for the boy's fifth birthday, where he was allowed to wear a one-piece bathing suit, with his little bulge apparent to all the invitees (proudly recorded on a home video). Next, we see the dance recital where he refused to participate because he couldn't wear a tutu. (But no mention of what sort of parents would sign him up as the only boy in a girly class.)

10-year-old boy: How hideous to hear his mother say of her little boy, "She has a birth defect, and we call it that. I can't think of a worse birth defect, as a woman to have, than to have a penis." We also learn that this mother underwent 11 in-vitro procedures before getting pregnant with twins (a girl, and this poor little boy), plus five miscarriages. (That would make anyone nuts.) The father seemed extremely emotionally unbalanced as well. The mother allowed the boy to cross-dress starting at age 3 without the father's knowledge. When he did find out, he disapproved and the marriage almost dissolved. Now the father sits crying during the interview. The interaction between the twins is clearly unbalanced.

... when Richard was just three years old, Stephanie made the drastic decision to let her son start dressing as a girl. They called it "girl time." Richard could dress up in his sister's clothes but only when his father neil was out of sight. The secret between mother and son went on for months. "I took him shopping by himself and we bought his own skirt and his own little tank top because…that little girl trapped inside was so happy when this would happen. But we knew we had to hide it, and we hid them in the back of the closet," she said.

It's no surprise that this mother credits her son's elementary school principal with encouraging the boy's cross-dressing at school: Feeling helpless, Stephanie spilled all of her secrets to Richard's principal. The response took Stephanie by surprise: Why couldn't Richard come to school in a dress, the principal asked. Then the school directed the Grants to a gender specialist who diagnosed Richard with Gender Identity Disorder. For Stephanie, the diagnosis came as a relief. "Oh my God, we're not making this up. This is real. There's a diagnosis," she said.

And here's the Boston link in this story: Dr. Norman Spack, founder of the Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital, Boston:

But a growing number of specialists, including Dr. Spack, believe that early intervention is a better option, and the Grants say that Riley can't wait to undergo this protocol. First, at the onset of puberty, hormone blockers are prescribed to stop the surge of hormones coursing through an adolescent's body. "It basically puts you at a kind of pre-pubertal state, or in limbo, so to speak. Still growing, but not really maturing in either direction," said Spack, founder of the Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital of Boston.

A few years later, cross-hormones are taken. For biological males, this means taking estrogen; for biological females, testosterone. These cross-hormones simulate the puberty of the opposite sex. In Riley's case, for example, estrogen will cause her to grow breasts and develop a feminine body shape. But hormone therapy is expensive and comes with risks. Riley increases her chances of getting breast cancer because of the estrogen. And cross hormones render transgender teenagers sterile.
And the boy's mother says he's already prepared to take the next step: having his penis chopped off.

17-year-old girl: How awful to hear parents supporting their teenage daughter's plans to have her breasts removed before going to college, and in the interim allowing her to have testosterone injections (which have already lowered her voice). The girl shows the uncomfortable "binder" she wears now to smash her large breasts. She has gone through a bout with "cutting" (though the mother was too upset to say where on the girl's body), as a way of "getting out her anger." (If she cut her breasts, what's the problem? They're about to be chapped off anyhow ... with the parents' approval.) It's not surprising to learn that she is in a suburb of Los Angeles, and that there's a young doctor who has absolutely no qualms about injecting her with male hormones. Ask yourself where this girl came up with this terminology when she wrote to her parents (at age 14):

What am I? I ask myself this all the time. Right now what I believe myself to be is an FtM, or a female-to-male transsexual. A male identifying individual. A boy in a girl's body. That's what I think I am. That's what I believe I am, but I may be wrong. Gender and sexuality are such strange things. They're not really things that can be defined, but we've tried as hard as we can to separate ourselves into groups, haven't we? Male and female. Straight and gay. Maybe it's something to do with my chromosomes, or some traumatic experience I had when I was very young. What I think I know is: I'm a boy.

Send your comments to ABC 20/20!

Boston Globe: Civil Unions = Homophobia

Today's Boston Globe editorial on New Hampshire's recent legislative approval of civil unions admits what everyone should realize by now: "Civil unions" are just a way station on the road to full-fledged sodomy "marriage". To paraphrase the Globe: Civil unions are insulting to "gays", and nothing short of sodomy "marriage" will do. State bans on sodomy "marriage" are shameful. Civil unions are demeaning and insulting to "gays". Therefore, civil unions are a form of homophobia.

(We've noted that GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is arguing in Connecticut that civil unions are bad because they render homosexual couples second-class citizens -- but at the same time, Connecticut's legalization of civil unions is an argument for homosexual "marriage". So how can anyone still fall for the line the legalization of civil unions protects real marriage?)

From the Globe:

"Live free and civilly united" (4-28-07)
The circle of tolerance widened Thursday, as the New Hampshire Legislature gave final passage to a bill authorizing civil unions in that state. The state's Democratic governor, John Lynch, has vowed to sign the measure, which will take effect in January....

Civil unions are an awkward creation. It is demeaning to gay couples to recognize by law that they are fit for most or all of the rights of marriage -- and then deny them the single word that best describes their partnership....

In time, we believe, people in states with laws or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage will come to see those provisions as a mark of shame. States that offer marriage to straight couples and marriage-lite to gays will recognize the absurdity of the situation -- and the insult to gay couples inherent in it.

ABC Joins Propaganda Campaign for "Transgender Children"

ABC will show "My Secret Self: A Story of Transgender Children" with Barbara Walters interviewing children and their families.

Friday, April 27, 2007 on "20/20" at 10 p.m. EDT

Preview of "Transgender Children" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3079668

ABC has also posted: "Transgender Children: Frequently Asked Questions and Resources" from PFLAG, one of the most extreme organizations in America. PFLAG holds an annual conference in the fall which promotes not only transsexuality, but also polygamy, swinging, BDSM, and other dangerous perversions.

See also: "Born in the Wrong Body" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3073483

Gov. Patrick's and the Globe's NewSpeak on "Legal Marriages"

The Boston Globe reported today that Gov. Deval Patrick ordered his new Commissioner of Public Health (a man "married" to a man) to record 26 "gay marriages" for out-of-state couples. This despite the FACT that there is still a law on the books barring marriages from taking place in Massachusetts which would not be legal in the state where the couple are residents.

But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:

The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.

But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:

"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."

The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)

But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?

Proof Romney Is Not Conservative

More Romney "news" -- His "go-t0 guy for conservatives," Peter Flaherty, is profiled in the Boston Globe today. But none of Brian Camenker's comments to the reporter, Scott Helman, made it into the article.

Brian pointed out that if Romney is such a conservative, why does he need a liaison to conservatives? And why does he need someone to think through conservative issues for him?

The answer is that neither Romney nor the people he surrounds himself with have ever been conservatives. Does Hillary Clinton need to hire a liaison to liberals? Of course not.

Crazy People Happen, But BDSM Murderers Are Taught

This is news, rating a huge color photo on page one of the Globe's second section: A candlelight vigil by a bunch of young people for the one-year anniversary of a crazy man's rampage in a New Bedford bar? All this hypercoverage just because it was a homosexual bar? What was the point of the vigil? Are we going to quell the incidence of insane outbursts by lighting candles?

Why didn't the Globe cover the dangerous sadomasochistic practices -- including cozying up to death and sometimes achieving murder -- being taught at the Sheraton Hotel in Danvers last weekend? Learning about this sick bunch of people reminded us that also just about a year ago a "professional dominatrix" got off scot free in court, though she had a "client" die during a bondage session! (She chopped his body into little pieces and disposed of it in Maine.)

Why weren't there vigils outside the Quincy condo where this hate crime happened -- to protest the increasing practice and acceptance of torture? (And the adoption by the Boston Globe of their twisted terminology: "professional dominatrix" and "bondage session"?) And why did no one have a vigil outside the BDSM conference last weekend in Danvers, where such practices were taught? There just might be fewer deaths of this sort if the BDSM culture couldn't exist so openly, advertise its conferences, and take over "respectable" suburban hotels.

Here's the report from just one year ago (Jan. 31, 2006):
Professional dominatrix Barbara Asher was acquitted yesterday of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a New Hampshire man who prosecutors said suffered a fatal heart attack while strapped to a bondage rack in her Quincy condominium.

Prosecutors had argued that Asher, 56, did nothing to help Michael Lord, 53, of North Hampton as he died during the July 2000 session, out of fear that calling authorities would have jeopardized her dominatrix business. The prosecutors said she and a boyfriend chopped up Lord's 275-pound body and dumped the parts in a trash bin behind a Chinese restaurant in Augusta, Maine....

The prosecution's case -- and the narrative about the fatal bondage session presented in court -- rested on an alleged confession by Asher. Several police investigators testified that Asher had admitted to watching Lord die on the bondage rack without calling for medical help and then dismembering his body the next day...

National Review Has Lost Its Nose

National Review used to be conservative. We grew up with Buckley's voice in the wilderness. They used to be able to smell out the phonies. Not any more, apparently. As our friend John Haskins said, it's "really sad, what has become of National Review. It's sort of degenerated into an overblown student government debating club with little relevance to the real world and an obsession with pleasing their 'faculty advisors'." Look at their upcoming conference on "conservatism", headlining Mitt Romney as a "conservative"!

How come MassResistance didn't get invited to speak at this conference? We think we'd have a lot to say in a "frank debate and discussion of the state of the movement." Do they really think Mitt Romney can discuss the "social issues" from a conservative perspective?

Does Romney think there's any moral or public health problem with homosexuality? Does he still think same-sex couples have every legitimate interest in adopting that heterosexual married couples do? Does he still think Catholic hospitals should be forced to give out the "morning-after pill"? Does he still think "gay and lesbian youth" need special encouragement in our public schools? Does he still believe that the words in constitutions have little or no meaning?

[We noticed the conference is going to be at the D.C. Marriott Hotel, which reminded us of the story of that hotel chain's founder, Willard Marriott: He is Mitt Willard Romney's namesake. Mitt's father, George Romney, was best friends with Willard Marriott. The Marriotts are big in the Utah Mormon community. One Mr. "Michael Marriott" is a big homosexual activist in Salt Lake City, and got the homosexual community a big role in the Olympics -- managed by Mitt. We're still trying to determine if Michael is a Marriott family friend of Mitt's.]

THE NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE

INVITES YOU TO ATTEND A

CONSERVATIVE SUMMIT

Claiming the Future

Speakers include:Jeb Bush, Tony Snow, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, John Bolton, Rich Lowry, John O’Sullivan, Kate O’Beirne, Mark Steyn, Laura Ingraham, Kathryn Lopez ...

Topics include:

Debates on the war in Iraq, the role of the Religious Right, immigration, and energy policy; panels on foreign policy, social issues, domestic policy, small government, and quotas, blacks, and the GOP.

Join fellow conservatives, leading writers, and top policy makers in a frank debate and discussion of the state of the movement.

January 26 - 28, 2007

JW Marriott Hotel, Washington, D.C.

Globe Refuses to Mention MassResistance as Source of "Romney Buzz"

Our print edition of today's Boston Globe didn't include the piece, "New questions on Romney's stance on gays; Letter to Log Cabin group expressed his support in '94," which we just found online. Just as we said in our earlier post today, the media wishes we'd go away, and refuses to acknowledge OUR report on Romney as the instigator of the national "buzz" on Romney's pro-homosexual positions!

Note that today's Globe article does quote MassResistance president Brian Camenker at the end, but fails to note that the report is OURS, not our good friend Peter LaBarbera's whom they do cite (though he posted it on his site, Americans for Truth, on Nov. 28, clearly crediting us -- a week after we sent it out on the internet). And the New York Times guest column by Thomas B . Edsall today, "The Rascals on the Right," and the AP article in today's New York Times, "Gov. Romney's Record on Gays Questioned," fail to identify MassResistance as the "rascals on the right"!

Edsall (in the NY Times) reports some of the truth: "Although Romney has evidently led an uneventful [def: no affairs or bribery scandals?] private life, he is trying to forcibly reinvent himself from his incarnation as a Massachusetts governor who favored abortion rights and gay rights."

The New York Times/AP quotes Tony Perkins (Family Research Council -- which hosted Romney as a pro-family star at their Liberty Sunday event October 15, AFTER our associates had explained to him that Romney was severely compromised by his unconstitutional, illegal implementation of gay marriage). Seems that Mr. Perkins has finally had his eyes opened by MassResistance's efforts to out the TRUTH:

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said Romney's comments were ''quite disturbing. This is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney,'' he told The New York Times in Saturday's editions. ''He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.''

Noted conservative Paul Weyrich told The Times, ''Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite.''

Romney was wrapping up a weeklong trip to Asia on Saturday and could not be reached for comment.

Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said she cautioned gay and lesbians against believing Romney's overtures in 1994, and said conservatives shouldn't trust him, either. ''He can't be trusted,'' she said. ''Because if it is politically expedient for him to swing to his right or swing to his left, he will do it.''

Our report went out to millions BEFORE Thanksgiving, though it was not posted on our website until just after the holiday weekend. So the blogs and mainstream media have had this information long before the recent Bay Windows regurgitation, or the very recent Globe reports! We've been in touch with "Utah conservatives" (mentioned in the Globe) re: Romney for several weeks now! But the Globe only mentions us at the end of their article, as if we're just a local voice piping in!

NO -- we have a national voice now. And the Globe had better recognize that the internet and blogosphere have overturned their monopoly on the "news".

The Globe reports today:

... But the reaction to the comments from the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race indicate that some conservatives may be reassessing Romney. "This is quite disturbing," Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential conservative, told the Times.

Romney's views on gays have stimulated considerable chatter in the conservative blogosphere, where some have wondered aloud if he has hurt his standing with conservative voters.

"Will it sink the Romney campaign? I have a hard time seeing him win in the South," wrote the UtahConservative blog in reaction to a Nov. 26 Globe column about Romney's views on gays, which also cites the letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin group.

Americans for Truth, a conservative group that opposes gay rights, posted an essay late last month saying, "Romney has a long record of supporting homosexual and abortion 'rights' despite his Mormon religion." [What the Globe doesn't say is that this posting on Americans for Truth accompanies OUR report!] ...

In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."

Romney Not Well Received by D.C. Conservative Group

It seems Mitt Romney isn't as popular with conservatives -- even before our report -- as the press makes it seem. The conservative monthly The American Spectator recently held a dinner where Romney gave a dud of a speech.

Here's the report by Richard Miniter on the Politics Central blog (11-17-06):

Rumsfeld Up, Romney Down
Conservatives at the American Spectator’s annual dinner applauded soon to be former SecDef Don Rumsfeld, but gave a disappointed thumbs down to presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Pajamas Washington editor Richard Miniter was in attendance.

... Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachussetts, hopes to move into the White House in 2009, but failed to ignite even the American Spectator’s stalwart audience. His speech was a waterfall of platitudes, seemingly ripped from the pages of a 1964 edition of Reader’s Digest. In a reprise of his stint running the Olympic Games in Utah (natch!), he told the story of an American athlete crying when he won the gold. Was he crying because he was number one in the world? Romney asked. No, he was crying because American had won. Everyone at my table rolled their eyes. Later, I surveyed members of the crowd, asking open-ended questions about the Romney speech. Several women said they thought he was attractive for his age, but their responses ranged from “Sounds like my grandmother” and “I can’t believe he gave us some cut and paste speech.”

No one mentioned the Mormon angle. He was just seen as a telegenic dud.

The next night, at the Federalist Society’s yearly black-tie bash, I asked National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez—“KLO” to her friends—and Romney’s biggest booster what she thought of her man. She pointedly said that Republicans should keep their options open for 2008. It seems that support for Romney is cooling among conservatives.

AIDS Action Committee &/or Ch. 7: Spreading Lies About MassResistance

Outright lies: Boston’s Ch. 7 WHDH-TV ran a story Wednesday (6-7-06) on the Macy’s “Gay Pride” window display, and MassResistance’s success in getting the “trans” mannequins removed.

(Watch the video of the news story.)

The Ch. 7 report included the expected name-calling by Mayor Menino. But worse was the libelous statement by Rebecca Haag, Executive Director of AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts! (Remember, AIDS Action Committee is publisher of the Little Black Book. Not exactly an exercise in truth-telling.)

Haag said: “These are the same people who go to soldiers’ funerals and protest because they believe that gays are in the military. These are not nice people.”

[Just before this, Haag said:] “They talked about the breasts looked enlarged. Those are ‘pecs’. Maybe they haven’t been to the gym. That’s what men do when they lift weights. So they’re trying to make things up. They’re trying to create controversy that doesn’t exist.”

Rebecca Haag at the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts:
294 Washington Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
rhaag@aac.org (617) 450-1262

Diego M. Sanchez,
Director of Public Relations & Social Marketing
dsanchez@aac.org (617) 450-1524

News Director of WHDH-TV Ch. 7:
Linda Miele
617-725-0777
7news@whdh.com