No, our coverage of Acton-Boxborough Regional High School's outrageous fall play, "The Laramie Project," is not over. We will continue to connect our readers to more information as it surfaces.
"The Laramie Project" (and the study materials given to students in the production) references another homosexual propaganda play, "Angels in America" -- encouraging children to seek it out. Not having read "Angels in America," we didn't realize how vile it is. Now "Angels" is being exposed by an Illinois parent group, outraged that it was assigned in their high school. (See the excerpts from the play they've highlighted.) From Concerned Women for America's recent press release:
High School Officials Assign Racist “Gay” Porn;
State officials say it violates obscenity law but they can’t prosecute school officials
(3-6-08)
Washington, D.C. — Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, had assigned the pornographic book “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes” to students as required reading. When a group of outraged parents found out, they filed a formal complaint. Now the book has been changed to an “optional title,” meaning kids may still select the book for peer study under the direction of a teacher.
The book is replete with profanity, overt racism through multiple uses of the N-word, an explicit description of a sex act involving Mother Theresa and some of the most graphic, vile and vivid depictions of homosexual anal sodomy every put in print. (Link to Excerpts – Warning: Extremely Graphic Sexual Content).
“After almost 15 years of school advocacy and reviewing many objectionable books and curricula, I have never seen anything this vulgar and harmful to students,” Lora Sue Hauser, Executive Director of North Shore Student Advocacy (NSSA), told Concerned Women for America (CWA)....
Showing posts with label parents' rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parents' rights. Show all posts
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Mitt Romney's Legacy in Massachusetts
By John Haskins
This insight of T. S. Eliot, Christian convert and great poet of the 20th Century, explains so perfectly the stubborn, self-serving, relentless whitewashing of Willard Mitt Romney's actions in Massachusetts by placebo conservatives, pundits, "legal experts," and surrender-addicted "pro-family leaders":
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
- T. S. Eliot
These mercenaries have squandered -- or sold -- every last remnant of moral or intellectual authority they may once have had. First as a clique, then a cabal, now almost a political mafia, they've hijacked organized moral conservatism in America and turned it into a string of commercial franchises like MacDonald's. They are capping two or three decades of blind, vision-less, rationalized faux-pragmatism (read "capitulation") with their current cover-up of the massive and fundamental damage Mitt Romney did to constitutionalism, marriage, the natural human family, and indisputable the right of children not to be laboratory rats injected with the poisonous Stalinist brainwashing of the most fanatical sexual anarchists on earth -- the scandalously over-funded sodomy "tolerance" revolution, before whose blitzkrieg all constitutional rights are being flattened.
As governor, Mitt Romney held a political auction and sold to the highest bidders the very things he now claims to have heroically defended. His lies are not marginal. They are not "spin." They are black and white falsehoods with only the faintest veneer of justification. He is a master of the "Big Lie."
He liquidated the heart and soul of oldest functioning constitution in the world. He liquidated the inalienable right of the people to rule themselves free of judicial dictatorship. He liquidated the right of every child to have a mother and a father. He liquidated the right of Catholic hospitals not to issue abortifacients, the right of citizens not to fund the killing of human babies in the womb, and the right of citizens with common sense and moral boundaries to withhold their official seal of approval from sodomy-based marriage, homosexual adoption and all the consequences that these will bring. With these he auctioned off freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney held a going-out-of-business sale for Western Civilization, and pocketed the political capital he got in return. But his precious proceeds are now slipping through his desperate fingers like worthless sand. The people are saying "NO" to Slick Willard and his "elite" Praetorian Guard of mercenary faux-conservatives.
I voted for Mitt Romney, then watched him betray everything he solemnly swore in the name of God to defend. His actual record is beyond the pale. To endorse him or vote for him -- or to even remain silent as friends and colleagues do -- is a betrayal of constitutional governance and the needs of children, and mocks the deaths of soldiers and sailors who defend our inalienable right to govern ourselves according to the values that preserve society and families.
John Haskins is a political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition of Massachusetts.
This insight of T. S. Eliot, Christian convert and great poet of the 20th Century, explains so perfectly the stubborn, self-serving, relentless whitewashing of Willard Mitt Romney's actions in Massachusetts by placebo conservatives, pundits, "legal experts," and surrender-addicted "pro-family leaders":
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
- T. S. Eliot
These mercenaries have squandered -- or sold -- every last remnant of moral or intellectual authority they may once have had. First as a clique, then a cabal, now almost a political mafia, they've hijacked organized moral conservatism in America and turned it into a string of commercial franchises like MacDonald's. They are capping two or three decades of blind, vision-less, rationalized faux-pragmatism (read "capitulation") with their current cover-up of the massive and fundamental damage Mitt Romney did to constitutionalism, marriage, the natural human family, and indisputable the right of children not to be laboratory rats injected with the poisonous Stalinist brainwashing of the most fanatical sexual anarchists on earth -- the scandalously over-funded sodomy "tolerance" revolution, before whose blitzkrieg all constitutional rights are being flattened.
As governor, Mitt Romney held a political auction and sold to the highest bidders the very things he now claims to have heroically defended. His lies are not marginal. They are not "spin." They are black and white falsehoods with only the faintest veneer of justification. He is a master of the "Big Lie."
He liquidated the heart and soul of oldest functioning constitution in the world. He liquidated the inalienable right of the people to rule themselves free of judicial dictatorship. He liquidated the right of every child to have a mother and a father. He liquidated the right of Catholic hospitals not to issue abortifacients, the right of citizens not to fund the killing of human babies in the womb, and the right of citizens with common sense and moral boundaries to withhold their official seal of approval from sodomy-based marriage, homosexual adoption and all the consequences that these will bring. With these he auctioned off freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney held a going-out-of-business sale for Western Civilization, and pocketed the political capital he got in return. But his precious proceeds are now slipping through his desperate fingers like worthless sand. The people are saying "NO" to Slick Willard and his "elite" Praetorian Guard of mercenary faux-conservatives.
I voted for Mitt Romney, then watched him betray everything he solemnly swore in the name of God to defend. His actual record is beyond the pale. To endorse him or vote for him -- or to even remain silent as friends and colleagues do -- is a betrayal of constitutional governance and the needs of children, and mocks the deaths of soldiers and sailors who defend our inalienable right to govern ourselves according to the values that preserve society and families.
John Haskins is a political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition of Massachusetts.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
"Laramie Project" Teaches Foul Language
Here's the foul language students at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School are studying in "The Laramie Project." The drama participants especially are living these lines over and over, and are instructed this is "good literature" and a "mirror" of their own community. The fallout will affect every kid in the school -- and every home in the community.
Some examples of foul language in "The Laramie Project":
“shit outta luck” -- “Matt was a blunt little shit” -- “I always say, don’t fuck with a Wyoming queer, cause they will kick you in your fucking ass.” – “a freakin’ nightmare”-- “I was just bullshittin around with my shit” -- “I was in deep-ass sand” – “they better watch their fuckin ass” -- “ask him if he’d ever do anymore tweak” -- “I don’t know if Aaron was fucked up or whether he was coming down [off drugs] or what, but Matthew had money. Shit, he had better clothes than I did. Matthew was a little rich bitch … There was times when I was all messed up on meth… ” -- “pissed him off” -- “good to be with people who felt like shit” -- “why’d you fuck up like that” – “he tried to grab my dick” – “Up there in the max ward … when they found out Aaron was coming to prison, they were auctioning those boys off; ‘I want him. I’ll put aside five, six, seven cartons of cigarettes.’ …” -- “big-ass band of angels” [protester] with “big-ass wings” – “we don’t say a fuckin’ word” -- Police officer who “went out and got shit-faced” [drunk] -- etc.
The Acton-Boxborough Regional High School student handbook (p. 19) has a rule outlawing obscene language:
GENERAL BEHAVIORAL EXPECTATIONS
Abusive or Obscene Language
Students are not to use obscene or abusive language or gestures. Such behaviors will result in referral to the Assistant Principal.
Though "obscene language" goes conveniently undefined. So ... ANYTHING GOES. Certainly, if the "obscene language" is part of an assigned reading, or school play, it must be OK? After all, how else could the school be preparing its students according to its ...
"unity of purpose: to educate young people for life in a global society. It is important to create a learning environment at Acton-Boxborough where students can grow as individuals, learn how to think for themselves, learn when to talk and when to listen, see another person's side of things, and be part of a community." (p. 13)
But wait... If students are to "see another person's side of things," why did the school staff instruct the students (and parents) to ignore the forum on October 3? Why are students not instructed to weigh both sides of (by their own admission) a controversial play?
We read in Bay Windows that 475 local parents signed a petition giving their full support to "The Laramie Project" production (though they did not release their names). Shame on them. Do these parents have no problem with their children speaking like this in their homes? And the foul language in the play is the least example of its harmful impact. The play teaches that Laramie is just like Acton: Bad language, and hateful people hiding in the shadows waiting for their chance to lash out -- even to murder -- motivated by "hate".
Some examples of foul language in "The Laramie Project":
“shit outta luck” -- “Matt was a blunt little shit” -- “I always say, don’t fuck with a Wyoming queer, cause they will kick you in your fucking ass.” – “a freakin’ nightmare”-- “I was just bullshittin around with my shit” -- “I was in deep-ass sand” – “they better watch their fuckin ass” -- “ask him if he’d ever do anymore tweak” -- “I don’t know if Aaron was fucked up or whether he was coming down [off drugs] or what, but Matthew had money. Shit, he had better clothes than I did. Matthew was a little rich bitch … There was times when I was all messed up on meth… ” -- “pissed him off” -- “good to be with people who felt like shit” -- “why’d you fuck up like that” – “he tried to grab my dick” – “Up there in the max ward … when they found out Aaron was coming to prison, they were auctioning those boys off; ‘I want him. I’ll put aside five, six, seven cartons of cigarettes.’ …” -- “big-ass band of angels” [protester] with “big-ass wings” – “we don’t say a fuckin’ word” -- Police officer who “went out and got shit-faced” [drunk] -- etc.
The Acton-Boxborough Regional High School student handbook (p. 19) has a rule outlawing obscene language:
GENERAL BEHAVIORAL EXPECTATIONS
Abusive or Obscene Language
Students are not to use obscene or abusive language or gestures. Such behaviors will result in referral to the Assistant Principal.
Though "obscene language" goes conveniently undefined. So ... ANYTHING GOES. Certainly, if the "obscene language" is part of an assigned reading, or school play, it must be OK? After all, how else could the school be preparing its students according to its ...
"unity of purpose: to educate young people for life in a global society. It is important to create a learning environment at Acton-Boxborough where students can grow as individuals, learn how to think for themselves, learn when to talk and when to listen, see another person's side of things, and be part of a community." (p. 13)
But wait... If students are to "see another person's side of things," why did the school staff instruct the students (and parents) to ignore the forum on October 3? Why are students not instructed to weigh both sides of (by their own admission) a controversial play?
We read in Bay Windows that 475 local parents signed a petition giving their full support to "The Laramie Project" production (though they did not release their names). Shame on them. Do these parents have no problem with their children speaking like this in their homes? And the foul language in the play is the least example of its harmful impact. The play teaches that Laramie is just like Acton: Bad language, and hateful people hiding in the shadows waiting for their chance to lash out -- even to murder -- motivated by "hate".
Friday, August 17, 2007
Quebec Govt Threatens to Take Children from Mennonite Parents
Read this news from Canada, and ask how long it will be before Massachusetts authorities begin taking children away from their "conservative Christian" or "homophobic" parents. The First Circuit Federal Court has already ruled that parents can be denied their right to determine the moral and religious education of their own children, and that their children must be indoctrinated that homosexuality and transgenderism are normal, healthy, and equal to heterosexuality. The Mass. Department of Education and local school districts have long violated existing Massachusetts law requiring parental notification and opt-out privilege on issues of human sexuality.
Whether you call this Leftist indoctrination, atheistic fascism, anti-Creationist fascism, or homofascism, the end result is the same: Children will soon belong to the state, not to their parents.
Mennonites threaten to abandon Quebec
The province insists the group's children must go to a sanctioned school. Leaders say they'll leave the province rather than conform
CanWest News Service, 8-16-07
They have integrated into Quebec society, found jobs, made friends and learned French. But members of Quebec's only Mennonite community say they'll move out of the province before they'll send their children to government-approved schools. It's a question of religious intolerance, said Ronald Goossen, who in the early 1990s was among the first Mennonites from Manitoba to move to this sleepy town about 100 kilometres east of Montreal. "It's kind of sad because we enjoy the community, we have friends and we have good rapport with our neighbours.
"But when they threaten to take our children and put them in foster homes, that's beyond what we can accept," said Goossen, 56. Parents were warned they'll face legal proceedings if their children aren't enrolled in sanctioned schools this fall. That could lead to children being taken from families, Goossen said. He said about 30 members of the 15-family community -- couples with their school-aged children -- will have to move before school starts. The others will follow.
. . . Problems arise because the teacher is not certified and the province's official curriculum is not being taught, say education officials. [The official curriculum teaches anti-Christian attitudes and immorality antithetical to the Mennonite way of life.] "To do that, we would have to send teachers to schools we don't want to send our children to," Goossen said. "We don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said . . .
Whether you call this Leftist indoctrination, atheistic fascism, anti-Creationist fascism, or homofascism, the end result is the same: Children will soon belong to the state, not to their parents.
Mennonites threaten to abandon Quebec
The province insists the group's children must go to a sanctioned school. Leaders say they'll leave the province rather than conform
CanWest News Service, 8-16-07
They have integrated into Quebec society, found jobs, made friends and learned French. But members of Quebec's only Mennonite community say they'll move out of the province before they'll send their children to government-approved schools. It's a question of religious intolerance, said Ronald Goossen, who in the early 1990s was among the first Mennonites from Manitoba to move to this sleepy town about 100 kilometres east of Montreal. "It's kind of sad because we enjoy the community, we have friends and we have good rapport with our neighbours.
"But when they threaten to take our children and put them in foster homes, that's beyond what we can accept," said Goossen, 56. Parents were warned they'll face legal proceedings if their children aren't enrolled in sanctioned schools this fall. That could lead to children being taken from families, Goossen said. He said about 30 members of the 15-family community -- couples with their school-aged children -- will have to move before school starts. The others will follow.
. . . Problems arise because the teacher is not certified and the province's official curriculum is not being taught, say education officials. [The official curriculum teaches anti-Christian attitudes and immorality antithetical to the Mennonite way of life.] "To do that, we would have to send teachers to schools we don't want to send our children to," Goossen said. "We don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said . . .
Friday, July 20, 2007
Romney's Posing on Parents' Rights and Sex Ed
Romney's recent statements on sex ed (see YouTube) are laughable. Look, we're in Massachusetts, and we're the group behind the current Parents' Rights law that guarantees parents advance notice and the right to opt their child out of any school instruction involving human sexuality issues. So we know about this issue of sex ed in the schools. What a joke that Romney is acting as the defender of parents' rights in this matter!
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Slick Willard Romney's "Conservative" Resume
By John Haskins
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
* Compulsory government-run central heath care system, with ... massive boost in funding for abortions, and ... a new and unconstitutional role for Planned Parenthood as a permanent and unelected voice in our government.
* Looking the other way as an extra-constitutional fourth branch of government called the "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" was set up with no accountability to the people.
* Refusal to enforce the parents' rights law when hardened criminal David Parker (really just a regular parent protecting his rights as a father) was taken in handcuffs to a jail cell. Parker's crime: daring to say to the sodomy brainwashers: "Not to my little boy, you don't!" (Come to think of it, not once did Slick Willard enforce the parents' rights law.)
* Increased state funding for pro-homosexuality lessons starting in kindergarten.
* Turning a deaf ear to protests of massive irregularities at the Department of Social Services, which takes children from their parents on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, routinely ignores constitutional rights and due process, places children with homosexuals, and has recklessly put a child in a situation where he or she was killed.
* Ignored fathers' rights activists who are defending men being treated by the courts and the bureacracy like Blacks were treated under Jim Crow laws.
* Illegally "legalized" the sodomy-based family.
So, our new communist governor starts off with most of his objectives already accomplished by Slick Willard (the "pro-family, constitutionalist" Republican). So Gov. Patrick can now turn the political, social, and constitutional ratchets even further to the left than the Founding Fathers ever could have imagined in their wildest nightmares.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
"Gay" Historical Revisionism
We just heard a story about a recent keyboard performance seminar at one of America's premier conservatories. In a class focusing on pianoforte performance techniques, and specifically on the music of Franz Schubert, one of the students asked the professor if he was familiar with the information suggesting Schubert was gay. The professor responded pointedly: "Would that change the way you play the trills?" In other words, shut up already!
And we say SHUT UP, ALREADY to Mr. Tom Lang (founder of KnowThyNeighbor.org, intimidator who published the signers' names for the VoteOnMarriage petition) who introduced similar questions at the State House on Tuesday, when he testified against our Parents' Rights Opt-In bill (S321). Enough of such "gay" historical revisionism being crammed down the throats of schoolchildren! When people study Michelangelo, what's important is the beauty and meaning of the Bible scenes he painted in the Sistine Chapel and the way he chiseled the Pieta. We don't need (or want) to know that the homosexual movement makes the "historical" claim that he shared their perversions. If the artist's rumored "sexual orientation" were brought up in a junior or high school classroom, then kids would immediately STOP thinking about his art and START thinking about anal intercourse.
While many fine people turned out on Tuesday to support our side, few came to oppose. But Mr. Lang was there with his petite, blond-bombshell "husband" . . . because he wants to be sure the kids DO keep thinking about sodomy in their art history class. (Also testifying for GLBT brainwashing in the schools was the co-chair of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, who took the occasion to add the terms "Bisexual and Transgender" to the name of his commission when he delivered his testimony.)
Mr. Lang whined that if our Parents' Rights bill is passed, schoolchildren wouldn't be able to discuss how Michelangelo's "gayness" informed his artistic genius (and therefore these poor children would lose all self-esteem and commit suicide). And that any discussion of the genius (ha!) of Gertrude Stein's "A rose is a rose is a rose" must make reference to her lesbianism. His testimony simply underscored our suspicion that he and his activist buddies are totally focused on sex and sexuality. Nothing else in life stands on its own. A case of arrested development?
Here's the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' account of Mr. Lang's testimony, and Brian Camenker's objection: "Nazis? AIDS? Camenker must be talking about the gays again" (5-31-07):
Discussion of the Holocaust was prompted by the testimony of KnowThyNeighbor founder Tom Lang, who argued that the “opt-in” bill backed by MassResistance would essentially require that schools wallpaper over the history of LGBT people and their lives unless parents gave their approval to include them. He said teachers would have to discuss figures such as Gertrude Stein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and British World War II code-breaker Alan Turing while steering clear of their homosexuality and the impact that had on their works and their lives. He said the silencing of discussion about LGBT people would extend into topics where sexuality figures centrally, such as the Holocaust.
“A trip to the Holocaust memorial would be fine unless a teacher includes homosexuals among the list of the six million Jews, Gypsies, dissenters and social outcasts murdered by the Nazis in their death camps,” said Lang. He added that while the bill would limit discussions on sexuality for all students, the ones who would be hurt the most by the bill would be LGBT students. “But the true intent of S.321 is to take away the identity of LGBT children and to prevent them from reaching their full potential and achieving their greatest self-worth,” said Lang.
Camenker responded to Lang with his own testimony, arguing not only in favor of the restrictions on discussions of homosexuality and other “alternative sexual behaviors” but also disputing the persecution of gay men by the Nazis.“Being Jewish myself with many relatives from Eastern Europe, I was able to study the Holocaust and not have to deal with homosexuality. ” said Camenker. “One of the things that the gay movement is trying to do that drives parents crazy is to push that subject into the public school system.”
And we say SHUT UP, ALREADY to Mr. Tom Lang (founder of KnowThyNeighbor.org, intimidator who published the signers' names for the VoteOnMarriage petition) who introduced similar questions at the State House on Tuesday, when he testified against our Parents' Rights Opt-In bill (S321). Enough of such "gay" historical revisionism being crammed down the throats of schoolchildren! When people study Michelangelo, what's important is the beauty and meaning of the Bible scenes he painted in the Sistine Chapel and the way he chiseled the Pieta. We don't need (or want) to know that the homosexual movement makes the "historical" claim that he shared their perversions. If the artist's rumored "sexual orientation" were brought up in a junior or high school classroom, then kids would immediately STOP thinking about his art and START thinking about anal intercourse.
While many fine people turned out on Tuesday to support our side, few came to oppose. But Mr. Lang was there with his petite, blond-bombshell "husband" . . . because he wants to be sure the kids DO keep thinking about sodomy in their art history class. (Also testifying for GLBT brainwashing in the schools was the co-chair of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, who took the occasion to add the terms "Bisexual and Transgender" to the name of his commission when he delivered his testimony.)
Mr. Lang whined that if our Parents' Rights bill is passed, schoolchildren wouldn't be able to discuss how Michelangelo's "gayness" informed his artistic genius (and therefore these poor children would lose all self-esteem and commit suicide). And that any discussion of the genius (ha!) of Gertrude Stein's "A rose is a rose is a rose" must make reference to her lesbianism. His testimony simply underscored our suspicion that he and his activist buddies are totally focused on sex and sexuality. Nothing else in life stands on its own. A case of arrested development?
Here's the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows' account of Mr. Lang's testimony, and Brian Camenker's objection: "Nazis? AIDS? Camenker must be talking about the gays again" (5-31-07):
Discussion of the Holocaust was prompted by the testimony of KnowThyNeighbor founder Tom Lang, who argued that the “opt-in” bill backed by MassResistance would essentially require that schools wallpaper over the history of LGBT people and their lives unless parents gave their approval to include them. He said teachers would have to discuss figures such as Gertrude Stein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and British World War II code-breaker Alan Turing while steering clear of their homosexuality and the impact that had on their works and their lives. He said the silencing of discussion about LGBT people would extend into topics where sexuality figures centrally, such as the Holocaust.
“A trip to the Holocaust memorial would be fine unless a teacher includes homosexuals among the list of the six million Jews, Gypsies, dissenters and social outcasts murdered by the Nazis in their death camps,” said Lang. He added that while the bill would limit discussions on sexuality for all students, the ones who would be hurt the most by the bill would be LGBT students. “But the true intent of S.321 is to take away the identity of LGBT children and to prevent them from reaching their full potential and achieving their greatest self-worth,” said Lang.
Camenker responded to Lang with his own testimony, arguing not only in favor of the restrictions on discussions of homosexuality and other “alternative sexual behaviors” but also disputing the persecution of gay men by the Nazis.“Being Jewish myself with many relatives from Eastern Europe, I was able to study the Holocaust and not have to deal with homosexuality. ” said Camenker. “One of the things that the gay movement is trying to do that drives parents crazy is to push that subject into the public school system.”
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Jeff Jacoby's Heteronormative Propaganda
Dear Jeff Jacoby,
In your "Messages to my son" column (3-28-07), you clearly have not gotten the message from the Massachusetts powers-that-be, including a federal judge: Your son will never grow up to be a good citizen unless he learns to view homosexual "marriages" as a perfectly good option. And you are teaching him that he must marry a woman and have children! Horrors!
Don't you realize that you are spewing heteronormative propaganda? Why, it could even be considered hate speech. Bad enough that you say these things behind closed doors, but to publish these ideas in a public forum? How dare you! Don't you realize that implying something (such as heterosexual marriage, or being a father to children) is to be preferred, or is a norm, is hateful to others who don't share your sexual orientation, your outlook on family life? Don't you realize that as a good citizen (you say you want to be "good") you should be presenting your son with all possible options for his adult life? You need to apologize for writing these hate-filled words:
I want you and Micah [his younger brother] to become loving fathers and husbands, so I make sure that open affection is something you see and get a lot of. Some men are inhibited about kissing or hugging their wives, or addressing them with terms of endearment; you're growing up in an environment where your father makes no secret of his love for your mother. I hope your children will grow up in a similar environment. Speaking of your children, I have been shamelessly propagandizing you for years on the advantages of marrying early and having lots of kids -- two things I didn't do but wish I had....
Jeff, don't you know that you should leave it up to the state to disseminate proper values to your sons? We hope you've received a stern warning from your editors at the Boston Globe. And you'd better watch out: We may have to report you to the Dept. of Social Services for emotional abuse of your son.
In your "Messages to my son" column (3-28-07), you clearly have not gotten the message from the Massachusetts powers-that-be, including a federal judge: Your son will never grow up to be a good citizen unless he learns to view homosexual "marriages" as a perfectly good option. And you are teaching him that he must marry a woman and have children! Horrors!
Don't you realize that you are spewing heteronormative propaganda? Why, it could even be considered hate speech. Bad enough that you say these things behind closed doors, but to publish these ideas in a public forum? How dare you! Don't you realize that implying something (such as heterosexual marriage, or being a father to children) is to be preferred, or is a norm, is hateful to others who don't share your sexual orientation, your outlook on family life? Don't you realize that as a good citizen (you say you want to be "good") you should be presenting your son with all possible options for his adult life? You need to apologize for writing these hate-filled words:
I want you and Micah [his younger brother] to become loving fathers and husbands, so I make sure that open affection is something you see and get a lot of. Some men are inhibited about kissing or hugging their wives, or addressing them with terms of endearment; you're growing up in an environment where your father makes no secret of his love for your mother. I hope your children will grow up in a similar environment. Speaking of your children, I have been shamelessly propagandizing you for years on the advantages of marrying early and having lots of kids -- two things I didn't do but wish I had....
Jeff, don't you know that you should leave it up to the state to disseminate proper values to your sons? We hope you've received a stern warning from your editors at the Boston Globe. And you'd better watch out: We may have to report you to the Dept. of Social Services for emotional abuse of your son.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Trans Madness at Mass. High School
Is anyone paying attention? For years, the GLBT activists have been pushing on our children not only homosexuality, but also "bisexual" and "transgender" behaviors. Only the new Parents' Rights Opt-In Bill we've filed will stop this madness.
Yesterday we posted on our web site an article from a Massachusetts high school newspaper, reporting on a talk by a "transgender" (or is it "transsexual"?) young woman, claiming she's a man. She told kids about the wonders of her "transition", beginning with male hormone treatments at age 12. Note the mention of her Social Studies teacher. And how the teenage reporter has totally bought into the usage of the masculine pronouns for this young woman. From the Newton North High School newspaper (Dec. 2006):
Yesterday we posted on our web site an article from a Massachusetts high school newspaper, reporting on a talk by a "transgender" (or is it "transsexual"?) young woman, claiming she's a man. She told kids about the wonders of her "transition", beginning with male hormone treatments at age 12. Note the mention of her Social Studies teacher. And how the teenage reporter has totally bought into the usage of the masculine pronouns for this young woman. From the Newton North High School newspaper (Dec. 2006):
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Extremist Homosexual Newspaper Calls for End to Religious Freedom
The radical homosexual movement does not like clear definitions of their terms, such as "sexual orientation" or "gender identity and expression." And it takes words with clear, commonly accepted definitions such as "marriage" and "bigotry" and turns them inside out. Anything expressing disapproval of homosexuality -- on whatever basis, whether religion, morality, natural law, societal stability, public health -- they call "bigotry". Look at this week's editorial in Bay Windows, equating "bigotry" and Judeo-Christian beliefs. The editor whines,
How much longer are we going to have to listen to people claim a religious freedom to bigotry? Even as he dismissed their absurd lawsuit against Lexington town officials for trying to “indoctrinate” their children “with the belief that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are moral,” U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf was quite respectful of David and Tonia Parker’s and Rob and Robin Wirthlin’s religious beliefs — beliefs which sparked the suit. The couples have “sincerely held religious beliefs,” Wolf wrote. “They do not wish to have their young children exposed to views that contradict these beliefs and their teaching of them.” Later, he notes, “Profound differences in religious beliefs are also a hallmark of our diverse nation. It is often in a community’s interest to try to find a reasonable way to accommodate those differences.” That’s what liberals have been trying to do — “accommodate those differences” — since George W. Bush was “elected” president in 2000 with a record turnout of evangelical voters....
The comparison to the civil rights struggle of African Americans is apt. Of course, it is the struggle for the rights of LGBT people that should be compared to the fight for equality by African Americans. A person’s skin color, their gender identity and their sexual orientation are fixed from birth. Believing that God formed human beings from clay, that Allah rewards martyrs with virgins in paradise, that an angel visited a teenaged Joseph Smith in 1823 and revealed the Mormon religion to him, or that a perfectly sane sign of your devotion to God is to lop off the foreskin of your or your infant son’s penis — well, that’s a choice. The glorious thing about making such a choice for yourself is that this is America and you can believe whatever you want to believe — no matter how outrageous or irrational. Trying to impose your beliefs upon others, regardless of how “sincerely held” they may be, now that’s when the trouble starts.
Besides its utter contempt for others' religious beliefs, Bay Windows is simply lying about the demands of the Lexington parents -- only asking that their own beliefs be respected, but not "trying to impose [their] beliefs on others." The parents are simply demanding their right under the U.S. Constitution that their religion be respected, and their right under Massachusetts statute to protect their children from unwanted instruction on human sexuality issues. But such dishonesty from the homosexual press is par for the course.
Further, the homosexual radicals would have us believe their "civil rights" are being infringed upon, on a level with blacks being denied the vote, or people held in slavery. How much longer are we going to have to listen to this bogus equating of homosexual behaviors with innate characteristics, or true violations of a person's freedom and dignity? Homosexual citizens can vote, make out wills, and live with a companion of their choosing. They can even marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. What rights are being denied?
Their community is not defined by innate characteristics, but by their behaviors. It's their behaviors Christians object to, without questioning their freedom, dignity and value as individual human beings. Notice that no one labels Christians "bigots" because their religious beliefs inform them that other behaviors are wrong -- e.g., adultery or thievery -- yet the homosexual community labels Christians "bigots" for their understanding that homosexuality is a behavior similarly (or even more strongly) condemned in the Bible.
But Bay Windows has had enough of "accommodation" of any understanding that contradicts theirs. They wish to obliterate any religious (or other) objection to their behaviors.
How much longer are we going to have to listen to people claim a religious freedom to bigotry? Even as he dismissed their absurd lawsuit against Lexington town officials for trying to “indoctrinate” their children “with the belief that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are moral,” U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf was quite respectful of David and Tonia Parker’s and Rob and Robin Wirthlin’s religious beliefs — beliefs which sparked the suit. The couples have “sincerely held religious beliefs,” Wolf wrote. “They do not wish to have their young children exposed to views that contradict these beliefs and their teaching of them.” Later, he notes, “Profound differences in religious beliefs are also a hallmark of our diverse nation. It is often in a community’s interest to try to find a reasonable way to accommodate those differences.” That’s what liberals have been trying to do — “accommodate those differences” — since George W. Bush was “elected” president in 2000 with a record turnout of evangelical voters....
The comparison to the civil rights struggle of African Americans is apt. Of course, it is the struggle for the rights of LGBT people that should be compared to the fight for equality by African Americans. A person’s skin color, their gender identity and their sexual orientation are fixed from birth. Believing that God formed human beings from clay, that Allah rewards martyrs with virgins in paradise, that an angel visited a teenaged Joseph Smith in 1823 and revealed the Mormon religion to him, or that a perfectly sane sign of your devotion to God is to lop off the foreskin of your or your infant son’s penis — well, that’s a choice. The glorious thing about making such a choice for yourself is that this is America and you can believe whatever you want to believe — no matter how outrageous or irrational. Trying to impose your beliefs upon others, regardless of how “sincerely held” they may be, now that’s when the trouble starts.
Besides its utter contempt for others' religious beliefs, Bay Windows is simply lying about the demands of the Lexington parents -- only asking that their own beliefs be respected, but not "trying to impose [their] beliefs on others." The parents are simply demanding their right under the U.S. Constitution that their religion be respected, and their right under Massachusetts statute to protect their children from unwanted instruction on human sexuality issues. But such dishonesty from the homosexual press is par for the course.
Further, the homosexual radicals would have us believe their "civil rights" are being infringed upon, on a level with blacks being denied the vote, or people held in slavery. How much longer are we going to have to listen to this bogus equating of homosexual behaviors with innate characteristics, or true violations of a person's freedom and dignity? Homosexual citizens can vote, make out wills, and live with a companion of their choosing. They can even marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. What rights are being denied?
Their community is not defined by innate characteristics, but by their behaviors. It's their behaviors Christians object to, without questioning their freedom, dignity and value as individual human beings. Notice that no one labels Christians "bigots" because their religious beliefs inform them that other behaviors are wrong -- e.g., adultery or thievery -- yet the homosexual community labels Christians "bigots" for their understanding that homosexuality is a behavior similarly (or even more strongly) condemned in the Bible.
But Bay Windows has had enough of "accommodation" of any understanding that contradicts theirs. They wish to obliterate any religious (or other) objection to their behaviors.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Seen on Cardinal Sean O'Malley's Blog
The Cardinal and Bishops are strongly behind the current marriage amendment in Massachusetts. But why isn't the Church taking a public stand for parents' rights in the schools, and protecting religious freedom of the parents in the moral education of their own children? Isn't the early training of a child just as important as marriage? Where is the Catholic Church -- and all the other churches and Orthodox Jews of Massachusetts -- on this all-important issue? Maybe some of our Catholic friends should post more on the Cardinal's blog. Here's one recent posting:
I would say the biggest priority to pray for this Lent is the children in Massachusetts public schools who call themselves Catholic or Christian, who will be subjected to diversity ed at kindergarten. This "family stuff" will not just be simple books on different families -- it will be a new composite of sexual & trans behaviors ...
According to the Judge last Friday who decided the David Parker/Lexington public school case, take your kid out or homeschool is the only answer to the public school sex ed question. Do we have any reaction to this nightmare in the making this Lent? The fear of man bringeth a snare. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. At least the voucher system should be in place so decent people do not have to contribute to the delinquency of minors in this decision. The Judge had the nerve to say this was not a religion issue. Can you believe that!
Visit www.massresistance.org Get the whole transcript. This mensch of a Jewish father Brian Camenker, and David Parker and the Wirthlins of Lexington are battling for all parents and where is the camaraderie… Camenker is taking on the whole state and who will stand up and be counted in all this and back him up and unite the parents to react with righteous outrage ... God save the USA. My religion is clearly against this behavior....Where is the church in all this? I do not hear you?
I would say the biggest priority to pray for this Lent is the children in Massachusetts public schools who call themselves Catholic or Christian, who will be subjected to diversity ed at kindergarten. This "family stuff" will not just be simple books on different families -- it will be a new composite of sexual & trans behaviors ...
According to the Judge last Friday who decided the David Parker/Lexington public school case, take your kid out or homeschool is the only answer to the public school sex ed question. Do we have any reaction to this nightmare in the making this Lent? The fear of man bringeth a snare. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. At least the voucher system should be in place so decent people do not have to contribute to the delinquency of minors in this decision. The Judge had the nerve to say this was not a religion issue. Can you believe that!
Visit www.massresistance.org Get the whole transcript. This mensch of a Jewish father Brian Camenker, and David Parker and the Wirthlins of Lexington are battling for all parents and where is the camaraderie… Camenker is taking on the whole state and who will stand up and be counted in all this and back him up and unite the parents to react with righteous outrage ... God save the USA. My religion is clearly against this behavior....Where is the church in all this? I do not hear you?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
David Parker Interview from Sept. 2006
David Parker interviewed by Dr. Shirley Caniff and Rev. Merrie Turner last Sept. 10, 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn9-8BQTX0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn9-8BQTX0w
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Questions on Judge Wolf's Ruling on David Parker Case
Federal Judge Mark Wolf just ruled that Lexington father David Parker has to give his little children over to the state for indoctrination in sexual perversion. Here are some questions that immediately come to mind for Judge Wolf:
1. He points to Massachusetts laws banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." But how would he define that term, which is not defined anywhere in those laws? Judge Wolf likes to philosophize about the legitimate purpose of a school in preparing children to be good citizens. But nowhere does he help us good citizens understand what "sexual orientation" means. A careful jurist would help fill in the gaps in the law, right? Though once judges start defining "sexual orientation" all sorts of crazy, perverted behaviors could be normalized.
Judge Wolf: What about people who practice bondage & discipline/sadomasochism? Isn't that a "sexual orientation" that must be respected? How about cross-dressing? Can a school administrator, school board, or parent object to a teacher who openly participates in these "sexual orientations" and discusses them in school? Should third-graders be told about transsexual parents, awaiting organ removal surgery, as they recently were in a Newton public school? Don't our little developing citizens need to know about these things too? What if a school says: "Some parents are transsexual. We cannot discriminate against them. We need to read story books about them to the youngest children, so they'll grow up respecting diversity."
2. We thought the books the Lexington parents objected to were "just about different kinds of families." That's what the defendants said. Now the judge is telling us "sexual orientation" is involved. So this is about human sexuality? And the Parental Notification statute (Mass. law) applies after all?
3. When Judge Wolf points to the Massachusetts Health Curriculum Framework, he omits the crucial fact that it is one subject framework NOT required by Massachusetts law, including its recommendations for instruction on homosexuality and different types of families. The health framework is only recommended by the Dept. of Education. (That's why GLBT advocate Rep. Alice Wolf is again trying to pass her bill turning this framework into a requirement!)
4. Judge Wolf cites MGL ch. 69, sec. 1D, which does not mention "sexual orientation" -- that undefined phrase -- but says that public schools should "inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of the commonwealth ... [and] avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic, or racial stereotypes." Nothing about "sexual orientation." Is he saying that alternative families are part of our cultural diversity? Or that gender stereotypes are perpetuated if children grow up thinking children have a mom and a dad?
5. Judge Wolf is not familiar enough with Massachusetts statutes to know that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. The laws were never changed after the Goodridge ruling, and only the Legislature can "legalize" homosexual "marriage". That's why Rep. Byron Rushing has re-filed his bill to do so. The homosexual lobby knows this. And we suspect Judge Wolf and his friends at the ACLU do too.
1. He points to Massachusetts laws banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." But how would he define that term, which is not defined anywhere in those laws? Judge Wolf likes to philosophize about the legitimate purpose of a school in preparing children to be good citizens. But nowhere does he help us good citizens understand what "sexual orientation" means. A careful jurist would help fill in the gaps in the law, right? Though once judges start defining "sexual orientation" all sorts of crazy, perverted behaviors could be normalized.
Judge Wolf: What about people who practice bondage & discipline/sadomasochism? Isn't that a "sexual orientation" that must be respected? How about cross-dressing? Can a school administrator, school board, or parent object to a teacher who openly participates in these "sexual orientations" and discusses them in school? Should third-graders be told about transsexual parents, awaiting organ removal surgery, as they recently were in a Newton public school? Don't our little developing citizens need to know about these things too? What if a school says: "Some parents are transsexual. We cannot discriminate against them. We need to read story books about them to the youngest children, so they'll grow up respecting diversity."
2. We thought the books the Lexington parents objected to were "just about different kinds of families." That's what the defendants said. Now the judge is telling us "sexual orientation" is involved. So this is about human sexuality? And the Parental Notification statute (Mass. law) applies after all?
3. When Judge Wolf points to the Massachusetts Health Curriculum Framework, he omits the crucial fact that it is one subject framework NOT required by Massachusetts law, including its recommendations for instruction on homosexuality and different types of families. The health framework is only recommended by the Dept. of Education. (That's why GLBT advocate Rep. Alice Wolf is again trying to pass her bill turning this framework into a requirement!)
4. Judge Wolf cites MGL ch. 69, sec. 1D, which does not mention "sexual orientation" -- that undefined phrase -- but says that public schools should "inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of the commonwealth ... [and] avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic, or racial stereotypes." Nothing about "sexual orientation." Is he saying that alternative families are part of our cultural diversity? Or that gender stereotypes are perpetuated if children grow up thinking children have a mom and a dad?
5. Judge Wolf is not familiar enough with Massachusetts statutes to know that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. The laws were never changed after the Goodridge ruling, and only the Legislature can "legalize" homosexual "marriage". That's why Rep. Byron Rushing has re-filed his bill to do so. The homosexual lobby knows this. And we suspect Judge Wolf and his friends at the ACLU do too.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Swatting a "Gadfly" Warrants a Press Release from the Mighty Mitt
THANKS TO CAROL McKINLEY for this posting:
Mitt, the Compassionate Conservative who supports prolife profamily parents
Mitt's 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee has posted a malicious attempt to make Brian Canemaker, who has been working to protect children from aggressive sexual predators for over fifteen years in Massachusetts, someone who is to be ridiculed and attacked.
What a typical expose on why people defending children from sexual abuse and exploitation were not, and are not taken seriously - and why people who will not compromise truth get hoisted to the gallows by people bought and sold by money and power.
Alas, the Dauphins, Reilly, Sheilds, Glendon, Mineau - reach the pinnacle of power to burn the warriors. So long as a candidate and lay people do not have a long standing record of impeccable prolife work, they'll endorse your credibility. If you do, you're toast.
So this is the religious conversion of Mitt Romney?
Mitt, the Compassionate Conservative who supports prolife profamily parents
Mitt's 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee has posted a malicious attempt to make Brian Canemaker, who has been working to protect children from aggressive sexual predators for over fifteen years in Massachusetts, someone who is to be ridiculed and attacked.
What a typical expose on why people defending children from sexual abuse and exploitation were not, and are not taken seriously - and why people who will not compromise truth get hoisted to the gallows by people bought and sold by money and power.
Alas, the Dauphins, Reilly, Sheilds, Glendon, Mineau - reach the pinnacle of power to burn the warriors. So long as a candidate and lay people do not have a long standing record of impeccable prolife work, they'll endorse your credibility. If you do, you're toast.
So this is the religious conversion of Mitt Romney?
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!
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)