John Fund's article on Gov. Romney in today's Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal online) is an ill-informed disgrace: "Romney Rides High: A Mormon from Massachusetts wows social conservatives." Well, Romney doesn't wow us. Mr. Fund should do a bit more research with the Massachusetts conservatives before posting with such confidence.
He doesn't understand Romney's role in creating homosexual "marriage" -- well documented by Robert Paine, Esq., John Haskins, and yours truly. Homosexual “marriage” is still NOT legal here, and was NOT created by the Goodridge ruling. Even the homosexual lobby in our legislature knows this to be true, or they would not have filed their Bill #H977 to legalize homosexual "marriage" -- which they still have not had the confidence to bring to the floor for a vote!
In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for homosexual “marriages” taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only ordered the Legislature to act (which it never did). But Romney created these “marriages” through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new “marriage” licenses), and threats to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) “new law.”
Mr. Fund also speaks of the Heritage Foundation's admiration for Romney and his mandatory health insurance bill. What he doesn't mention is that Romney gave Heritage a generous gift of $25,000, and that they worked together on the plan. No wonder Fund can get a good quote out of a Heritage guy.
From "Romney aided conservative groups," Boston Globe, 8-16-06:
Analysts with the Heritage Foundation worked closely with Romney in the past year to develop his healthcare initiative, which would require all Bay State residents to obtain medical insurance, a collaboration he often cites during his travels. Romney spoke at Heritage Foundation events at least three times since 2004.
The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 as a research and education institute dedicated to promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense," according to the group's website.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Kerry Healey & Reed Hillman Pro-Civil Unions
"Republicans" deserve to lose the corner office in 2006. Both Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman are for "civil unions". Why should any conservative bother to vote? The pro-intimidation website, KnowThyNeighbor.org (which published the names of all the signers of the Mass. marriage amendment) posted this on their blog a few days ago:
Kerry Healey, Republican for Governor, still just does not get it. In an interview in June 2006 Healey spokeswoman, Amy Lambioso, told KnowThyNeighbor, "Kerry is against same-sex marriage but for civil unions. She is for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and would vote for it if it reaches the ballot in 2008. If elected Governor, Healey will work on civil union legislation." When asked by KnowThyNeighbor what the language would be in Healey's "civil union" proposal i.e. "civil unions with all the rights of marriage" or "civil unions with rights 'to be determined,'" we were told, "it is premature to ask that as that would not be until 2008."
Don't think that Reed Hillman, who is Healey's and the GOP's choice for Lt. Governor is any better. When KnowThyNeighbor asked what Hillman's stance was on the subject, the spokeswoman told us, "Reed Hillman believes in everything that Healey does." When I responded with, "surely there must be something that Hillman would like to add or clarify in a statement, " I was told, "No, everything that Kerry Healey says is EXACTLY what Hillman says."
Kerry Healey, Republican for Governor, still just does not get it. In an interview in June 2006 Healey spokeswoman, Amy Lambioso, told KnowThyNeighbor, "Kerry is against same-sex marriage but for civil unions. She is for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and would vote for it if it reaches the ballot in 2008. If elected Governor, Healey will work on civil union legislation." When asked by KnowThyNeighbor what the language would be in Healey's "civil union" proposal i.e. "civil unions with all the rights of marriage" or "civil unions with rights 'to be determined,'" we were told, "it is premature to ask that as that would not be until 2008."
Don't think that Reed Hillman, who is Healey's and the GOP's choice for Lt. Governor is any better. When KnowThyNeighbor asked what Hillman's stance was on the subject, the spokeswoman told us, "Reed Hillman believes in everything that Healey does." When I responded with, "surely there must be something that Hillman would like to add or clarify in a statement, " I was told, "No, everything that Kerry Healey says is EXACTLY what Hillman says."
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Boycott Citgo, Buy Exxon-Mobil
Boycotting Citgo is a great way to slap down Chavezian, leftist anti-Americanism. And we never bought into that garbage about the Citgo sign by Fenway Park being a landmark worth saving. We always found it an eyesore. Take it down!
But it's nice to know you can feel good about buying at Exxon-Mobil instead. They are one of the companies rated ZERO by the so-called "Human Rights Campaign," an extremist GLBT organization. That means the corporation has not kowtowed to all the absurd demands of the GLBTs for diversity training, partner benefits, and transsexual surgery.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
More Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Transgender Propaganda in Boston Globe
Today's Boston Globe runs a story from the International Herald Tribune at the top of p. A13, featuring this photo. ("Elite in India campaigning against antigay legislation," Sept. 24, 2006) These are apparently "transgender" males dressed as females, part of a Calcutta demonstration last June celebrating the Stonewall riot of 1969.Note the Globe headline says the "elite" in India are campaigning. Did it mean to say "Some members of the elite"? And while the caption of the photo reads, "Gay and transgender people marched in Calcutta...," the story says nothing about transgenders. It just refers to homosexuals, gays, and bisexuals.
This new "campaign" in India (which consists of a "protest letter" signed by 150 people) purportedly wants to make the government's fight against HIV/AIDS more effective. It also aims to overturn the "anachronistic" law banning "gay" sex. (Do they mean to say "sodomy"?)
Again we ask, if there's a serious effort to get control of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in India, doesn't it make sense for public officials to discourage anal intercourse (five times as risky for contracting HIV as vaginal intercourse, according to the CDC), rather than encourage it? And that is what laws banning sodomy do.
Further, the use of this photo is part of the new MSM (mainstream media -- or "men who have sex with men" -- take your pick!) push to normalize transgenderism and transsexuality. Where will it stop?
From the story:
...Hostility to the law has intensified recently for two reasons: because it is seen as an anachronism, redolent of an earlier, less tolerant era, and because health care officials, struggling to contain India's AIDS epidemic, warn that it hampers their efforts to contact vulnerable groups.
The letter, which was also signed by Soli Sorabjee, a former attorney general, and Nitin Desai, a former UN undersecretary general, as well as prominent figures ranging from newspaper editors to admirals, stresses that the law has been ``used by homophobic officials to suppress the work of legitimate HIV-prevention groups, leaving gay and bisexual men in India even more defenseless against HIV infection."
The letter's release has been timed to trigger renewed debate in advance of a critical ruling from Delhi's High Court, expected early next month, on the validity of the legislation.
This is the latest stage of a long-running attempt by an HIV-AIDS prevention organization, the Naz Foundation, to have the law overturned....
UNAIDS said in May that India had the highest number of people in the world living with HIV -- about 5.7 million. A few weeks later, the government's AIDS-prevention body called for the law to be overturned.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Senator Dianne Wilkerson: Bought by MassEquality
We often ask here in Massachusetts how incredibly corrupt and incompetent legislators continue to be re-elected. The answer is, of course, that powerful special interests -- in the case of State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, MassEquality (the GLBT lobby) -- throw their money and workers behind a candidate who would otherwise fail. Then they own the candidate.
Of course the Boston Globe and Herald say nothing about MassEquality's huge role in Wilkerson's victory.
Wilkerson is important to MassEquality's race card playing. Same with their darling Deval Patrick. They clearly state that they will use his race to further their cause. Wilkerson is a black who says homosexually-behaving people's demands for special rights is equivalent to the civil rights struggle of the 60's, where people's inborn physical characteristic was the grounds for discrimination.
It seemed like good news a few months back when Wilkerson, through sheer incompetence, failed to get enough signatures to appear on the Democrat primary ballot. We were hopeful. But then she miraculously pulled off a write-in victory on Tuesday, over other reasonable (when compared to her) write-in candidates. Given her foul record, how could this have happened?
Bay Windows' coverage explains it all. According to Wilkerson, "MassEquality ... did everything." They "pulled out all the stops" to get her elected. See "A very gay day" (Sept 21, 2006):
Same-sex marriage advocates managed to protect all of their incumbent supporters facing challengers, showing for the second election season in a row that the LGBT community is willing to go to the mat for lawmakers who support marriage equality. In particular, Solomon [Director of MassEquality] said MassEquality pulled out all the stops to support Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston), a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage who had failed to collect the required 300 signatures to appear on the primary ballot and who faced a four-way sticker campaign to win back her own seat....
Solomon, who worked the polls in Jamaica Plain and the South End for the Wilkerson campaign, said the LGBT community showed its loyalty to one of its strongest supporters by coming out in force for Wilkerson. On primary day the campaign had 600 positions for volunteers, and MassEquality supporters filled 130 of those, and MassEquality also sent out mailings urging members of the LGBT community to support her. In addition to Solomon, MassEquality’s field organizer Jesse Sullivan also spent the day working on behalf of the campaign. Beyond MassEquality, the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus also recruited volunteers to work for Wilkerson’s campaign, including co-chairs Arline Isaacson and Gary Daffin.
“I’m so proud of what the gay community did in this race,” said Solomon.
He said MassEquality faced criticism from some of its own supporter for backing Wilkerson, who has faced her own share of criticism and bad press over the years. In 1997 she pleaded guilty of failing to pay her income taxes, she was sued by Attorney General Tom Reilly’s office a year ago for campaign finance violations, a series of Boston Herald stories have raised allegations (but no charges) of perjury relating to a manslaughter case involving two of her nephews.
On top of all that her failure to get on the ballot had some observers ready to write off her political career, and two of her challengers, Chang-Diaz and Republican Samiyah Diaz, raised Wilkerson’s character as a major issue in the race. Yet Solomon said Wilkerson’s support for the community, and in particular her celebrated speech in favor of marriage equality during the 2004 constitutional convention, during which she compared the struggle for gay rights to the fight for African American civil rights, earned her the loyalty of the community.
“We took some pretty serious flack from our members for being as outspoken as we were,” said Solomon.
And even among some of her volunteers there was the sense that Wilkerson had strained the relationship with her supporters. Claire Humphrey, a former Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts board member, worked the polls for Wilkerson’s campaign from 6:30 a.m. until closing alongside her wife, MassEquality board member Vickie Henry. Humphrey said she and her fellow campaign workers were willing to wage the labor-intensive campaign needed to win a sticker campaign, but she was upset with Wilkerson for putting her supporters in that position by failing to qualify for the ballot.
“I’m disappointed, like a lot of people are. [But] she’s come through so much, she’s family now … You can take the ups and downs of family more than you do others. She’s more than earned my loyalty,” said Humphrey.
Wilkerson herself said she was grateful for the work MassEquality did in her campaign. “MassEquality was awesome… They did everything. They recruited volunteers, they helped raise money,” said Wilkerson. She also credited them with reminding the LGBT community of her role in the marriage fight.
Of course the Boston Globe and Herald say nothing about MassEquality's huge role in Wilkerson's victory.
Wilkerson is important to MassEquality's race card playing. Same with their darling Deval Patrick. They clearly state that they will use his race to further their cause. Wilkerson is a black who says homosexually-behaving people's demands for special rights is equivalent to the civil rights struggle of the 60's, where people's inborn physical characteristic was the grounds for discrimination.
It seemed like good news a few months back when Wilkerson, through sheer incompetence, failed to get enough signatures to appear on the Democrat primary ballot. We were hopeful. But then she miraculously pulled off a write-in victory on Tuesday, over other reasonable (when compared to her) write-in candidates. Given her foul record, how could this have happened?
Bay Windows' coverage explains it all. According to Wilkerson, "MassEquality ... did everything." They "pulled out all the stops" to get her elected. See "A very gay day" (Sept 21, 2006):
Same-sex marriage advocates managed to protect all of their incumbent supporters facing challengers, showing for the second election season in a row that the LGBT community is willing to go to the mat for lawmakers who support marriage equality. In particular, Solomon [Director of MassEquality] said MassEquality pulled out all the stops to support Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston), a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage who had failed to collect the required 300 signatures to appear on the primary ballot and who faced a four-way sticker campaign to win back her own seat....
Solomon, who worked the polls in Jamaica Plain and the South End for the Wilkerson campaign, said the LGBT community showed its loyalty to one of its strongest supporters by coming out in force for Wilkerson. On primary day the campaign had 600 positions for volunteers, and MassEquality supporters filled 130 of those, and MassEquality also sent out mailings urging members of the LGBT community to support her. In addition to Solomon, MassEquality’s field organizer Jesse Sullivan also spent the day working on behalf of the campaign. Beyond MassEquality, the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus also recruited volunteers to work for Wilkerson’s campaign, including co-chairs Arline Isaacson and Gary Daffin.
“I’m so proud of what the gay community did in this race,” said Solomon.
He said MassEquality faced criticism from some of its own supporter for backing Wilkerson, who has faced her own share of criticism and bad press over the years. In 1997 she pleaded guilty of failing to pay her income taxes, she was sued by Attorney General Tom Reilly’s office a year ago for campaign finance violations, a series of Boston Herald stories have raised allegations (but no charges) of perjury relating to a manslaughter case involving two of her nephews.
On top of all that her failure to get on the ballot had some observers ready to write off her political career, and two of her challengers, Chang-Diaz and Republican Samiyah Diaz, raised Wilkerson’s character as a major issue in the race. Yet Solomon said Wilkerson’s support for the community, and in particular her celebrated speech in favor of marriage equality during the 2004 constitutional convention, during which she compared the struggle for gay rights to the fight for African American civil rights, earned her the loyalty of the community.
“We took some pretty serious flack from our members for being as outspoken as we were,” said Solomon.
And even among some of her volunteers there was the sense that Wilkerson had strained the relationship with her supporters. Claire Humphrey, a former Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts board member, worked the polls for Wilkerson’s campaign from 6:30 a.m. until closing alongside her wife, MassEquality board member Vickie Henry. Humphrey said she and her fellow campaign workers were willing to wage the labor-intensive campaign needed to win a sticker campaign, but she was upset with Wilkerson for putting her supporters in that position by failing to qualify for the ballot.
“I’m disappointed, like a lot of people are. [But] she’s come through so much, she’s family now … You can take the ups and downs of family more than you do others. She’s more than earned my loyalty,” said Humphrey.
Wilkerson herself said she was grateful for the work MassEquality did in her campaign. “MassEquality was awesome… They did everything. They recruited volunteers, they helped raise money,” said Wilkerson. She also credited them with reminding the LGBT community of her role in the marriage fight.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Corporate Collaborators
WorldNetDaily (WND) reminded us of the latest capitulations in the corporate world to the powerful homosexual dollar: "America's pro-homosexual giants: 2006 List of companies scoring perfect 100 percent from 'gay'-rights group" (Sept. 20, 2006). At first glance, the growing list of pro-GLBT companies appears to be all bad news. But look more carefully: The boycott begun by American Family Association after Ford's latest obscenities has had a huge effect! (More on that below.)
Another hopeful aspect is our belief that the GLBT movement is blundering in their push for "transgender" or "transsexual" benefits or "rights" in the workplace. The "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC) -- source of the list -- awards its perfect 100% GLBT score only if a company includes "health" benefits for "trans" workers. But what this actually means is shocking: hormone treatments, surgeries, and therapy for employees who are "transitioning" while on the job! (And think of how paychecks for normal employees are reduced when these benefits sap a company's resources.) From Bay Windows, Sept. 21, 2006:
The [HRC] index rates companies on a range of policies, from the existence of nondiscrimination protections and diversity training around sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the provision of health insurance benefits for domestic partners to corporate investment in pro- or anti-LGBT causes. ... there has been a particular increase in protections for transgender employees, with a 75 percent increase in companies providing non-discrimination protections based on gender identity and expression. The index also found 67 companies that provide a full range of health benefits to transgender employees, including coverage for surgery, hormones, and therapy.
Maria Ferris, director of global workforce diversity programs at IBM, one of the companies with a perfect score, said transgender employees at IBM can get access to full healthcare services, including surgery, to transition on the job. Employees can choose from a menu of different health plans, and at least one in each state covers surgery.
Here's WorldNetDaily's summary of the big changes in the list: Corporate America gets 'gay'-friendlier: Biggest names in U.S. business applauded for promoting alternative sexual lifestyles. Note that Ford has suffered major losses over the past year:
A one-year boycott of Ford was announced last winter by the after the group said Ford reneged on a promise to remain neutral on such social issues as homosexuality.
Just a few weeks later, Bill Ford, chairman and CEO at the time, said the company had met with leaders of homosexual organizations and had made "a historical commitment … that I intend to carry forward" by promising to value all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Several dozen conservative and Christian organizations joined in the AFA effort. Then last week Ford announced buyouts were being offered to an estimated 75,000 workers, some plants were being closed and that the company did not expect to see a profit for several more years. The company's corporate network includes Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston-Martin vehicles.
Another hopeful aspect is our belief that the GLBT movement is blundering in their push for "transgender" or "transsexual" benefits or "rights" in the workplace. The "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC) -- source of the list -- awards its perfect 100% GLBT score only if a company includes "health" benefits for "trans" workers. But what this actually means is shocking: hormone treatments, surgeries, and therapy for employees who are "transitioning" while on the job! (And think of how paychecks for normal employees are reduced when these benefits sap a company's resources.) From Bay Windows, Sept. 21, 2006:
The [HRC] index rates companies on a range of policies, from the existence of nondiscrimination protections and diversity training around sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the provision of health insurance benefits for domestic partners to corporate investment in pro- or anti-LGBT causes. ... there has been a particular increase in protections for transgender employees, with a 75 percent increase in companies providing non-discrimination protections based on gender identity and expression. The index also found 67 companies that provide a full range of health benefits to transgender employees, including coverage for surgery, hormones, and therapy.
Maria Ferris, director of global workforce diversity programs at IBM, one of the companies with a perfect score, said transgender employees at IBM can get access to full healthcare services, including surgery, to transition on the job. Employees can choose from a menu of different health plans, and at least one in each state covers surgery.
Here's WorldNetDaily's summary of the big changes in the list: Corporate America gets 'gay'-friendlier: Biggest names in U.S. business applauded for promoting alternative sexual lifestyles. Note that Ford has suffered major losses over the past year:
A one-year boycott of Ford was announced last winter by the after the group said Ford reneged on a promise to remain neutral on such social issues as homosexuality.
Just a few weeks later, Bill Ford, chairman and CEO at the time, said the company had met with leaders of homosexual organizations and had made "a historical commitment … that I intend to carry forward" by promising to value all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Several dozen conservative and Christian organizations joined in the AFA effort. Then last week Ford announced buyouts were being offered to an estimated 75,000 workers, some plants were being closed and that the company did not expect to see a profit for several more years. The company's corporate network includes Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston-Martin vehicles.
Deval Patrick's Reckless Promises
Seems that Deval Patrick will promise anyone anything. Take the example of "trans rights". At the Harvard forum on GLBT issues, he told a "trans" attendee, "You need to teach me how you experience it in your life.… I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.” In other words, just tell me whatever your latest lunatic radical demand is, and I'll do it for you.
From Bay Windows, "Pressing the Flesh: Patrick, Gabrieli go at it on gay issues," Sept. 14, 2006:
The question of how to protect transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and credit under state law also teased out a difference between the candidates. Though both agreed that the state’s hate crimes laws should be expanded to protect those who are victimized on the basis of gender identity, Gabrieli flatly stated he wants to ensure that “our civil rights protections include gender identity and gender expression,” while Patrick approached the issue more cautiously, acknowledging that transgender issues were an area “where I have a lot of work to do.”
“I can’t see limiting our civil rights laws so that they exclude those who identify across gender,” he said “But frankly, beyond that principle and that approach there is honestly a lot I’ve got to do to understand exactly how we need to come up with, and in what context, and how then we change not just our legislation but our practices so it really does get at the issues people are facing in their lives.”...
Patrick’s statement that he needed further education on transgender rights raised a flag for at least one audience member. Following the forum, Jakobi Gorham, a 24-year-old Northeastern University student who works at Harvard’s science center, approached Patrick to discuss the issue. “If you deeply believe that people are people regardless of what the issues are, it set me back, and it actually hurt me for you to say that you need to educate yourself,” Gorham told the candidate.
“I’m sorry to hear you say that,” Patrick replied. The candidate then explained that he supports expanding the state’s laws to protect transgender people, but said, “how you enforce that, how that comes up in your life, you need to teach me that. I know how it comes up in the life of the gay kid or a lesbian. I know that. You need to teach me how you experience it in your life. … I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.”
From Bay Windows, "Pressing the Flesh: Patrick, Gabrieli go at it on gay issues," Sept. 14, 2006:
The question of how to protect transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and credit under state law also teased out a difference between the candidates. Though both agreed that the state’s hate crimes laws should be expanded to protect those who are victimized on the basis of gender identity, Gabrieli flatly stated he wants to ensure that “our civil rights protections include gender identity and gender expression,” while Patrick approached the issue more cautiously, acknowledging that transgender issues were an area “where I have a lot of work to do.”
“I can’t see limiting our civil rights laws so that they exclude those who identify across gender,” he said “But frankly, beyond that principle and that approach there is honestly a lot I’ve got to do to understand exactly how we need to come up with, and in what context, and how then we change not just our legislation but our practices so it really does get at the issues people are facing in their lives.”...
Patrick’s statement that he needed further education on transgender rights raised a flag for at least one audience member. Following the forum, Jakobi Gorham, a 24-year-old Northeastern University student who works at Harvard’s science center, approached Patrick to discuss the issue. “If you deeply believe that people are people regardless of what the issues are, it set me back, and it actually hurt me for you to say that you need to educate yourself,” Gorham told the candidate.
“I’m sorry to hear you say that,” Patrick replied. The candidate then explained that he supports expanding the state’s laws to protect transgender people, but said, “how you enforce that, how that comes up in your life, you need to teach me that. I know how it comes up in the life of the gay kid or a lesbian. I know that. You need to teach me how you experience it in your life. … I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.”
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Harvard Business School Recognizes Three Genders
Gender confusion is even worse at Harvard than we first realized. Bob Knight (of the Culture and Family Institute at CWA) revealed in July that the Harvard Business School is now giving applicants three choices for their sex designation: male, female, or transgender!
This is a significant example of an elite institution trying to keep up with absurd avant-garde ideas. When things are moving so fast in the GLBT radical activist community that they themselves can't decide on the meaning of gender (or terms for their new gender-variation concepts), how can the gullible fools at the Harvard Business School Admissions Office keep up? Wouldn't a "trans" person check off the gender he or she happens to be identifying as, at the time of application -- and not choose "transgender"? From Agape Press, July 25, 2006:
Harvard Introduces Third Gender: Knight Rips Ivy League School for Giving Credibility to 'Transgenderism'
Prospective applicants to prestigious Harvard Business School no longer have to be of the male or female gender. One pro-family leader in Washington, DC, is criticizing the school for legitimizing transgenderism.
Before completing an application, students looking to enter the Harvard Business School MBA program are asked to fill out an online profile that offers three choices of gender: female, male, or transgender. The form also asks prospective applicants if they would be interested in learning more about the school's "lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender" community.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute (CFI) at Concerned Women for America, says "it's not compassionate" for Harvard to encourage people to reject their "God-given natures." But then Knight considers the source.
"I'm not surprised it's coming out of Harvard," he says, "because they've flirted with the idea that, in terms of sexuality, anything goes, and they've given intellectual respectability to it." Knight continues, sharing that he feels it is "harmful" that Harvard, one of the most prestigious colleges in America, now thinks there are three sexes instead of two. "That kind of thing trickles down to other institutions," he laments. ... Read more
This is a significant example of an elite institution trying to keep up with absurd avant-garde ideas. When things are moving so fast in the GLBT radical activist community that they themselves can't decide on the meaning of gender (or terms for their new gender-variation concepts), how can the gullible fools at the Harvard Business School Admissions Office keep up? Wouldn't a "trans" person check off the gender he or she happens to be identifying as, at the time of application -- and not choose "transgender"? From Agape Press, July 25, 2006:
Harvard Introduces Third Gender: Knight Rips Ivy League School for Giving Credibility to 'Transgenderism'
Prospective applicants to prestigious Harvard Business School no longer have to be of the male or female gender. One pro-family leader in Washington, DC, is criticizing the school for legitimizing transgenderism.
Before completing an application, students looking to enter the Harvard Business School MBA program are asked to fill out an online profile that offers three choices of gender: female, male, or transgender. The form also asks prospective applicants if they would be interested in learning more about the school's "lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender" community.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute (CFI) at Concerned Women for America, says "it's not compassionate" for Harvard to encourage people to reject their "God-given natures." But then Knight considers the source.
"I'm not surprised it's coming out of Harvard," he says, "because they've flirted with the idea that, in terms of sexuality, anything goes, and they've given intellectual respectability to it." Knight continues, sharing that he feels it is "harmful" that Harvard, one of the most prestigious colleges in America, now thinks there are three sexes instead of two. "That kind of thing trickles down to other institutions," he laments. ... Read more
Monday, September 18, 2006
Gabrieli & Patrick: Revolutionaries on Sexuality? Or Just Stupid?
So, we have two pansexual revolutionaries running for the Democrat nomination for Governor: Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick. As you've seen in our recent postings (starting Sept. 14), they both eagerly participated in a Harvard forum pushing the farthest-out LGBT demands. (If they're not revolutionaries, they're just stupid. Which is worse?)
Revolutionaries want to overthrow the existing order. Revolutionaries abolish true rights (speech, religion, property, fair elections) and establish invented "rights" that guarantee that they - the revolutionary elite -- will continue to hold power. In the social-sexual realm, they seek to establish a pansexual free-for-all (to undermine the traditional family), including homosexual "marriage" (and eventually polygamous and polyandrous "families") and transgender/transsexual/gender-identity "rights". They claim that these disordered perversions are "civil rights", thereby enabling the state to stomp out any dissent as unlawful "discrimination" or "hate speech" or "hate crimes."
Now, one might argue (though we'd disagree) that GLBT citizens have a "right" to state-financed medical treatment for their disorders. But it cannot possibly be argued that it's a "civil right" to come to work or appear in public dressed and "presenting" as a member of the opposite sex. Or to demand that people play along, show no signs of discomfort or revulsion, and use the absurd new pronouns "trans" people are inventing for themselves.
Both Gabrieli and Patrick have pledged to make it unlawful to discriminate against "trans" citizens. So employers could not deny health benefits to pay for hormone treatments, electrolysis, or cosmetic and mutilating sex-change surgeries. And employers could not dismiss a "trans" employee whose presence disrupted a workplace environment for whatever reason (e.g., a teacher who teacher returns after vacation "presenting" as the opposite sex to the little children in his or her charge, or a front-desk worker or cashier whose appearance would force a business to lose customers). And the normal citizen could not react in any (harmless) negative way when encountering such perversion.
Gabrieli and Patrick are ready to jump off a cliff. Their pledge to enact legislation for "trans" non-discrimination and "hate crimes" is every bit as dangerous as setting up a guillotine in the public square. This, along with homosexual "marriage", is societal suicide. Remember, even the GLBT radical "educators" themselves call their "trans" sexuality model "Revolutionary"!
Watch out Massachusetts: Your likely next Governor has pledged to implement this radical scheme.
Revolutionaries want to overthrow the existing order. Revolutionaries abolish true rights (speech, religion, property, fair elections) and establish invented "rights" that guarantee that they - the revolutionary elite -- will continue to hold power. In the social-sexual realm, they seek to establish a pansexual free-for-all (to undermine the traditional family), including homosexual "marriage" (and eventually polygamous and polyandrous "families") and transgender/transsexual/gender-identity "rights". They claim that these disordered perversions are "civil rights", thereby enabling the state to stomp out any dissent as unlawful "discrimination" or "hate speech" or "hate crimes."
Now, one might argue (though we'd disagree) that GLBT citizens have a "right" to state-financed medical treatment for their disorders. But it cannot possibly be argued that it's a "civil right" to come to work or appear in public dressed and "presenting" as a member of the opposite sex. Or to demand that people play along, show no signs of discomfort or revulsion, and use the absurd new pronouns "trans" people are inventing for themselves.
Both Gabrieli and Patrick have pledged to make it unlawful to discriminate against "trans" citizens. So employers could not deny health benefits to pay for hormone treatments, electrolysis, or cosmetic and mutilating sex-change surgeries. And employers could not dismiss a "trans" employee whose presence disrupted a workplace environment for whatever reason (e.g., a teacher who teacher returns after vacation "presenting" as the opposite sex to the little children in his or her charge, or a front-desk worker or cashier whose appearance would force a business to lose customers). And the normal citizen could not react in any (harmless) negative way when encountering such perversion.
Gabrieli and Patrick are ready to jump off a cliff. Their pledge to enact legislation for "trans" non-discrimination and "hate crimes" is every bit as dangerous as setting up a guillotine in the public square. This, along with homosexual "marriage", is societal suicide. Remember, even the GLBT radical "educators" themselves call their "trans" sexuality model "Revolutionary"!
Watch out Massachusetts: Your likely next Governor has pledged to implement this radical scheme.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Transgender Tutorial #2 for Chris Gabrieli & Deval Patrick
Chris and Deval:
Are you ready to become "REVOLUTIONARIES" and accept the "revolutionary gender model" shown above? According to your own statements at the Harvard GLBT forum last week, you are! But first, you have to prove yourselves.
We gave you a lot of challenging material in our 1st tutorial. And now you need to study REALLY HARD on what is being given to our teenagers across Massachachusetts, if you want to be an informed Governor. If high school kids are ready to master this, so can you!
First, review the TransgenderCare web site we noted in Tutorial #1. (Be sure to go to their youth page, a favorite with our own BAGLY -- Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth.)Then, study up on the diagrams and terms Planned Parenthood is distributing to Massachusetts schoolchildren [see diagram above] at the GLSEN conferences and in those GSA clubs you both think are so great. Here is their useful definition of "transgender":
"Trangenderism encompasses many different gender presentations and identitites. From Male-to-Female and Female-to-Male to FemmeQueen, Boi, Trannyfag, Female-born man, Bigendered, Transwoman, Tomboy, Butch, Crossdresser and many more."
When you're done with that, check out the Harvard student "trans zine" Quench -- from the new generation of classically educated scholars. (See their acknowledgement page from Issue 1.)
Are you ready for your quiz yet?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Transgender Tutorial #1 for Chris Gabrieli & Deval Patrick
Photos: Tranny Bois, Bay Windows; Male-to-Female, BAGLY; Fishnets (c) 2005 MassResistance.
So this is the sort of thing that Gov candidates Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick think is well and good... (1) Women who so want to be men they surgically remove their breasts and parade bare-chested at Boston Pride. (2) Men who claim to be women and teach our children the joys of the "trans" world through BAGLY seminars, supported by our state government (see BAGLY executive director in top photo). (3) Males who dress as tarty females and are celebrated by the Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth at the state-sponsored "Youth Pride" parade. (4) Web site on "transgender health" hormone treatments and sex-change surgery -- which BAGLY used to link for our teenagers! ... until we exposed it. (It's too gross to show here, but is a site worth exploring. Note their links for "transgender youth" -- the sort of information the Gay-Straight Alliance clubs lead our children to, with Gabrieli's and Patrick's approval.)
So our likely next Governor, either Deval Patrick or Chris Gabrieli, claims to support protections and "extensions of rights" for transgender or transsexual citizens. But are they really prepared to govern on this issue? ARE THEY READY TO SPECIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES THE "HATE CRIMES" they promised to encode? Since they went to the forum focusing on this issue at Harvard Law School the other day, we turn to Harvard to see what they need to know.
Now remember, if it's on the Harvard website, it must be the TRUTH ... Veritas, and all that. Check out these Harvard-approved sites: (1) Harvard Trans Task Force. (2) "Trannys Talk Back: Words of Harvard Transgender, Genderqueer and Questioning Community Members Talking Back in Conversations Going on Around Us."
This makes for very painful, sad reading. We sense hurting people who need serious psychiatric intervention (from a traditional practitioner, not someone who will pump them up with opposite-sex hormones). But our next Gov promises to consider these words of wisdom to be embraced, guidance for his crafting of "hate crimes" legislation. Some excerpts from "Trannys Talk Back":
... a no-nonsense page called "How to Respect a Transsexual Person" [excerpts]: - Always use the language that corresponds to my gender identity, e.g. he, she, even if my body does not seem to match yet and even when talking about my past.
- If you are still adjusting, it's normal to make mistakes. Don't draw attention to it by saying "sorry". Just correct yourself right after and carry on. [How much time to we have to adjust before making a "mistake" becomes a "hate crime"?]
- If I identify as male, never use female-marked words like girl, waitress, breasts, vagina, etc. to describe anything about me, and vice versa. Always use language that corresponds to my gender. [But what if you can't make out what the gender is you're supposed to recognize?] For example, if I am a female-to-male transsexual person, I am always a guy and never a girl. Don't call me "female-bodied", unless I use that term myself.
- A transsexual girl or woman is male-to-female. A transsexual guy is female-to-male. Never the other way around.
- Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Whether I am attracted to men, women, both or neither is a totally separate thing from whether I am male or female. For example, if I am a trans girl who likes girls, treat me no differently than any other lesbian woman. [Remember, whether or not surgery has taken place is not significant ... we think.]
++++++++++++++++++++
... as queers (and allies), we tend to get irked when people assume things about our sexuality on first meeting us, right? Same thing. Just as I don't want people to assume I'm straight just because I have long hair, I don't want them to assume the woman I'm walking to the parking lot is a guy because she's tall and has an adam's apple; and I don't want them to assume the guy I'm kissing is a woman because he has a more prominent chest ... I do get off the hook more easily on a lot of typical SO [sexual orientation] questions, simply because I'm very vocally bi, so my sexual orientation isn't defined by the partners I choose -- but I know a lot of SOs who face questions like ...: "Are you still a lesbian if you're dating an MTF [male-to-female]?" or, even more angst-inspiring, "Are you still a lesbian now that your butch girlfriend is your FTM [female-to-male] boyfriend?" [How long until asking such questions becomes a "hate crime"?]
+++++++++++++++++++++++
There was the coffee shop, where someone said, "Oh, you forgot to give him his muffin," and someone else replied, "No, that's a girl" -- a point which they proceeded to debate amongst themselves as if he couldn't hear them, and during which they referred to him consistently as "it." (Just to be on the safe side, I presume.) And there was helping him into his "hard-core" binder the next morning, knowing there would be bruises to salve, inside and out, come nightfall.
+++++++++++++++++++++
When people at harvard hear that i'm trans, they constantly ask me when i'm having an operation. occasionally, they ask if i've already had it. I usually end up answering the question but then feeling really shitty that we're at a point where people think that MY body is THEIR business. no i'm not planning to have any surgery. i feel like it's a good thing to educate people, to know that not all trans people are the same, so i keep answering the questions when people who are in the bgltsa ask me. [I.e., there is massive confusion even within the pansexual activist movement! So how will Chris and Deval ever figure this out?] but i keep crawling deeper into my shell because i'm pissed that i have to talk about it all the time.
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++
When people at harvard hear that i'm trans, they constantly ask me when i'm having an operation. occasionally, they ask if i've already had it. I usually end up answering the question but then feeling really shitty that we're at a point where people think that MY body is THEIR business. no i'm not planning to have any surgery. i feel like it's a good thing to educate people, to know that not all trans people are the same, so i keep answering the questions when people who are in the bgltsa ask me. [I.e., there is massive confusion even within the pansexual activist movement! So how will Chris and Deval ever figure this out?] but i keep crawling deeper into my shell because i'm pissed that i have to talk about it all the time.
+++++++++++++++++++
GenderQueer
Current working definition: those who identify their gender outside the gender binary system of male and female, maybe fluid with gender presentation or not conform to gender stereotypes and may use gender neutral pronouns such as "sie, hir, hir, hirs, hirself" or "zie, zir, zir, zirs, zirself" or choose to use the pronoun closest to the end of the masculine or feminine spectrum they are presenting. Some may do some or all of medical transition or none at all. Some may change their birth name. It is also used by some to describe both their gender identity and their sexuality as queer. Other terms that gender non-conforming or those who have gender identitites outside the binary gender system are boy dyke, dyke boy, boi, and by some youth in communities of color are femme queens, butch boi, or drags.
Got that, Chris and Deval?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Harvard, Truth, and Transgenderism
Speaker at "Transgender Rights" rally at Harvard, 4-19-06. (Photo: InNewsWeekly. See entire photo gallery from rally.)
As we all know, Harvard's motto is Veritas, or Truth. While researching a little forum with the Democrat Governor candidates held on Sept. 12 at the Harvard Law School, we encountered that lovely Veritas seal once again -- on the Harvard Law School Lambda (GLBT) group's website. A new "truth" they are inventing is that "transgenderism" or "gender identity" is something to be protected, and anyone who shows any discomfort or opposition to it will soon be guilty of a "hate crime." Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick both agree. Though we're sure they can't define the terms either!
What struck us as we cruised around the Harvard pansexual web sites was that they are themselves uncertain what the Truth is on their own issues! First of all, could they please precisely, legally define "sexual orientation"? You'd think the Harvard Law students would be eager to do so. How about "bisexual"? Or "transgender"? Or "transsexual"? Or "gender identity"? Or "gender expression"? Or "genderqueer"?
Not even the Harvard administration answers this. Last April, Harvard made "gender identity" a "protected class." But what does that mean? We must assume the Harvard Corporation has studied the online Harvard student publication, "Trannys Talk Back" -- so why do we still see no definitions? The Crimson articles reporting this new policy only confuse us more, with a deluge of undefined, overlapping terms.
And why is the university-wide faculty/staff/student group called just the "Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus"? What happened to Bisexual? Transgender? Genderqueer? We think the undergraduates must be guilty of biphobia and transphobia and genderqueerphobia for not including these practices in their names! The undergraduate group knows better. It not only calls itself the BGLTSA, but it provides a directory of all the "gender non-specific restrooms" on campus. Maybe their first Transgender 101 get-together will answer our questions:
Transgender 101 (Sept. 28, 7:30 pm) Location: Dunster JCR, J entry, to the right
What's the difference between transsexual, transgender and transvestite? How do I know what pronouns someone prefers? Is being transgender the same as being gay? Is intersex another term for transgender? Who determines what men and women are supposed to be? How do gender stereotypes affect us all? Come learn about these issues and more from members of the Transgender Task Force at this year's first Trans 101. Desserts will be served.
So is this what Harvard is ready to accept as the definition of "transsexual" (below, from the National Center for Lesbian Rights)? It seems that Harvard (and some other universities) is already paying for hormone treatments for staff and students. So they must be including "transsexual" as part of "sexual identity." Unbelievable.
The existence of individuals who live as members of the other gender and whom we would now likely identify as “transsexual” has been documented throughout human history.[1] In contrast, the contemporary medical treatments that comprise sex-reassignment have only been available for about forty years. As a medical condition, transsexualism is defined as "the desire to change one’s anatomic sexual characteristics to conform physically with one’s perception of self as a member of the opposite sex."[2] Transsexualism is technically classified as a specific form of a broader psychiatric disorder termed "gender identity disorder," also known as “gender dysphoria.”[3] The only recognized treatment for transsexualism is medical, not psychiatric. The medically prescribed treatment for transsexualism consists of three components: (1) hormone therapy; (2) living as a member of the other sex (known as the “real life experience”); and (3) sex-reassignment surgeries.[4] As medical treatments for transsexualism have developed, transsexual people have sought—and, increasingly, received—legal protection in the areas of employment discrimination, marriage, child custody, health care, prison safety, hate crimes legislation, and asylum.[5]
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Major Adoption Agency Aggressively Recruits Homosexual Parents
MARE, the Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange, is agressively recruiting homosexual parents for children. So reports a GLBT activist group, Family Pride. But if you're a hetero married couple, dream on about building your family this way!
MARE makes it really easy for adults to "shop" for a child. Check out their photo listing page. They also hold "adoption parties" where children are herded into cattle-call viewing sessions for a closer look. (Do the people at MARE or Family Pride care how this experience affects these children?) Since 1981, MARE has been running "Wednesday's Child" segments on CBS4 (Boston). The Mass. Department of Social Services (DSS) is also part of the GLBT adoption network, and recently gave a "Parents of the Year" award to a male couple in Newton. And MARE receives taxpayer dollars through DSS.
We've known for some time that this stuff was happening under the radar, that homosexual couples were being given preference. But now they're brazenly admitting it. GLBT groups are shameless in their use of their children (adopted, or biological of one parent) as weapons in their war on traditional values.
The head of the group manufacturing this award (just to get more press time), Family Pride, is Jennifer Chrisler, who claims to "married" to former State Senator and former head of the Human Rights Campaign, Cheryl Jacques. They have twin fatherless boys. Chrisler was in the news last week, pushing a plan for making GLBT parents more visible in their children's schools. Family Pride is the group that was behind the huge "GLBT families" invasion of the White House Easter Egg Roll.
(from Bay Windows, Sept. 14, 2006)
The Family Pride Coalition will present the Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE), a non-profit agency that provides resources and information to prospective parents on foster care adoption, with its Family Tree Award for MARE’s work in encouraging gay and lesbian couples and singles to become adoptive parents. MARE will be honored at a Sept. 16 reception for local members of Family Pride at the Newton home of board member Jonathan Shapiro and Luke Schemmel.
Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride, said MARE, known to most Bay Staters for its weekly “Wednesday’s Child” feature on CBS4, has done extensive outreach to the LGBT community, including educating potential parents about foster care adoption at Family Pride’s Provincetown Family Week last July and August and doing outreach at this summer’s Boston Pride [what a family friendly event!] .
“They’re aggressively recruiting LGBT parents, and we really commend them because the scientific evidence shows that gay parents are equally capable as heterosexual parents and that a person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on their ability to parent,” said Chrisler.
... in the past year [MARE] has stepped up its efforts to be inclusive of LGBT families. In addition to the outreach at Family Week and Boston Pride ... MARE has made sure that its materials include images of LGBT families to send the message that MARE welcomes LGBT parents.
MARE makes it really easy for adults to "shop" for a child. Check out their photo listing page. They also hold "adoption parties" where children are herded into cattle-call viewing sessions for a closer look. (Do the people at MARE or Family Pride care how this experience affects these children?) Since 1981, MARE has been running "Wednesday's Child" segments on CBS4 (Boston). The Mass. Department of Social Services (DSS) is also part of the GLBT adoption network, and recently gave a "Parents of the Year" award to a male couple in Newton. And MARE receives taxpayer dollars through DSS.
We've known for some time that this stuff was happening under the radar, that homosexual couples were being given preference. But now they're brazenly admitting it. GLBT groups are shameless in their use of their children (adopted, or biological of one parent) as weapons in their war on traditional values.
The head of the group manufacturing this award (just to get more press time), Family Pride, is Jennifer Chrisler, who claims to "married" to former State Senator and former head of the Human Rights Campaign, Cheryl Jacques. They have twin fatherless boys. Chrisler was in the news last week, pushing a plan for making GLBT parents more visible in their children's schools. Family Pride is the group that was behind the huge "GLBT families" invasion of the White House Easter Egg Roll.
Noting all the connections in just this one story shows how well coordinated the GLBT propaganda and control efforts are in American society.
Family Pride to honor Mass. adoption resource agency:(from Bay Windows, Sept. 14, 2006)
The Family Pride Coalition will present the Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE), a non-profit agency that provides resources and information to prospective parents on foster care adoption, with its Family Tree Award for MARE’s work in encouraging gay and lesbian couples and singles to become adoptive parents. MARE will be honored at a Sept. 16 reception for local members of Family Pride at the Newton home of board member Jonathan Shapiro and Luke Schemmel.
Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride, said MARE, known to most Bay Staters for its weekly “Wednesday’s Child” feature on CBS4, has done extensive outreach to the LGBT community, including educating potential parents about foster care adoption at Family Pride’s Provincetown Family Week last July and August and doing outreach at this summer’s Boston Pride [what a family friendly event!] .
“They’re aggressively recruiting LGBT parents, and we really commend them because the scientific evidence shows that gay parents are equally capable as heterosexual parents and that a person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on their ability to parent,” said Chrisler.
... in the past year [MARE] has stepped up its efforts to be inclusive of LGBT families. In addition to the outreach at Family Week and Boston Pride ... MARE has made sure that its materials include images of LGBT families to send the message that MARE welcomes LGBT parents.
Gov Candidates Gabrieli and Patrick Favor "Transgender Rights"
Candidates Chris Gabrieli (L) and Deval Patrick (R) atGLBT Forum, Harvard Law School, Sept. 12, 2006
This photo is all you need to know about Democrat Governor candidates Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick! Which is probably why they don't want you to see it... It appeared briefly on Bay Windows' online frontpage, with an article short on details of what the two men said at the GLBT forum held at Harvard Law School on Sept. 12.(Candidate Tom Reilly was unable to make the forum.) Then the article and photo disappeared from Bay Windows' online edition during the day today. Another article in Bay Windows, under "Pressing the Flesh," gives some more details of the discussion. (We guess that one of those campaigns demanded the photo and front pager be taken down immediately! Now that should make the GLBT lobby wonder how proud these candidates really are of their alliance.)
InNewsWeekly, one of the co-sponsors of the event, still has its article posted: Having two of the candidates, though, was nothing less than historic, said David Johnson of the National Association of Lesbian and Gay Journalists (NLGJA), which sponsored the event along with In Newsweekly, the Boston Pride Committee and HLS Lambda (Harvard Law School's GLBT student organization). "The fact that two of the candidates are willing to show up is a major positive for Massachusetts," said Johnson. "This is the first time that any of our [NLGJA] 25 chapters has been able to hold a forum at this level." And it won't be the last, not if these same sponsors have anything to do with it. They have already started discussing the possibility of the Democratic nominee facing Lt. Governor Kerry Healey in a similar forum prior to the November election.
A friend of ours attended the forum. The write-up in MassNews today (see below) is pretty good, but what caught our eye was that the discussion of "transgenderism" was not just put into a "non-discrimination" context. It was also part of a discussion of "HATE CRIMES." And Patrick admitted his confusion on transgenderism -- he does not understand it, has not really thought it through, and finds it difficult -- yet pledged support for its inclusion in nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws! Gabrieli said he has educated himself on transgenderism, and we would be better off if the law actually specified this issue. Some employers are having to deal with discrimination on this particular issue already, he said. [From InNewsWeekly:]
The two candidates also voiced a need to learn more about the transgender community. Patrick said he would take "concrete steps" to protect the transgender community by extending the state's hate crime laws and broadening civil rights laws to include "those who identify across genders." Gabrieli also said that during the gubernatorial race, he's "come to understand that gender identity and expression is different from sexual orientation."
Gabrieli thinks that the Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in the schools are great, and should even be extended to the middle schools. Patrick agreed, and said that they also benefit straight children.
Gabrieli reportedly said that the Catholic Church took away the "right" of homosexual couples to adopt. Both candidates were asked "how they’d go about bringing into compliance the Fall River and Worcester offices of Catholic Charities, both of whom refuse to facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples, in violation of the state’s nondiscrimination law." (Bay Windows) Gabrieli said studies (unspecified) show that gay and lesbian parents have been found as good if not better than heterosexual parents. He said gay marriage is not a religious issue, but a state issue. He believes the 1913 law banning out-of-state couples marrying (if the marriage would be unlawful in their home state) should be repealed.
The moderator was Massachusetts' first openly homosexual judge, Dermot Meagher.
From MassNews: "The Debate That Gabrieli and Patrick Don’t want you to Know About; They Agree Schools Should Have Longer Hours to Teach About Sexual Orientation."
In his opening statement, Chris Gabrieli made the obligatory statement about how he was a supporter of gay marriage. He went farther to endear himself to his audience by saying that he even hosted a gay marriage “fundraiser” in his own home. To “prove” that he was really on board, he then told the audience that when he had the gay marriage fundraiser, he invited his small children down from their rooms to “teach them a lesson” about how they need to be supportive of gay marriage. His children are: John, 12; Abigail, 11; Polly, 9; Lilla, 7; Nicholas, 5.
Later in the debate, Gabrieli upped the ante once again. He said that even middle schools should have Gay and Straight Alliance clubs and that he wanted to “create longer school days so sexual orientation issues can be taught.” He called Massachusetts a “Blue State laboratory for progressive issues.”
Deval Patrick had no disagreements with Gabrieli, who kept talking in order to hold the homosexual high ground against Patrick. Although Patrick initially conceded that he didn’t understand issues like Transgenderism very well, Gabrieli’s insistence that there should be specific laws protecting transgendered and cross-dressers forced Patrick to affirm that he too, was in favor of specific legislation protecting the rights of transgendered individuals. ... Both candidates stated that they believed in the SJC gay marriage decision, and that they supported more legislation and action by the Governor’s office to extend new rights to the GLBT community.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Reps. Linsky, Blumer, Sannicandro: Boot 'Em Out!
Here are some vile state reps in the Framingham-Natick area who need to get the boot, and Republican write-in candidates who are opposing them.
Call to action: Republicans and Independents need to vote for these write-in candidates on the 19th!! Spread the word! Only 150 votes are needed to get them on the November ballot. (See article in MetroWest Daily News.)
5th Middlesex (Natick/Sherborn/Millis)
BAD BOY: Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick), who got our award for THE most dangerous legislator, based on the number of vile bills he sponsored last session. He thinks bestiality should not be a crime. And since homosexual "marriage" is not yet legal, he co-sponsored a bill (H977) to make it so. (That is what the Goodridge ruling said must be done, after all!) Endorsed by the homosexual groups, he's pro-abortion (and favors human cloning), wants mandatory sex/homosex indoctrination in our schools (co-sponsored H1641), and got a feeble 10% rating from Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT).
GOOD WRITE-IN: William Whittlesey (R-Sherborn)
6th Middlesex (Framingham)
BAD GIRL: Deborah Blumer (D-Framingham). Ditto the Linsky profile, though she didn't co-sponsor quite as many bills, and scores a big ZERO from CLT. Boot her! Her husband was former Superintendent of Newton Schools, and together they've done a lot of damage in this state.
GOOD WRITE-IN: Jim Rizoli (R-Framingham). Solid on all conservative issues, and a leader on opposing illegal immigration.
7th Middlesex (Ashland/Framingham)
BAD BOY: Tom Sannicandro (D-Ashland). Apparently mentored by Linsky and Blumer. Easier to boot first termer. Proud co-sponsor of the bill to legalize the still-illegal homosexual "marriage" (H977). He's also endorsed by the homosexual groups and a CLT ZERO.
GOOD WRITE-IN: Kevin Looby (R-Framingham)
Let's just say that even if these write-in candidates were monkeys -- which of course they're not -- they'd still be preferable! So ... write 'em in!
Call to action: Republicans and Independents need to vote for these write-in candidates on the 19th!! Spread the word! Only 150 votes are needed to get them on the November ballot. (See article in MetroWest Daily News.)
5th Middlesex (Natick/Sherborn/Millis)
BAD BOY: Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick), who got our award for THE most dangerous legislator, based on the number of vile bills he sponsored last session. He thinks bestiality should not be a crime. And since homosexual "marriage" is not yet legal, he co-sponsored a bill (H977) to make it so. (That is what the Goodridge ruling said must be done, after all!) Endorsed by the homosexual groups, he's pro-abortion (and favors human cloning), wants mandatory sex/homosex indoctrination in our schools (co-sponsored H1641), and got a feeble 10% rating from Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT).
GOOD WRITE-IN: William Whittlesey (R-Sherborn)
6th Middlesex (Framingham)
BAD GIRL: Deborah Blumer (D-Framingham). Ditto the Linsky profile, though she didn't co-sponsor quite as many bills, and scores a big ZERO from CLT. Boot her! Her husband was former Superintendent of Newton Schools, and together they've done a lot of damage in this state.
GOOD WRITE-IN: Jim Rizoli (R-Framingham). Solid on all conservative issues, and a leader on opposing illegal immigration.
7th Middlesex (Ashland/Framingham)
BAD BOY: Tom Sannicandro (D-Ashland). Apparently mentored by Linsky and Blumer. Easier to boot first termer. Proud co-sponsor of the bill to legalize the still-illegal homosexual "marriage" (H977). He's also endorsed by the homosexual groups and a CLT ZERO.
GOOD WRITE-IN: Kevin Looby (R-Framingham)
Let's just say that even if these write-in candidates were monkeys -- which of course they're not -- they'd still be preferable! So ... write 'em in!
Monday, September 11, 2006
More Perverted Theatre for the Boston Elites
The artsy set will soon run out of perversions to glorify... Last year they drooled over their bestiality-as-metaphor play (Albee's "The Goat" ), and now they're trying to match it with a one-man show called "I Am My Own Wife." It's about a "German transvestite who navigated a path between the two most repressive regimes the Western world has ever known -- the Nazis and the communists -- in a pair of heels."
The playwright, Doug Wright, also perpetrated "Quills", a dishonest portrayal of the Marquis de Sade in his final days at an insane asylum. (Just to show how open-minded we are, check out this intriguing, highly critical review of that travesty on the World Socialist Web Site, of all places!)
We suggest this new drama be balanced by a reading of The Pink Swastika, which "documents that homosexual victims [of the Nazis] were few, while homosexual perpetrators among the Nazi elite were many and powerful."
The playwright, Doug Wright, also perpetrated "Quills", a dishonest portrayal of the Marquis de Sade in his final days at an insane asylum. (Just to show how open-minded we are, check out this intriguing, highly critical review of that travesty on the World Socialist Web Site, of all places!)
We suggest this new drama be balanced by a reading of The Pink Swastika, which "documents that homosexual victims [of the Nazis] were few, while homosexual perpetrators among the Nazi elite were many and powerful."
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Globe Columnist McNamara Wrong: Rep St. Fleur IS Opposed in Primary
Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara needs to check her facts. (Or she does she know her facts but choose to print something else?)
McNamara wrongly states that Rep. Marie St. Fleur "is running unopposed." Hey Eileen, there's a primary happening September 19! And St. Fleur has two opponents in the Democrat primary plus a Republican opponent in the general election. See the analysis on the MassResistance web site:
House - 5th Suffolk (Boston/Dorchester)
D - Marie St. Fleur, 45 Hartford St., Boston
D - Severiano Cruz, 38 Dacia St., Boston
D - Roy Owens, 6 Woodville St., Boston
R - Althea Garrison, 644 Dudley St., Boston
Comment: St. Fleur is a poster girl for the homo movement, is horrible on illegal immigration, and has also been in the press with tax problems [remember that St. Fleur is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee!] and messy marital problems. Roy Owens is practically the opposite -- super pro-family and strong on the issues. He would be a GREAT replacement for the horrid St. Fleur. Althea Garrison is described as "transgendered" in the press, but interestingly is pretty good on our issues.
McNamara wants to hit Tom Reilly over his handling of his St. Fleur problem, but at the same time remain positive on St. Fleur. It's ironic that McNamara's column is titled, "It's time for the truth."
McNamara wrongly states that Rep. Marie St. Fleur "is running unopposed." Hey Eileen, there's a primary happening September 19! And St. Fleur has two opponents in the Democrat primary plus a Republican opponent in the general election. See the analysis on the MassResistance web site:
House - 5th Suffolk (Boston/Dorchester)
D - Marie St. Fleur, 45 Hartford St., Boston
D - Severiano Cruz, 38 Dacia St., Boston
D - Roy Owens, 6 Woodville St., Boston
R - Althea Garrison, 644 Dudley St., Boston
Comment: St. Fleur is a poster girl for the homo movement, is horrible on illegal immigration, and has also been in the press with tax problems [remember that St. Fleur is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee!] and messy marital problems. Roy Owens is practically the opposite -- super pro-family and strong on the issues. He would be a GREAT replacement for the horrid St. Fleur. Althea Garrison is described as "transgendered" in the press, but interestingly is pretty good on our issues.
McNamara wants to hit Tom Reilly over his handling of his St. Fleur problem, but at the same time remain positive on St. Fleur. It's ironic that McNamara's column is titled, "It's time for the truth."
Saturday, September 09, 2006
"Americans for Truth" Up & Running
The new "Americans for Truth" web site is up and running. For an example of the coverage we'll be getting from Peter LaBarbera and associates, check out his story on the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists convention happening this weekend. The corporate sponsorship is unbelievable.
Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support.
The NLGJA bills itself as merely a professional organization for journalists who “happen to be gay,” as the liberal cliche goes. But the organization advocates a pro-homosexual “spinning” of the news not unlike the activist group GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Note, for example, the NLGJA’s advice to the media regarding coverage of Lance Bass, the ‘N Sync band member who recently publicly revealed his homosexuality:
The term “gay” is the preferred adjective that has largely replaced “homosexual” in referring to men who are sexually and affectionally attracted to other men. “Homosexual” should be used only if “heterosexual” would be used in parallel constructions, such as in medical contexts. . . .
Read more...
Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support.
The NLGJA bills itself as merely a professional organization for journalists who “happen to be gay,” as the liberal cliche goes. But the organization advocates a pro-homosexual “spinning” of the news not unlike the activist group GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Note, for example, the NLGJA’s advice to the media regarding coverage of Lance Bass, the ‘N Sync band member who recently publicly revealed his homosexuality:
The term “gay” is the preferred adjective that has largely replaced “homosexual” in referring to men who are sexually and affectionally attracted to other men. “Homosexual” should be used only if “heterosexual” would be used in parallel constructions, such as in medical contexts. . . .
Read more...
Friday, September 08, 2006
Rep. Benjamin Swan Runs from His Pro-Gay "Marriage" & Pro-Abortion Record
We hear from friends out in the Springfield area that Rep. Benjamin Swan (D-Springfield) charged his primary opponent at a forum last night with misrepresenting his record. In a campaign pamphlet, challenger Norman Oliver said that Swan supported same-sex "marriage" and abortion.
Rep. Swan said that was not accurate, and he'd never voted that way in the Massachusetts Legislature. But it appears that Swan is fudging his record. Just look at those culture-of-death endorsements (below)! You don't get a group's endorsement unless you fully support its agenda.
Rep. Swan was a co-sponsor of House Bill 977 (2005-6 session) which would create same-sex "marriage" in statute. Not only does this prove he’s pro-same-sex "marriage" -- it proves he knows it’s still not legal. (The SJC ordered the Legislature to bring the statutes in line with their 2003 Goodridge ruling, which it still has not done. This bill is “in study”, meaning the Judiciary Committee shelved it for the session.)
Rep. Swan has been endorsed in 2006 by the Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC). MGLPC is the main lobbying group in the State House and their chief lobbyist, Bill Conley, was recently arrested for soliciting UMass college boys.
Rep. Swan was endorsed in 2004 by these groups lobbying for same-sex "marriage": MGLPC; Freedom to Marry Coalition; MassEquality; Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Political Alliance of Western Massachusetts; and SupportEquality. In both 2004 and 2005, he voted against the Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have banned same-sex "marriage" but allowed civil unions. And a few years back, he voted to adjourn unconstitutionally the Constitutional Convention without voting on the first citizens' marriage amendment.
Mass.Citizens for Life has detailed voting records, but all you really need to know is that Rep. Swan got 100% ratings for 2005 from Mass. NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts Advocacy Fund. And he voted for the "buffer zone" around abortion clinics to keep protesters at distance.
Swan also has a serious delinquent tax problem, according to the Springfield newspaper. Add to that his 0% rating for 2005 from Citizens for Limited Taxation -- and this all makes for a losing profile.
Rep. Swan said that was not accurate, and he'd never voted that way in the Massachusetts Legislature. But it appears that Swan is fudging his record. Just look at those culture-of-death endorsements (below)! You don't get a group's endorsement unless you fully support its agenda.
Rep. Swan was a co-sponsor of House Bill 977 (2005-6 session) which would create same-sex "marriage" in statute. Not only does this prove he’s pro-same-sex "marriage" -- it proves he knows it’s still not legal. (The SJC ordered the Legislature to bring the statutes in line with their 2003 Goodridge ruling, which it still has not done. This bill is “in study”, meaning the Judiciary Committee shelved it for the session.)
Rep. Swan has been endorsed in 2006 by the Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC). MGLPC is the main lobbying group in the State House and their chief lobbyist, Bill Conley, was recently arrested for soliciting UMass college boys.
Rep. Swan was endorsed in 2004 by these groups lobbying for same-sex "marriage": MGLPC; Freedom to Marry Coalition; MassEquality; Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Political Alliance of Western Massachusetts; and SupportEquality. In both 2004 and 2005, he voted against the Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have banned same-sex "marriage" but allowed civil unions. And a few years back, he voted to adjourn unconstitutionally the Constitutional Convention without voting on the first citizens' marriage amendment.
Mass.Citizens for Life has detailed voting records, but all you really need to know is that Rep. Swan got 100% ratings for 2005 from Mass. NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts Advocacy Fund. And he voted for the "buffer zone" around abortion clinics to keep protesters at distance.
Swan also has a serious delinquent tax problem, according to the Springfield newspaper. Add to that his 0% rating for 2005 from Citizens for Limited Taxation -- and this all makes for a losing profile.
GLBT Plan for Schools: OUTLAW Traditional Values
Want to know what the GLBT plan really is for our schools? Here is a surprisingly open statement by a powerful member of the California Legislature on what's in store for their schools ... and ours here in Massachusetts. Kevin McCullough reported:
". . . in one of the boldest moves yet by a sitting liberal, Democrat California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez proclaimed, in effect, that the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system. He said, "The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."
McCullough continues:
... The bills in question have passed both houses and await Gov. Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. The bills were unanimously embraced by the Democrats and universally denounced by the Republicans. What do they say?
These four bills would require that in every classroom from kindergarten through high school perverse sexual activity be praised and highlighted in a positive light. They would require textbooks, many of which would then also be produced for other states beyond the borders of California, make positive references to the ideas of men putting on women's under things. They would restrict school districts from being able to bar females from displaying dildos on the outerwear of their prom dress. And in functional sexuality courses from K-12, they would require positive explanation of the merits and instruction of anal intercourse.
These four bills are also dangerous in what they outlaw. No single teacher – not even in science classes – would be allowed to talk about the negative health impact of homosexual behavior. No school counselor would be allowed to confirm to a molested student that they felt wrong about continuing in a homosexual relationship that they were primarily drawn into because of earlier molestation to begin with. No mention of moral aspects of sexual behavior would be permitted unless immoral activity were praised and in fact referred to as moral.
In other words, the pushing of the sexual envelope would be unleashed with a nitro-fueled explosion the likes of which has never been seen in America's history.
One of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire or police protection for any religious institution – i.e., a Bible-based church – that would in any way demonstrate negative "doctrine" or "propaganda." So if an arsonist (who also just happened to be a radical activist) decided to burn down a church that was in their view teaching the faithful interpretation of Scripture as it relates to sexual practice, then the local fire company could be barred from assisting in the recovery and protection of said facility.
". . . in one of the boldest moves yet by a sitting liberal, Democrat California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez proclaimed, in effect, that the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system. He said, "The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."
McCullough continues:
... The bills in question have passed both houses and await Gov. Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. The bills were unanimously embraced by the Democrats and universally denounced by the Republicans. What do they say?
These four bills would require that in every classroom from kindergarten through high school perverse sexual activity be praised and highlighted in a positive light. They would require textbooks, many of which would then also be produced for other states beyond the borders of California, make positive references to the ideas of men putting on women's under things. They would restrict school districts from being able to bar females from displaying dildos on the outerwear of their prom dress. And in functional sexuality courses from K-12, they would require positive explanation of the merits and instruction of anal intercourse.
These four bills are also dangerous in what they outlaw. No single teacher – not even in science classes – would be allowed to talk about the negative health impact of homosexual behavior. No school counselor would be allowed to confirm to a molested student that they felt wrong about continuing in a homosexual relationship that they were primarily drawn into because of earlier molestation to begin with. No mention of moral aspects of sexual behavior would be permitted unless immoral activity were praised and in fact referred to as moral.
In other words, the pushing of the sexual envelope would be unleashed with a nitro-fueled explosion the likes of which has never been seen in America's history.
One of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire or police protection for any religious institution – i.e., a Bible-based church – that would in any way demonstrate negative "doctrine" or "propaganda." So if an arsonist (who also just happened to be a radical activist) decided to burn down a church that was in their view teaching the faithful interpretation of Scripture as it relates to sexual practice, then the local fire company could be barred from assisting in the recovery and protection of said facility.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Romney Strong on Islamo-Fascists, Soft on Domestic Homo-Fascists
Gov. Romney did the right thing refusing to authorize a State Police escort for the Islamo-fascist former President of Iran. Romney strongly criticized Harvard University for inviting the former leader, and for believing "open dialogue" is possible with terrorists. To what extent this was motivated by his Presidential ambitions we'll never know.
Now if Romney is thinking clearly about his Presidential eligibility, he'd better start dealing with the domestic threat from the homo-fascists. As we've pointed out many times on this blog, Romney is the true father of homosexual "marriage" in Massacusetts. Without his unconstitutional executive orders in 2004, the homosexual "marriages" would never have begun!
Does Romney believe in "open dialogue" with the cultural Marxists/Fascists who are out to destroy family structure and marriage? He seems to. His support of the homosexual agenda goes way back. He was endorsed in 1994 and 2002 by the Log Cabin Republicans (the homosexual extremist wing of that ridiculous "open tent" party). So not only does he "dialogue" with them, he gets their support!
Romney won't go far in the national Republican Presidential primaries (where the more conservative Republicans turn out) with his record as it now stands, having violated our state Constitution by issuing executive orders creating "Party A/Party B" marriage licenses, and ordering Justices of the Peace to perform sodomy "marriages." How can he salvage his resume? By acknowledging his grave error, and issuing a few corrective executive orders before he leaves office.
Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix called this one of Romney's "greatest gaffes":
[Romney] likes gay people: In 1994, while running against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate, Romney assures the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans that “as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” (Remember, that opponent is Ted Kennedy. Romney gets the endorsement.) During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney operatives distribute bright-pink fliers at Boston’s gay-pride festival that read: “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.” Two years later, during his speech at the Republican National Convention, Romney likens the threat from same-sex marriage to the menace of Islamist terrorism.
And here's what Michigan conservatives said in September 2005:
“[Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney is also finding new detractors. Many are coming from the conservative wing of his own party — just the voters he needs for a primary win. They see Romney as soft on core social issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and emergency contraception. …Gary Glenn, president of the…American Family Association (of Michigan), said Romney’s recent attempts to appeal to conservative voters is too little, too late. ‘Whether their name is Kennedy or Kerry or Romney, a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights politician from Massachusetts is not going to fare well among conservative, pro-family voters,’ Glenn said.”
Now if Romney is thinking clearly about his Presidential eligibility, he'd better start dealing with the domestic threat from the homo-fascists. As we've pointed out many times on this blog, Romney is the true father of homosexual "marriage" in Massacusetts. Without his unconstitutional executive orders in 2004, the homosexual "marriages" would never have begun!
Does Romney believe in "open dialogue" with the cultural Marxists/Fascists who are out to destroy family structure and marriage? He seems to. His support of the homosexual agenda goes way back. He was endorsed in 1994 and 2002 by the Log Cabin Republicans (the homosexual extremist wing of that ridiculous "open tent" party). So not only does he "dialogue" with them, he gets their support!
Romney won't go far in the national Republican Presidential primaries (where the more conservative Republicans turn out) with his record as it now stands, having violated our state Constitution by issuing executive orders creating "Party A/Party B" marriage licenses, and ordering Justices of the Peace to perform sodomy "marriages." How can he salvage his resume? By acknowledging his grave error, and issuing a few corrective executive orders before he leaves office.
Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix called this one of Romney's "greatest gaffes":
[Romney] likes gay people: In 1994, while running against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate, Romney assures the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans that “as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” (Remember, that opponent is Ted Kennedy. Romney gets the endorsement.) During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney operatives distribute bright-pink fliers at Boston’s gay-pride festival that read: “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.” Two years later, during his speech at the Republican National Convention, Romney likens the threat from same-sex marriage to the menace of Islamist terrorism.
And here's what Michigan conservatives said in September 2005:
“[Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney is also finding new detractors. Many are coming from the conservative wing of his own party — just the voters he needs for a primary win. They see Romney as soft on core social issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and emergency contraception. …Gary Glenn, president of the…American Family Association (of Michigan), said Romney’s recent attempts to appeal to conservative voters is too little, too late. ‘Whether their name is Kennedy or Kerry or Romney, a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights politician from Massachusetts is not going to fare well among conservative, pro-family voters,’ Glenn said.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)