Yes, there is a Constitutional angle on the sad events at Virginia Tech. Our Founding Fathers understood that the basic right to self-defense had to be protected. The Second Amendment is one statement of that. As a strong supporter of the right to bear arms, it was refreshing to see Alan Keyes's take on the incident in Virginia:
Excerpt from Defending ourselves: The constitutional strategy
Lessons from Virginia Tech shootings
Alan Keyes, 4-19-07
Right now, the American people are understandably caught up in the emotional reaction to the horrifying events at Virginia Tech University. Leftist pols and media manipulators around the country and the world fanatically clamor that we should round up the usual "suspects" — that is, the guns responsible for all this violence. They want to distract us from the issues of human responsibility that are at its core. The responsibility of the killer. The responsibility of the police and university officials. The responsibility of gun-ban advocates whose success at Virginia Tech made certain that no one in Norris Hall was armed to interrupt the killer's methodical spree by forcing him to defend himself, or slow down in fear of his own life....
Far from suggesting that we should restrict or ban possession of firearms, the Virginia Tech killing spree illustrates two points often made by supporters of the Second Amendment: 1) Disarming the population leads to a higher death toll from violence. 2) The police cannot or will not protect people from deadly assault. They are organized mainly to enforce the law, not to protect our persons from harm....
Given the very real likelihood of terrorist infiltration and action, nothing we do by law can eliminate the gunmen. They will always be a threat. Instead of pretending to do what we can never achieve, we should concentrate on doing what is certainly within our power. We can make sure that our population is enriched with a leaven of defenders, so that no gunmen, lone or otherwise, could ever again act with the calm assurance that he is in no danger from his intended victims....
Our Constitution already provides the concept we need to achieve this strategic objective — the militia. In its proper constitutional sense, the term means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the community's defense when it's attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to those — such as the police, the military, or even the National Guard — who formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population....
Read more ...
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Romney's "Flip-Flop Conservative" Backers
Watch this video before reading further:
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Only 1.4% of Adults Homosexual?
While the homosexual community may not like Dr. Cameron, he's just reporting others' recent research (below) that only 1.4% of Canadians are homosexual. So don't believe that 10% lie! More likely, homosexuals probably comprise somewhere between 1-2% of our population. If such a small number is having such a powerful, huge and destructive impact on American society, how can they allege debilitating discrimination?
Canadian Research Suggests only 1.4% of Adults Homosexual
PHILADELPHIA, March 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18-44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among younger adults. "What happened to the older homosexuals? Some may have ceased to be sexually active," said Paul Cameron, "or they may have died. Recent reports from Scandinavia indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of heterosexuals."
Canadian Research Suggests only 1.4% of Adults Homosexual
PHILADELPHIA, March 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18-44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among younger adults. "What happened to the older homosexuals? Some may have ceased to be sexually active," said Paul Cameron, "or they may have died. Recent reports from Scandinavia indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of heterosexuals."
Monday, April 16, 2007
Jesuit Urban Center's rainbow flag photos disappear
The Boston Globe is sad that the "gay" Catholic church, the Jesuit Urban Center (Church of the Immaculate Conception) in Boston, is closing down.
This blog once linked to a hideous photo of the interior of this beautiful church -- draped with rainbow flags. But now, as we read that the JUC is closing down, their rainbow photos have disappeared from their online catalog. (Sadly, we didn't save it.) We were, however, able to retrieve this photo of JUC church members marching in a "Gay" Pride parade. And their rainbow flag icon is still available.
The church assures the Globe that its "gay" identity had nothing to do with its closing. We wonder... From the Globe:
The Jesuit Urban Center, a predominantly gay Catholic congregation in Boston's South End, will close at the end of July, and the landmark church in which services are held will be put up for sale, the Jesuit religious order announced yesterday. The Rev. Thomas J. Regan , the superior of the New England Jesuits, said in an interview that the rationale for the closing is purely financial. ...
Regan said that he had received no pressure from the Vatican, the Jesuit headquarters in Rome, or the Archdiocese of Boston, to close the church, and that the sexual orientation of the worshipers played no role in his decision.
He said that the Jesuits would continue to welcome gays and lesbians to worship at St. Ignatius of Loyola , the parish they oversee in Chestnut Hill, and that there are two other downtown congregations that have been reaching out to gay Catholics, the Paulist Center on Beacon Hill and St. Anthony Shrine, operated by the Franciscans, near Downtown Crossing.
Regan also said members of the congregation may choose to worship at the nearby Cathedral of the Holy Cross, also in the South End, but many gay Catholics are likely to balk at that option because the cathedral is the seat of Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley , who has been an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. ...
The decision to close the Jesuit Urban Center comes nearly seven years after the Jesuits fired a nun and a priest from the Urban Center because the nun, Sister Jeannette T. Normandin , was allowed to help perform two baptismal rites for adopted sons of gay male couples. The Jesuits at the time said that the violation had nothing to do with the sexuality of the children's parents, but that baptismal rites, except in emergencies, are to be performed by priests. ...
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Homosexual Lobby's Latest Plan to Scuttle Marriage Amendment?
VoteOnMarriage had better listen up. A recent opinion piece in the radical homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows -- by the simpering house-"husband" ("married" to a man) who writes Boston Globe magazine articles about buying pink dresses for "their" baby daughter -- floats the latest idea on how to block the marriage amendment.
As VoteOnMarriage prepares for the next Constitutional Convention (which could come as early as May 9), where their amendment needs to be approved for a second time by at least 50 legislators before moving on to the voters, they should ready their arguments against the Bay Windows crowd, who say:
The following section (4) of the article [Article 48, outlining the procedure for citizen-initiated amendemt proposals] notes that upon receiving affirmative votes from one-fourth of the representatives [which happened on Jan. 2, 2007], the initiative “shall be referred to the next general court,” as it has been.
But this is the catch: in section 5, the final step of the process, there is no similar stated requirement for a second vote. Instead, there is only the conditionally-worded provision, that the initiative shall go before voters “if [it] shall again receive the affirmative votes…” The lack of a call for a second vote is not a mere technicality; or, I should say, in the law, there are no “mere” technicalities. Judges and legislators alike continually turn their eyes to the letter of the law, not the romantic or impassioned interpretations thereof, to settle questions of legal merit.
One might argue that the second vote is implicit, and that its omission from the text is a word-saving device by the amendment’s authors. But this seems unlikely when one reads the entire text; the article goes to great and somewhat linguistically unwieldy lengths to include all necessary factors, like the allowance for a submission of an amended version of the initiative’s wording. In terms of this debate, then, Article 48 is quite explicit about what is required: one vote on the initiative. For legislators who wish to be seen as towing the line, forcing upon the text an imagined requirement for a second vote is to then trump the actual law in favor of appearing to obey it. And to what end? Our legislators have already fulfilled their duties. They can now stand proud before the citizenry, able to state without hesitation that they took the job seriously and got it done.
Bay Windows also kindly provides the text of Article 48 at the end of this opinion piece. Of course, liberals only refer to original documents if they see an opening to manipulate some unintended loophole.
As VoteOnMarriage prepares for the next Constitutional Convention (which could come as early as May 9), where their amendment needs to be approved for a second time by at least 50 legislators before moving on to the voters, they should ready their arguments against the Bay Windows crowd, who say:
The following section (4) of the article [Article 48, outlining the procedure for citizen-initiated amendemt proposals] notes that upon receiving affirmative votes from one-fourth of the representatives [which happened on Jan. 2, 2007], the initiative “shall be referred to the next general court,” as it has been.
But this is the catch: in section 5, the final step of the process, there is no similar stated requirement for a second vote. Instead, there is only the conditionally-worded provision, that the initiative shall go before voters “if [it] shall again receive the affirmative votes…” The lack of a call for a second vote is not a mere technicality; or, I should say, in the law, there are no “mere” technicalities. Judges and legislators alike continually turn their eyes to the letter of the law, not the romantic or impassioned interpretations thereof, to settle questions of legal merit.
One might argue that the second vote is implicit, and that its omission from the text is a word-saving device by the amendment’s authors. But this seems unlikely when one reads the entire text; the article goes to great and somewhat linguistically unwieldy lengths to include all necessary factors, like the allowance for a submission of an amended version of the initiative’s wording. In terms of this debate, then, Article 48 is quite explicit about what is required: one vote on the initiative. For legislators who wish to be seen as towing the line, forcing upon the text an imagined requirement for a second vote is to then trump the actual law in favor of appearing to obey it. And to what end? Our legislators have already fulfilled their duties. They can now stand proud before the citizenry, able to state without hesitation that they took the job seriously and got it done.
Bay Windows also kindly provides the text of Article 48 at the end of this opinion piece. Of course, liberals only refer to original documents if they see an opening to manipulate some unintended loophole.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Romney Burning Through His Millions
After personally receiving 8 or 10 campaign mailings from the Romney campaign already, it's not surprising to see the Boston Globe this morning: "Romney money going fast" (4-14-07). The latest mailing was a glossy photo of the Romney family with a response page headed "Family Photo Confirmation" and we're asked to check off this statement along with the donation amount:
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Stem cells, test-tube babies, & paganism
"The prospect of all-female conception"
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent, 4-13-07
Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue. [read more...]
Musings from a MassResistance reader:
Gaia worshipers rejoice! Check this out! Weird science is erasing the need for men for human reproduction; this in turn will ultimately erase men from the planet. Voila! Brave New World.
How did we get here?
First we condone and accept divorce. This leads to looking the other way and giving wider acceptance to adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations. "Hell, they're gonna do it any way, so why not accept it. We shouldn't judge anyone else's lifestyle." ... So goes the relativist's reasoning.
Next comes acceptance of prophylactics, the pill, and birth control. But isn't this contrary to nature or God's will? ... "Now, now, don't get all preachy with me!"
Christians and Jews begin to embrace divorce (as opposed to marital maturity) as a legitimate answer to marital problems. "Gay-Lesbian-Transgender" groups see the opportunity to normalize their behaviors and begin seeking to legitimize their co-habitations as legal partnerships. Thank goodness for "no-fault" divorce making it all easier. What about the kids? no problem... "they're resilient... they'll adapt!" ...Right...
"Gee, why bother with marriage at all... let's all hook-up and shack up! It' better than getting a divorce; who are you to lecture me?" GLT's now seek legitimization as "married"couples.
Babies outside of marriage? No problem! There's no shame to this... After all, as a noted feminist once said, a dad is just a "sperm provider." They just take off sooner or later anyway. And there are great Social Services safety nets to help out.
Alternative #2. Just go visit Planned parenthood and "poof" ... no baby! ... In your ninth month? ... No problem! ... We'll just induce labor, kill and dismember the baby while it is in the birth canal. (OR ... you can always hook up with meth-heads who will help you abuse your baby to death.)
Too squeamish for that? Is your child in and out of Child/Family Service foster homes? Well then, give up your baby for adoption ... Lots of GLT couples out there wanting to adopt... Isn't a loving home better than no home or a series of foster homes inside the "system?" Let's not digress...
Now we reach the point where we can possibly create "female sperm"...
Let's see ... erotic Aphrodite was the "goddess" of love and lustful attractions, born from the foam of the sea. Now scientists are intent on "creating" (at the altar of Hermes, 'god of science') the goddess Hermaphrodite so that lesbian couples (followers of Sappho) can have babies! Even the most hard core, male-hating feminists should step back from this precipice.
What's next? "Male ova" from men's bone marrow for all those followers of Eros? How about: Stem-cell babies raised like farm catfish in special amniotic ponds? Science for the sake of science.
All noble Christian and Jewish believers might want to recognize this for what it is: creeping pagan god and goddess worship.
This is copyright infringement of the worst kind. Is anyone else weary of all of the pretending? ... whether it is this are phony manipulation of climate data for political purposes? Terrorists and anarchists are trying to blow up the world and we are interested in bizarre and unholy distractions.
It is time to pray earnestly for God to set His Kingdom aright on Earth.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent, 4-13-07
Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue. [read more...]
Musings from a MassResistance reader:
Gaia worshipers rejoice! Check this out! Weird science is erasing the need for men for human reproduction; this in turn will ultimately erase men from the planet. Voila! Brave New World.
How did we get here?
First we condone and accept divorce. This leads to looking the other way and giving wider acceptance to adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations. "Hell, they're gonna do it any way, so why not accept it. We shouldn't judge anyone else's lifestyle." ... So goes the relativist's reasoning.
Next comes acceptance of prophylactics, the pill, and birth control. But isn't this contrary to nature or God's will? ... "Now, now, don't get all preachy with me!"
Christians and Jews begin to embrace divorce (as opposed to marital maturity) as a legitimate answer to marital problems. "Gay-Lesbian-Transgender" groups see the opportunity to normalize their behaviors and begin seeking to legitimize their co-habitations as legal partnerships. Thank goodness for "no-fault" divorce making it all easier. What about the kids? no problem... "they're resilient... they'll adapt!" ...Right...
"Gee, why bother with marriage at all... let's all hook-up and shack up! It' better than getting a divorce; who are you to lecture me?" GLT's now seek legitimization as "married"couples.
Babies outside of marriage? No problem! There's no shame to this... After all, as a noted feminist once said, a dad is just a "sperm provider." They just take off sooner or later anyway. And there are great Social Services safety nets to help out.
Alternative #2. Just go visit Planned parenthood and "poof" ... no baby! ... In your ninth month? ... No problem! ... We'll just induce labor, kill and dismember the baby while it is in the birth canal. (OR ... you can always hook up with meth-heads who will help you abuse your baby to death.)
Too squeamish for that? Is your child in and out of Child/Family Service foster homes? Well then, give up your baby for adoption ... Lots of GLT couples out there wanting to adopt... Isn't a loving home better than no home or a series of foster homes inside the "system?" Let's not digress...
Now we reach the point where we can possibly create "female sperm"...
Let's see ... erotic Aphrodite was the "goddess" of love and lustful attractions, born from the foam of the sea. Now scientists are intent on "creating" (at the altar of Hermes, 'god of science') the goddess Hermaphrodite so that lesbian couples (followers of Sappho) can have babies! Even the most hard core, male-hating feminists should step back from this precipice.
What's next? "Male ova" from men's bone marrow for all those followers of Eros? How about: Stem-cell babies raised like farm catfish in special amniotic ponds? Science for the sake of science.
All noble Christian and Jewish believers might want to recognize this for what it is: creeping pagan god and goddess worship.
This is copyright infringement of the worst kind. Is anyone else weary of all of the pretending? ... whether it is this are phony manipulation of climate data for political purposes? Terrorists and anarchists are trying to blow up the world and we are interested in bizarre and unholy distractions.
It is time to pray earnestly for God to set His Kingdom aright on Earth.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Morality Does Belong in Politics
Is President Bush a sincere Christian who understands the application of his faith in the public square? Does Mitt Romney really share our Judeo-Christian beliefs, and understand that they are the basis of good government and laws?
Both politicians recently shied away from discussions of morality in the public square. Bush failed to stand of for his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who stated the obvious -- that homosexuality is immoral. And Romney recently said that there was no place for discussions of morality or immorality in politics. Unbelievable.
Q: "Since General Pace made his comments -- they got a lot of attention -- about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue. Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?"
A: Bush replied, "I -- I -- I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation. I do believe the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy is good policy."
Saying homosexuality is immoral is no different from saying murder or theft or adultery are immoral. But murder, theft, and adultery have not been politicized by murderers, thieves, and adulterers. And sodomy has been politicized as a "civil right" by its practitioners.
It seems President Bush and Mitt Romney have forgotten the basis of all our laws. Judge Roy Moore's commentary on "Nazis, Nuremberg and the law of God" (4-11-07) serves as a timely reminder:
Both the British and American prosecutors [at Nuremberg] were expressing something well understood in the law at that time – the law of man and nations is subject to the laws of God and the laws of nature. Sir William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1765 explained the law of nature in this way:
"This law of nature, being co-eval [co-existent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. ..."
The fact that the law of God is the basis for international law was not new to British and American jurisprudence at the Nuremberg trials. In 1791, James Wilson, one of our first United States Supreme Court justices appointed by President Washington, explained the "law of nations" (international law) as follows:
"The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. ... The law of nations as well as the law of nature is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations as well as the law of nature is of origin divine."
Wilson emphasized that all law "flows from the same divine source: It is the law of God. ... Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."
Both politicians recently shied away from discussions of morality in the public square. Bush failed to stand of for his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who stated the obvious -- that homosexuality is immoral. And Romney recently said that there was no place for discussions of morality or immorality in politics. Unbelievable.
Q: "Since General Pace made his comments -- they got a lot of attention -- about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue. Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?"
A: Bush replied, "I -- I -- I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation. I do believe the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy is good policy."
Saying homosexuality is immoral is no different from saying murder or theft or adultery are immoral. But murder, theft, and adultery have not been politicized by murderers, thieves, and adulterers. And sodomy has been politicized as a "civil right" by its practitioners.
It seems President Bush and Mitt Romney have forgotten the basis of all our laws. Judge Roy Moore's commentary on "Nazis, Nuremberg and the law of God" (4-11-07) serves as a timely reminder:
Both the British and American prosecutors [at Nuremberg] were expressing something well understood in the law at that time – the law of man and nations is subject to the laws of God and the laws of nature. Sir William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1765 explained the law of nature in this way:
"This law of nature, being co-eval [co-existent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. ..."
The fact that the law of God is the basis for international law was not new to British and American jurisprudence at the Nuremberg trials. In 1791, James Wilson, one of our first United States Supreme Court justices appointed by President Washington, explained the "law of nations" (international law) as follows:
"The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. ... The law of nations as well as the law of nature is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations as well as the law of nature is of origin divine."
Wilson emphasized that all law "flows from the same divine source: It is the law of God. ... Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Romney Shoots Foot, Not Varmints
Fun and more fun. "Romney's the new John Kerry." Watch this great video of the NH fellow in the hunter's cap who simply asked Romney his position on the Second Amendment -- then got an answer about how hard it is to hit a rabbit with a .22.
Then, you can browse the latest Gallup Poll. For all of Romney's "impressive" fundraising (but wait ... isn't BIG $ in politics BAD?), his poll numbers are PITIFUL. Check out EyeOn08's comments too: "Romney is almost as disliked at John McCain, even though half of GOP voters don’t know anything about Romney. The number of people who dislike him is only going up…"
GOP %
Rudy Giuliani 38
John McCain 16
Newt Gingrich 10
Fred Thompson 10
Mitt Romney 6
Then, you can browse the latest Gallup Poll. For all of Romney's "impressive" fundraising (but wait ... isn't BIG $ in politics BAD?), his poll numbers are PITIFUL. Check out EyeOn08's comments too: "Romney is almost as disliked at John McCain, even though half of GOP voters don’t know anything about Romney. The number of people who dislike him is only going up…"
GOP %
Rudy Giuliani 38
John McCain 16
Newt Gingrich 10
Fred Thompson 10
Mitt Romney 6
Monday, April 09, 2007
Radical Gill Foundation Funds Mass. Groups
We've noted before the Gill Foundation's funding of the most radical homosexual/transgender madness in Massachusetts (and around the country). "The Gill Foundation, established in 1994 by software entrepreneur Tim Gill, seeks to secure equal opportunity for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. The Gill Foundation is the nation's largest funder focusing primarily on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights." (See our past postings on its activities in Massachusetts here and here.)
Here's Gill's list of groups it's openly supporting in Massachusetts. (Add to this legislative campaigns, and very possibly other groups not named!) --
ACLU Foundation - Massachusetts
AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts
Bisexual Resource Center
CIGSYA
Common Cause Massachusetts
CPPAX Education Fund
Family Diversity Projects
Fenway Community Health
Freedom to Marry Foundation
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Gay & Lesbian Athletics Foundation
Greater Boston PFLAG
Institute for Gay & Lesbian Strategic Studies
International Foundation for Gender Education
Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action
Massachusetts NOW Foundation
MassEquality Education Fund
Men's Resource Center of Western Mass.
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Foundation
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Network/La Red, The
Northeast Action
Pride Zone
Project 10 East, Inc.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice of Massachusetts
Roxbury Community Technology Center
Tapestry Health
Theater Offensive, The
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Teen Equality Center (UTEC)
Victory Programs, Inc.
Here's Gill's list of groups it's openly supporting in Massachusetts. (Add to this legislative campaigns, and very possibly other groups not named!) --
ACLU Foundation - Massachusetts
AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts
Bisexual Resource Center
CIGSYA
Common Cause Massachusetts
CPPAX Education Fund
Family Diversity Projects
Fenway Community Health
Freedom to Marry Foundation
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Gay & Lesbian Athletics Foundation
Greater Boston PFLAG
Institute for Gay & Lesbian Strategic Studies
International Foundation for Gender Education
Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action
Massachusetts NOW Foundation
MassEquality Education Fund
Men's Resource Center of Western Mass.
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Foundation
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Network/La Red, The
Northeast Action
Pride Zone
Project 10 East, Inc.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice of Massachusetts
Roxbury Community Technology Center
Tapestry Health
Theater Offensive, The
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Teen Equality Center (UTEC)
Victory Programs, Inc.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Romney the Varmint Hunter
Romney's claim that he "hunts varmints" is strangely reminiscent of John Kerry's "Can I get me a hunting license here?" And the Swift Boat Veterans who exposed Kerry have been well matched by Massachusetts conservatives who are exposing Romney's attempted fraud that he has a conservative record and beliefs.
Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi ("Guns, trust, and Romney"), says that Romney's gun statements go beyond exaggeration, into the realm of untruths. Republicans need to realize that this is also the case with his current statements vs. his record on other issues, especially his supposed defense of marriage and family values. Vennochi writes:
Campaigning in Indianapolis, he said "I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times." On Friday, The New York Times published an article that asked "Is Romney a hunter? Depends on what hunt is."
... when do flip-flops turn into something more ominous?
Changing from pro-gun control to anti-gun control is a flip-flop. Saying you are a longtime hunter when you hunted twice is an exaggeration. Saying you own a gun when you don't is a lie. OK , it's a small lie, and Americans are used to whoppers from politicians....
But it does raise the trust issue, which is the main thing that stands between Romney and the Republican nomination. The Republican right wants to believe Romney is the passionate conservative he now insists he is. To believe it, conservative voters must dismiss much of what Romney espoused on social issues during two previous political campaigns.
To do that, conservatives must accept one of two possibilities: Romney lied to Massachusetts voters when he ran for office here, or he underwent a dramatic political conversion over the past five years, which just happened to coincide with his presidential run. Either scenario undercuts Romney's trustworthiness.
Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi ("Guns, trust, and Romney"), says that Romney's gun statements go beyond exaggeration, into the realm of untruths. Republicans need to realize that this is also the case with his current statements vs. his record on other issues, especially his supposed defense of marriage and family values. Vennochi writes:
Campaigning in Indianapolis, he said "I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times." On Friday, The New York Times published an article that asked "Is Romney a hunter? Depends on what hunt is."
... when do flip-flops turn into something more ominous?
Changing from pro-gun control to anti-gun control is a flip-flop. Saying you are a longtime hunter when you hunted twice is an exaggeration. Saying you own a gun when you don't is a lie. OK , it's a small lie, and Americans are used to whoppers from politicians....
But it does raise the trust issue, which is the main thing that stands between Romney and the Republican nomination. The Republican right wants to believe Romney is the passionate conservative he now insists he is. To believe it, conservative voters must dismiss much of what Romney espoused on social issues during two previous political campaigns.
To do that, conservatives must accept one of two possibilities: Romney lied to Massachusetts voters when he ran for office here, or he underwent a dramatic political conversion over the past five years, which just happened to coincide with his presidential run. Either scenario undercuts Romney's trustworthiness.
Iowa Republicans Ignoring Facts on Romney?
From an April Fool's report (AP), on Iowa's conservative Christian Republicans apparently falling for Romney's pseudo-conservative identity:
Religious conservatives hold on in Iowa
Associated Press, 4-1-07
DES MOINES, Iowa --There was a time when any Republican candidate who did not meet the approval of Iowa's religious conservatives was all but doomed to failure in the state's presidential caucus. As the 2008 race takes shape, these conservatives are no longer the unassailable force they once were, although they remain a powerhouse in Iowa's GOP.
The role of Christian activists in the state is closely watched because of Iowa's leadoff position in the presidential nominating season. At this point, however, there is little sign that activists are uniting behind a candidate or trying to channel the race in a particular direction. Virtually all recent polls in the state have shown former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leading the Republican pack among likely 2008 caucus-goers, and all have hurdles to overcome with religious conservatives.
Candidates such as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with far better conservative credentials, have drawn little support, largely because they are viewed as long shots. "They acknowledge that these guys may not be guys who are going the distance," said Iowa House Republican leader Chris Rants of Sioux City, who has close ties to religious conservatives. Rants is backing Romney, whom he says has appeal as a man of religious conviction even though his Mormon faith sets him apart from most religious conservatives. "He is a man of faith, and while they may not have the same specific religious beliefs, they share the same values," Rants said.
John Haskins comments:
What will it take for these people to stand for something? Have they still not learned the lesson that we have to tell the Republican Party who is "electable" not let the party and its corporate donors and country club Rockefellers give us a list of "electable" RINO's to choose from, every single election -- again and again! "Like the dog that returned to its vomit," as Christ said. With the hundreds of hours of research and legal work handed to them by seasoned pro-family people in Massachusetts and other states, they are still going to trust the Republican establishment again? How can this leading Iowa religious conservative, Mr. Rant, call Romney "a man of religious conviction" and "a man of faith" ?
PLEASE, give us an old-fashioned heathen, an atheist, a pagan cannibal, a communist, a rusty old wheelbarrow! Give us anyone or anything else, but not one of these flagrantly phony pseudo-conservative enemies of my children's innocence and liberty! Maybe then Christians will stop lying to themselves about these "men of religious conviction" who go around a state constitution to impose sodomy-based "marriage," advance sodomy-based adoptions, and force Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacients. Mr. Rants tells other Christians that Romney shares our values. NO! Christ warned us. "By their works ye shall know them."
Remember we were also told that George W. Bush was a "man of religious conviction"! And Romney is far more of a fraud than Bush is. It's up to them if they want to endlessly split the difference between good and evil in their own private lives. But people need to ask themselves who put them in charge of negotiations between God and Lucifer over my children's future.
Stand on principle, people, or get out of the way! None of this over-calculated "pragmatism" ever turns out to be as smart as claimed.
- John Haskins
Parents' Rights Coalition
Religious conservatives hold on in Iowa
Associated Press, 4-1-07
DES MOINES, Iowa --There was a time when any Republican candidate who did not meet the approval of Iowa's religious conservatives was all but doomed to failure in the state's presidential caucus. As the 2008 race takes shape, these conservatives are no longer the unassailable force they once were, although they remain a powerhouse in Iowa's GOP.
The role of Christian activists in the state is closely watched because of Iowa's leadoff position in the presidential nominating season. At this point, however, there is little sign that activists are uniting behind a candidate or trying to channel the race in a particular direction. Virtually all recent polls in the state have shown former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leading the Republican pack among likely 2008 caucus-goers, and all have hurdles to overcome with religious conservatives.
Candidates such as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with far better conservative credentials, have drawn little support, largely because they are viewed as long shots. "They acknowledge that these guys may not be guys who are going the distance," said Iowa House Republican leader Chris Rants of Sioux City, who has close ties to religious conservatives. Rants is backing Romney, whom he says has appeal as a man of religious conviction even though his Mormon faith sets him apart from most religious conservatives. "He is a man of faith, and while they may not have the same specific religious beliefs, they share the same values," Rants said.
John Haskins comments:
What will it take for these people to stand for something? Have they still not learned the lesson that we have to tell the Republican Party who is "electable" not let the party and its corporate donors and country club Rockefellers give us a list of "electable" RINO's to choose from, every single election -- again and again! "Like the dog that returned to its vomit," as Christ said. With the hundreds of hours of research and legal work handed to them by seasoned pro-family people in Massachusetts and other states, they are still going to trust the Republican establishment again? How can this leading Iowa religious conservative, Mr. Rant, call Romney "a man of religious conviction" and "a man of faith" ?
PLEASE, give us an old-fashioned heathen, an atheist, a pagan cannibal, a communist, a rusty old wheelbarrow! Give us anyone or anything else, but not one of these flagrantly phony pseudo-conservative enemies of my children's innocence and liberty! Maybe then Christians will stop lying to themselves about these "men of religious conviction" who go around a state constitution to impose sodomy-based "marriage," advance sodomy-based adoptions, and force Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacients. Mr. Rants tells other Christians that Romney shares our values. NO! Christ warned us. "By their works ye shall know them."
Remember we were also told that George W. Bush was a "man of religious conviction"! And Romney is far more of a fraud than Bush is. It's up to them if they want to endlessly split the difference between good and evil in their own private lives. But people need to ask themselves who put them in charge of negotiations between God and Lucifer over my children's future.
Stand on principle, people, or get out of the way! None of this over-calculated "pragmatism" ever turns out to be as smart as claimed.
- John Haskins
Parents' Rights Coalition
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Hundreds of Partners? No Problem! Say Bay Windows & EdgeBoston
Promiscuity as a way of life ... This recently appeared in EdgeBoston, a GLBT online publication, owned by the same people who bring us the extremist homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows:
Ask Angelo
Question:
Dear Angelo,
Are gay men more promiscuous than straight men?
Signed,
Saints or Sinners
Angelo’s Response:
Dear Saints or Sinners,
I’ll let you and the readers decide this one. According to a 2004 ABC News: "Primetime Live" Poll: American Sex Survey, straight men report a median of 8 sexual partners in their lifetime. The median is the midpoint between the highest and lowest reports. It’s a more reliable measure than the average because it’s less skewed by extremes. While I wasn’t able to find any similar studies for gay men, anecdotally, I know some gay men have 8 sexual partners over a weekend in Palm Springs, Fire Island or Provincetown - heck, even right here in Chelsea!
Whatever the numbers are, be careful not to judge and categorize yourself, or any one else, as either a "saint" or a "sinner" (I bet you were raised Catholic). Many of us grew up with damaging, shameful religious views about sex. We have to free ourselves from such negative and limiting ideology. Things aren’t so black and white. I mean who defines what’s "promiscuous" and what’s "virtuous?" A colleague of mine once joked "’promiscuous’ only applies to someone that’s having more sex than you."
Having sex is a healthy part of being human. As long as you: know your HIV status and your partner’s, get tested for HIV antibodies every 3-6 months, protect yourself and your partner by having safe sex every time; And as long as you’re NOT: avoiding your intimacy fears, a sex addict, perpetrator or cheating - I don’t think it matters whether you sleep with 8, 80 or 800 people in your lifetime.
All The Best,
Angelo.
According to EdgeBoston, this sort of advice reaches ...
over 550,000 readers per month in major cities across the Northeast US ... [and] will offer readers a definitive resource for news and entertainment coverage. "The Bay Windows/EDGE connection strengthens two well-established, respected brands," said Bay Windows co-publisher Sue O'Connell. "We have some truly exciting plans for the next evolution of gay media." As part of the new partnership, Bay Windows has taken a substantial equity position in EDGE's corporation, and O'Connell as well as co-publisher Jeff Coakley will oversee a range of new marketing and advertising sales promotions.
Ask Angelo
Question:
Dear Angelo,
Are gay men more promiscuous than straight men?
Signed,
Saints or Sinners
Angelo’s Response:
Dear Saints or Sinners,
I’ll let you and the readers decide this one. According to a 2004 ABC News: "Primetime Live" Poll: American Sex Survey, straight men report a median of 8 sexual partners in their lifetime. The median is the midpoint between the highest and lowest reports. It’s a more reliable measure than the average because it’s less skewed by extremes. While I wasn’t able to find any similar studies for gay men, anecdotally, I know some gay men have 8 sexual partners over a weekend in Palm Springs, Fire Island or Provincetown - heck, even right here in Chelsea!
Whatever the numbers are, be careful not to judge and categorize yourself, or any one else, as either a "saint" or a "sinner" (I bet you were raised Catholic). Many of us grew up with damaging, shameful religious views about sex. We have to free ourselves from such negative and limiting ideology. Things aren’t so black and white. I mean who defines what’s "promiscuous" and what’s "virtuous?" A colleague of mine once joked "’promiscuous’ only applies to someone that’s having more sex than you."
Having sex is a healthy part of being human. As long as you: know your HIV status and your partner’s, get tested for HIV antibodies every 3-6 months, protect yourself and your partner by having safe sex every time; And as long as you’re NOT: avoiding your intimacy fears, a sex addict, perpetrator or cheating - I don’t think it matters whether you sleep with 8, 80 or 800 people in your lifetime.
All The Best,
Angelo.
According to EdgeBoston, this sort of advice reaches ...
over 550,000 readers per month in major cities across the Northeast US ... [and] will offer readers a definitive resource for news and entertainment coverage. "The Bay Windows/EDGE connection strengthens two well-established, respected brands," said Bay Windows co-publisher Sue O'Connell. "We have some truly exciting plans for the next evolution of gay media." As part of the new partnership, Bay Windows has taken a substantial equity position in EDGE's corporation, and O'Connell as well as co-publisher Jeff Coakley will oversee a range of new marketing and advertising sales promotions.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Mixed Messages from "Pro-Family" Group Harmful
We’ve pointed out before the “spirit of compromise” exhibited by the Mass. Family Institute in its half-baked promotion of abstinence education. MFI promises not to "circumvent existing comprehensive sex education programs” and reminds everyone that the abstinence program would only be voluntary. Hey, it's just fine with MFI that girls are told where to go for birth control pills and abortions, and elementary school kids are taught about different types of "families." They have no problem with mixed messages, sowing confusion in the minds of young people. This is a disgrace. Baby steps don't work when you're up against the Planned Parenthood monster.
From MFI's latest action alert:
The federal government wants to again grant $800,000 to Massachusetts for the purpose of offering school-based abstinence education to middle-school students. This program would be voluntary, not mandatory, for any middle-school. It would be used to complement, not circumvent, existing comprehensive sex education programs.
Right now, there are forces who oppose any message to youth that encourages them to wait until they are older to have sex. They don't want Ways & Means Chairman DeLeo to include the federal abstinence education grant in the State Budget.
Make sure your legislator and Chairman DeLeo know you do want that federal abstinence education money to encourage 10-13 year olds to avoid risky behaviors and delay sex!
From MFI's latest action alert:
The federal government wants to again grant $800,000 to Massachusetts for the purpose of offering school-based abstinence education to middle-school students. This program would be voluntary, not mandatory, for any middle-school. It would be used to complement, not circumvent, existing comprehensive sex education programs.
Right now, there are forces who oppose any message to youth that encourages them to wait until they are older to have sex. They don't want Ways & Means Chairman DeLeo to include the federal abstinence education grant in the State Budget.
Make sure your legislator and Chairman DeLeo know you do want that federal abstinence education money to encourage 10-13 year olds to avoid risky behaviors and delay sex!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Thought Crimes Bills Pending
Congress is about to pass its new "hate crimes" bill, H1592. The federal bill would begin prosecutions of so-called "hate-crimes" based on a person's "sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability." And in Massachusetts, the homosexual lobby has filed H1722, also focused on "transgender rights" and "hate crimes". The implications for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are frightening.
Back in 2000, Robert Knight reported:
"During the Supreme Court hearings in 2000 on the Boy Scout case, pro-life Rev. Rob Schenck was sitting in the audience next to the Clinton White House liaison for 'gay' issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, 'We're not going to win this case, but that's okay. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots.''
Back in 2000, Robert Knight reported:
"During the Supreme Court hearings in 2000 on the Boy Scout case, pro-life Rev. Rob Schenck was sitting in the audience next to the Clinton White House liaison for 'gay' issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, 'We're not going to win this case, but that's okay. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots.''
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
GLBT Civil Disobedience Looming?
We read on CrazyToday ("The Return of Civil Disobedience?", 3-30-07) that the GLBT community is being urged by the elder spokesman of acting up, Larry Kramer of "ActUp", to engage in civil disobedience. Tom Lang of KnowThyNeighbor, who reveals Massachusetts the voter data information of marriage amendment signers, wrote:
I was fortunate enough to hear Larry Kramer's speech a few days ago. He is calling for all LGBT to immediately begin to "engage" in civil disobedience regarding all of our important issues. That is what I have gotten out of this NYC protest.
What got him and ACT UP fired up about was not Dont Ask Dont Tell but the fact that "homosexuals" were called "immoral." His reaction in the speech was that he cannot believe that LGBT organizations reacted with a "few press releases" and that was that. He is calling for the end of press events as the way to protest what this country is doing to us and to bring back civil disobedience on a large scale.
Whether it is trans rights, safe schools, HIV funding, marriage equality, hate crime bills, equal workplace protection...anyone, any government official, any organization that would oppose these efforts does it because they hate/fear/or believe it is their right to oppress LGBT. All of these issues are ALL of our issues and the LGBT community needs to unify immediately or we are DEAD.
And Mark [of CrazyToday] said...
Okay - sounds good.
So watch for their "civil disobedience." Can't wait. Here's a "gay" newspaper report up on ActUp's recent demonstration in New York. Looks pretty feeble compared to the old days:
Nearly 30 people were arrested in an act of civil disobedience Thursday after 50 body bags were lined up on a New York City street to represent the number of people who die of AIDS complications every day. Venerable activist group ACT UP—AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power—commemorated its 20th anniversary by reenacting its first protest, which took place 20 years ago, also in New York City's financial district. Upward of 800 people showed up to march down Wall Street, calling out to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies.... [ACT UP is] lobbying for a nationalized, single-payer health care plan for all Americans.
In bed with socialists and communists -- no surprise.
I was fortunate enough to hear Larry Kramer's speech a few days ago. He is calling for all LGBT to immediately begin to "engage" in civil disobedience regarding all of our important issues. That is what I have gotten out of this NYC protest.
What got him and ACT UP fired up about was not Dont Ask Dont Tell but the fact that "homosexuals" were called "immoral." His reaction in the speech was that he cannot believe that LGBT organizations reacted with a "few press releases" and that was that. He is calling for the end of press events as the way to protest what this country is doing to us and to bring back civil disobedience on a large scale.
Whether it is trans rights, safe schools, HIV funding, marriage equality, hate crime bills, equal workplace protection...anyone, any government official, any organization that would oppose these efforts does it because they hate/fear/or believe it is their right to oppress LGBT. All of these issues are ALL of our issues and the LGBT community needs to unify immediately or we are DEAD.
And Mark [of CrazyToday] said...
Okay - sounds good.
So watch for their "civil disobedience." Can't wait. Here's a "gay" newspaper report up on ActUp's recent demonstration in New York. Looks pretty feeble compared to the old days:
Nearly 30 people were arrested in an act of civil disobedience Thursday after 50 body bags were lined up on a New York City street to represent the number of people who die of AIDS complications every day. Venerable activist group ACT UP—AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power—commemorated its 20th anniversary by reenacting its first protest, which took place 20 years ago, also in New York City's financial district. Upward of 800 people showed up to march down Wall Street, calling out to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies.... [ACT UP is] lobbying for a nationalized, single-payer health care plan for all Americans.
In bed with socialists and communists -- no surprise.
Gordon College Invites Radical Homosexuals to Campus
We've heard rumors in recent years that Gordon College is not as solidly anchored in Biblical Christianity as it once was. Doctrinal and political liberalism have crept in. But it's still surprising and disappointing to see that the school has INVITED homosexual extremists, Soulforce's "Equality Riders", to the college to propagandize students. Yet the institution concurrently puts out statements that it's preserving its orthodox Christian stand!
"Equality Riders", a project of the radical pseudo-Christian organization "Soulforce", go to colleges around the country (as described by the radical homosexual "news" organ Bay Windows): "... young activists trek across the country in buses, stopping at Christian colleges and universities with anti-gay policies and trying to start a dialogue with students and administrators about embracing LGBT people and ending their discriminatory policies." But for Gordon College to invite them is to accept Soulforce's premise that Gordon College is wrongly discriminatory, and unchristian.
Soulforce especially targets Focus on the Family: Demonstrators recently invaded the Focus office and "refused to leave until the organization's founder, James Dobson, takes a step toward reconciliation with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities by ceasing his misleading statements about research on lesbian and gay parents. For more than a decade, members and allies of Soulforce have confronted Focus on the Family's anti-gay rhetoric and publicized its harmful impact on the lives of individuals, parents, and children." Clearly, this is a radical group.
From Bay Windows:
Equality Ride coming to Mass.The Equality Riders will touch down in the Boston area later this month. Beginning April 15, Equality Riders will take three days to visit Wenham’s Gordon College, a non-denominational Christian college that bans homosexuality. Kyle DeVries, a rider who is helping organize the eastbound bus of the two-bus Equality Ride tour, said the college has invited the riders to hold two forums on campus, talk with students during classes, and meet with them informally on campus.“Gordon College has actually been one of the most hospitable colleges we’ve dealt with,” said DeVries.On the first day of their visit the Equality Riders will hold a community rally at the North Shore Unitarian Universalist Church in Danvers starting at 6 p.m.
From The Christian Post, on the seminary connected to Gordon College:
With the baton passed on to [its new President James E.] White, Gordon-Conwell is seeking to advance to be the "vanguard of evangelical movement." "We're prepared and we're ready to roll," said White.
In an earlier talk with the Rev. Billy Graham, co-founder of Gordon-Conwell, ... White was enlightened with the original vision that the world-renowned evangelist had when he started the school ... He wanted to create a "force of change" – a school that would bring together evangelicals, uphold biblical orthodoxy, and be the "leader of leaders." ...
Acting on a vision to advance Christ's kingdom in all of life and culture without losing biblical orthodoxy, White commented, "If you don't have biblical orthodoxy but you're trying to reach the culture, then you're not offering the world what it doesn't [already] have."
Gordon-Conwell is also in conversations with such leaders as Chuck Colson, founder of think tank The Wilberforce Forum, to create a center on Christian worldview. The center would help Christians reclaim the culture ...
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is a multi-denominational, evangelical Protestant graduate school serving more than 2,000 students on campuses in South Hamilton and Boston, Mass., and Charlotte, N.C., and an extension site in Jacksonville, Fla. It is the fifth largest seminary in the nation.
"Equality Riders", a project of the radical pseudo-Christian organization "Soulforce", go to colleges around the country (as described by the radical homosexual "news" organ Bay Windows): "... young activists trek across the country in buses, stopping at Christian colleges and universities with anti-gay policies and trying to start a dialogue with students and administrators about embracing LGBT people and ending their discriminatory policies." But for Gordon College to invite them is to accept Soulforce's premise that Gordon College is wrongly discriminatory, and unchristian.
Soulforce especially targets Focus on the Family: Demonstrators recently invaded the Focus office and "refused to leave until the organization's founder, James Dobson, takes a step toward reconciliation with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities by ceasing his misleading statements about research on lesbian and gay parents. For more than a decade, members and allies of Soulforce have confronted Focus on the Family's anti-gay rhetoric and publicized its harmful impact on the lives of individuals, parents, and children." Clearly, this is a radical group.
From Bay Windows:
Equality Ride coming to Mass.The Equality Riders will touch down in the Boston area later this month. Beginning April 15, Equality Riders will take three days to visit Wenham’s Gordon College, a non-denominational Christian college that bans homosexuality. Kyle DeVries, a rider who is helping organize the eastbound bus of the two-bus Equality Ride tour, said the college has invited the riders to hold two forums on campus, talk with students during classes, and meet with them informally on campus.“Gordon College has actually been one of the most hospitable colleges we’ve dealt with,” said DeVries.On the first day of their visit the Equality Riders will hold a community rally at the North Shore Unitarian Universalist Church in Danvers starting at 6 p.m.
From The Christian Post, on the seminary connected to Gordon College:
With the baton passed on to [its new President James E.] White, Gordon-Conwell is seeking to advance to be the "vanguard of evangelical movement." "We're prepared and we're ready to roll," said White.
In an earlier talk with the Rev. Billy Graham, co-founder of Gordon-Conwell, ... White was enlightened with the original vision that the world-renowned evangelist had when he started the school ... He wanted to create a "force of change" – a school that would bring together evangelicals, uphold biblical orthodoxy, and be the "leader of leaders." ...
Acting on a vision to advance Christ's kingdom in all of life and culture without losing biblical orthodoxy, White commented, "If you don't have biblical orthodoxy but you're trying to reach the culture, then you're not offering the world what it doesn't [already] have."
Gordon-Conwell is also in conversations with such leaders as Chuck Colson, founder of think tank The Wilberforce Forum, to create a center on Christian worldview. The center would help Christians reclaim the culture ...
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is a multi-denominational, evangelical Protestant graduate school serving more than 2,000 students on campuses in South Hamilton and Boston, Mass., and Charlotte, N.C., and an extension site in Jacksonville, Fla. It is the fifth largest seminary in the nation.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Gov. Patrick's and the Globe's NewSpeak on "Legal Marriages"
The Boston Globe reported today that Gov. Deval Patrick ordered his new Commissioner of Public Health (a man "married" to a man) to record 26 "gay marriages" for out-of-state couples. This despite the FACT that there is still a law on the books barring marriages from taking place in Massachusetts which would not be legal in the state where the couple are residents.
But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:
The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.
But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:
"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."
The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)
But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?
But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:
The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.
But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:
"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."
The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)
But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?
"Day of Silence" Silences Opposing Views
Favored speech, special rights: The "Day of Silence" propaganda event is looming in our high schools. Sponsored, organized, and promoted by the national radical homosexual/transgender advocacy group GLSEN, this is billed as a "student-led" event so that school administrators can hide it from parents. Its feebly framed goal is to raise awareness of students for the "oppression" suffered by GLBT people across America. Students supporting this goal remain silent all day, with their school's blessing. (Check the Day of Silence web site to see the incredible machinery behind this event.)
It's set to occur in hundreds of schools across Massachusetts the week after spring vacation, on April 25 in most schools. Why does a tiny fraction of the population, defined by unnatural sexual practices condemned over thousands of years of civilization by its great religions, get to propagate this viewpoint in our public high schools?
Call your local high school and see if this event is scheduled there. A national movement is taking shape to boycott the schools allowing this to happen. See NotOurKids.com.
Check Dennis Byrne's excellent op/ed (Chicago Tribune, 3-27-07): "Free Speech and the Right to Disagree" on a free speech case coming out of this event in Illinois:
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval? A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality....
Gay activists may say that the heterosexual message is more inflammatory than theirs because of the "long history of bullying, harassment and discrimination" that homosexuals and students of uncommon sexual orientation have had to suffer in schools. But, why should that restrict the free speech of someone who has not participated in "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? Or do you have to prove that you did not engage in such behavior before you are allowed to speak?
Or is the school saying her T-shirt itself constitutes "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? That would be a ridiculous assertion, because the T-shirt does not meet the generally accepted definitions of the terms. Unless we now want to restrict speech that "bothers someone." This is tricky, because it gets into the debate over how "offensive" speech must be before it can be restricted....
Then what if Zamecnik and her friends decide to have their own Day of Silence, to protest the other Day of Silence? This is an important question because gay activists are allowed to remain silent in class even if called upon by their teachers. Would the school allow Zamecnik to organize hundreds of students in opposition to homosexuality, a day on which they could refuse to answer a teacher's questions without facing disciplinary action?
The school has backed itself into this corner by sanctioning the pro-gay Day of Silence for political purposes. Who next will demand equal time? Peace activists, war supporters? Nazis? Communists? The limits of free speech in K-12 schools is a tricky issue, involving freedom of the press, freedom to publicly criticize administration and faculty, and so forth. But the issue in Naperville shouldn't be a problem. The school is practicing speech discrimination based on a certain belief, and that is unconstitutional.
It's set to occur in hundreds of schools across Massachusetts the week after spring vacation, on April 25 in most schools. Why does a tiny fraction of the population, defined by unnatural sexual practices condemned over thousands of years of civilization by its great religions, get to propagate this viewpoint in our public high schools?
Call your local high school and see if this event is scheduled there. A national movement is taking shape to boycott the schools allowing this to happen. See NotOurKids.com.
Check Dennis Byrne's excellent op/ed (Chicago Tribune, 3-27-07): "Free Speech and the Right to Disagree" on a free speech case coming out of this event in Illinois:
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval? A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality....
Gay activists may say that the heterosexual message is more inflammatory than theirs because of the "long history of bullying, harassment and discrimination" that homosexuals and students of uncommon sexual orientation have had to suffer in schools. But, why should that restrict the free speech of someone who has not participated in "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? Or do you have to prove that you did not engage in such behavior before you are allowed to speak?
Or is the school saying her T-shirt itself constitutes "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? That would be a ridiculous assertion, because the T-shirt does not meet the generally accepted definitions of the terms. Unless we now want to restrict speech that "bothers someone." This is tricky, because it gets into the debate over how "offensive" speech must be before it can be restricted....
Then what if Zamecnik and her friends decide to have their own Day of Silence, to protest the other Day of Silence? This is an important question because gay activists are allowed to remain silent in class even if called upon by their teachers. Would the school allow Zamecnik to organize hundreds of students in opposition to homosexuality, a day on which they could refuse to answer a teacher's questions without facing disciplinary action?
The school has backed itself into this corner by sanctioning the pro-gay Day of Silence for political purposes. Who next will demand equal time? Peace activists, war supporters? Nazis? Communists? The limits of free speech in K-12 schools is a tricky issue, involving freedom of the press, freedom to publicly criticize administration and faculty, and so forth. But the issue in Naperville shouldn't be a problem. The school is practicing speech discrimination based on a certain belief, and that is unconstitutional.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Sen. Susan Fargo & Breast Confusion
Senator Susan Fargo is confused about the female breast. She has filed conflicting bills. On the one hand she supports breastfeeding as a glory of nature and public health. On the other hand, she supports a bill that would declare it normal for women to surgically remove their breasts.Two of her bills recognize and praise nature: one providing educational information to the public on the health benefits of breastfeeding (S1223), and another declaring breastfeeding most healthy for mother and child, as well as society, and therefore allowing public breastfeeding (S78).
But if Sen. Fargo believes in the goodness of the breast and its place in the natural scheme of things, why is she also sponsoring a loony bill (H1722) which would deny nature, and promote and protect "transgenderism" and so-called "gender expression"? We have learned that in quite a few cases, women "identifying" as males choose to remove their breasts. (To say nothing of the men who "grow" breasts through hormone injections.) Is this also part of the natural scheme of things? Is this good for the public health? Sen. Fargo seems to think so. Here's some of the public "gender expression" Sen. Fargo wants to protect:
"Tranny Bois" marching at a Boston Pride event [Bay Windows photo].
Sen. Fargo: Should female breasts be used as God intended them, or removed? Should male-to-female transsexuals be allowed to breastfeed in public?
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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Gay" Adoption Mess in Georgia
Here's a story bringing together the craziness of adoptions by non-biological homosexual "parents", the fluidity of "sexual orientation", and the willingness of the judiciary to ignore state laws.
Lesbian Argues Ga. Gays Can't Adopt Kids
AP, 3-25-07
ATLANTA -- Sara Wheeler's life has become a contradiction. Once a proud lesbian, she's now a pariah in the gay community. Once in a committed relationship with a female partner, she's rethinking her sexuality. And now she's doing something she once would have considered unthinkable -- arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children.
Wheeler is coming to grips with the fact that she's become an outcast for taking this step in a custody fight for her child. But she says that isn't what her fight is about: "It's about motherly rights."
Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request. ...
But then the couple broke up, and the biological parent, Wheeler, wanted sole custody of her son. She asked the court to "toss the adoption that she had previously pushed for, claiming it should never have been approved because it runs afoul of state law." Her lawsuit was rejected by the county judge and state Court of Appeals, then went to the Georgia Supreme Court, which refused to hear it (but is reconsidering). The local GLBT newspaper accused Wheeler of "self-hating".
"There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption," [Wheeler] said. "If Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws." Aside from a few gay friends, she has turned away from the gay community. She no longer dates, and doesn't go to gay clubs or events any more. She said she is rethinking whether she is still a lesbian or whether she should abandon dating for good.
"I just don't feel comfortable in that scene," she says. "I'm just trying to figure it all out." She knows she's seen as a betrayer; but in a sense, she feels she was the one betrayed. "Before I'm anything -- gay or lesbian -- I'm a mother," she says. "And the most important thing is to make sure my son has a relationship with his biological mother."
Lesbian Argues Ga. Gays Can't Adopt Kids
AP, 3-25-07
ATLANTA -- Sara Wheeler's life has become a contradiction. Once a proud lesbian, she's now a pariah in the gay community. Once in a committed relationship with a female partner, she's rethinking her sexuality. And now she's doing something she once would have considered unthinkable -- arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children.
Wheeler is coming to grips with the fact that she's become an outcast for taking this step in a custody fight for her child. But she says that isn't what her fight is about: "It's about motherly rights."
Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request. ...
But then the couple broke up, and the biological parent, Wheeler, wanted sole custody of her son. She asked the court to "toss the adoption that she had previously pushed for, claiming it should never have been approved because it runs afoul of state law." Her lawsuit was rejected by the county judge and state Court of Appeals, then went to the Georgia Supreme Court, which refused to hear it (but is reconsidering). The local GLBT newspaper accused Wheeler of "self-hating".
"There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption," [Wheeler] said. "If Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws." Aside from a few gay friends, she has turned away from the gay community. She no longer dates, and doesn't go to gay clubs or events any more. She said she is rethinking whether she is still a lesbian or whether she should abandon dating for good.
"I just don't feel comfortable in that scene," she says. "I'm just trying to figure it all out." She knows she's seen as a betrayer; but in a sense, she feels she was the one betrayed. "Before I'm anything -- gay or lesbian -- I'm a mother," she says. "And the most important thing is to make sure my son has a relationship with his biological mother."
Monday, March 26, 2007
Phony Basis for Federal "Hate Crimes" Bill
Is there an epidemic of transgender bashing? Not according to FBI crime statistics. Yet Rep. John Conyers, who again introduced the federal "hate crimes" bill last week, falsely claims that there is. Let's hope President Bush has the sense to veto this crazy bill.
Then we have to deal with the transgender rights and "hate crimes" bill that's been filed here in Massachusetts! More on that soon...
From Traditional Values Coalition:
Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Introduced
March 22, 2007 – Far left Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has once again introduced his so-called “hate crimes” bill to provide special federal protection for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transsexualism. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a rehash of his 2005 bill, according to sources in Congress.
H.R. 1592 claims there is an epidemic of “hate” against homosexuals and cross-dressers that is so pervasive throughout our nation, that local law enforcement officials are overwhelmed in dealing with the problem. In addition, Conyers’ and his congressional cohorts claim – without any evidence whatsoever – that homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., are so persecuted in their home states that they are fleeing into neighboring states to avoid persecution. The legislation asserts that violence against these groups forces “such members to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.” Liberals also claim things are so bad for homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., that these individuals are prevented “from purchasing goods and services; obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.” The bogus claim that interstate travel is involved in “hate,” is needed by Conyers to invoke federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution....
Contrary to what John Conyers claims, there is no epidemic of hate against individuals because of their sexual orientation. FBI hate crime statistics from 2005 (the latest available) report only 1,171 cases of sexual orientation bias against individuals. Of those, 301 were listed as “intimidation,” which is name-calling. Another 333 were listed as “simple assault,” which is pushing or shoving. Only 177 were listed as aggravated assault against a person because of his sexual orientation. “In a nation of 300 million, the existence of 1,171 “hate crimes” against individuals hardly constitutes a national epidemic that is overwhelming local police departments or sheriff’s departments [said Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values].
“The ultimate goal of Conyers’ bill is to silence all opposition to the homosexual/transgender political agenda. So-called ‘hate speech’ will be suppressed because it supposedly incites individuals to violence against homosexuals/ transgenders. Defined by homosexuals, hate speech is any verbal or printed materials that criticize the normalization of sodomy in our culture. The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality” said Lafferty.
Then we have to deal with the transgender rights and "hate crimes" bill that's been filed here in Massachusetts! More on that soon...
From Traditional Values Coalition:
Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Introduced
March 22, 2007 – Far left Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has once again introduced his so-called “hate crimes” bill to provide special federal protection for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transsexualism. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a rehash of his 2005 bill, according to sources in Congress.
H.R. 1592 claims there is an epidemic of “hate” against homosexuals and cross-dressers that is so pervasive throughout our nation, that local law enforcement officials are overwhelmed in dealing with the problem. In addition, Conyers’ and his congressional cohorts claim – without any evidence whatsoever – that homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., are so persecuted in their home states that they are fleeing into neighboring states to avoid persecution. The legislation asserts that violence against these groups forces “such members to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.” Liberals also claim things are so bad for homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., that these individuals are prevented “from purchasing goods and services; obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.” The bogus claim that interstate travel is involved in “hate,” is needed by Conyers to invoke federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution....
Contrary to what John Conyers claims, there is no epidemic of hate against individuals because of their sexual orientation. FBI hate crime statistics from 2005 (the latest available) report only 1,171 cases of sexual orientation bias against individuals. Of those, 301 were listed as “intimidation,” which is name-calling. Another 333 were listed as “simple assault,” which is pushing or shoving. Only 177 were listed as aggravated assault against a person because of his sexual orientation. “In a nation of 300 million, the existence of 1,171 “hate crimes” against individuals hardly constitutes a national epidemic that is overwhelming local police departments or sheriff’s departments [said Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values].
“The ultimate goal of Conyers’ bill is to silence all opposition to the homosexual/transgender political agenda. So-called ‘hate speech’ will be suppressed because it supposedly incites individuals to violence against homosexuals/ transgenders. Defined by homosexuals, hate speech is any verbal or printed materials that criticize the normalization of sodomy in our culture. The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality” said Lafferty.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Criminalization of Christianity and Traditional Values Continues
See LifeSiteNews for these disturbing stories from England, Brazil, and Germany. The criminalization of traditional values is happening just a bit faster there than here. But our federal and state "hate crimes" laws and their implementation plans are coming together in the U.S., while few pay attention.
"UK Regulations Barring Religious Schools from Teaching Against Homosexuality Approved"
and
"More Details on the Proposed Brazil Law to Jail Pastors who Preach Homosexual Activity is Sin"
and
"German Court Places Custody of Yet Another 5 Homeschooling Children with Government's Youth Office"
John Haskins comments on these stories:
LifeSiteNews reports that England has outlawed teaching against homosexuality in religious schools. Brazil may make criticism of homosexuality a criminal offence; conviction would result in prison sentences of between two and five years. Children are being stolen from their parents in Germany.
See the story on England (above): "The one thing the government doesn't want to see right now is priests and ministers in prison. That means they are going to start with schools or businesses. They've been pushing hard in education for years," Fr. Finigan said. Why is it that priests and ministers in prison is "the one thing the UK government doesn't want to see?" Because that is the one thing that could cause good to win over evil.
Do we have the leaders we need to prevent such things in this country? It doesn't seem so. You either have spiritual leaders who are more than willing to be arrested, beaten, impoverished and imprisoned for their faith and as an example to others, or you have no spiritual leadership at all. The big budgets, fancy cars, nice houses and everything else are not proof that God is blessing our pastors and "pro-family leaders." They are merely proof that we are the Church of Laodicea.
Why has Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), for example, never been arrested? Pat Robertson? James Dobson? Gary Bauer? If they haven't stood up, why should anyone else? Is there really still nothing worth getting arrested for?
Why has Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law & Justice) not accused judges of violating their oaths of office -- does he fear being sanctioned by the American Bar Association ? Why is it not common for prominent pro-family lawyers and law professors to speak publicly of the corrupt lawyers in the way that Christ descibed them in the Gospel of Luke? How is it possible for "pro-family" lawyers to lie about the constitutions they have sworn to defend? If the Founding Fathers or Martin Luther King, Jr. had used their methods, they would have achieved nothing. For too many "leaders," pro-family activism turns out over the long run to be just a career.
One day down the road it will occur to some people who should have seen it when it was happening: the criminalization of Christianity happened not in spite of our resistance, but because of what we thought was our "resistance." Our silly, half-hearted children's games created the moral vacuum needed to draw in the evil that is smothering the legal and cultural inheritance that we owe to our children. The criminalization of virtue was inevitable once we decided, unconsciously, to tolerate the counterfeit Christianity in us and around us.
"UK Regulations Barring Religious Schools from Teaching Against Homosexuality Approved"
and
"More Details on the Proposed Brazil Law to Jail Pastors who Preach Homosexual Activity is Sin"
and
"German Court Places Custody of Yet Another 5 Homeschooling Children with Government's Youth Office"
John Haskins comments on these stories:
LifeSiteNews reports that England has outlawed teaching against homosexuality in religious schools. Brazil may make criticism of homosexuality a criminal offence; conviction would result in prison sentences of between two and five years. Children are being stolen from their parents in Germany.
See the story on England (above): "The one thing the government doesn't want to see right now is priests and ministers in prison. That means they are going to start with schools or businesses. They've been pushing hard in education for years," Fr. Finigan said. Why is it that priests and ministers in prison is "the one thing the UK government doesn't want to see?" Because that is the one thing that could cause good to win over evil.
Do we have the leaders we need to prevent such things in this country? It doesn't seem so. You either have spiritual leaders who are more than willing to be arrested, beaten, impoverished and imprisoned for their faith and as an example to others, or you have no spiritual leadership at all. The big budgets, fancy cars, nice houses and everything else are not proof that God is blessing our pastors and "pro-family leaders." They are merely proof that we are the Church of Laodicea.
Why has Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), for example, never been arrested? Pat Robertson? James Dobson? Gary Bauer? If they haven't stood up, why should anyone else? Is there really still nothing worth getting arrested for?
Why has Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law & Justice) not accused judges of violating their oaths of office -- does he fear being sanctioned by the American Bar Association ? Why is it not common for prominent pro-family lawyers and law professors to speak publicly of the corrupt lawyers in the way that Christ descibed them in the Gospel of Luke? How is it possible for "pro-family" lawyers to lie about the constitutions they have sworn to defend? If the Founding Fathers or Martin Luther King, Jr. had used their methods, they would have achieved nothing. For too many "leaders," pro-family activism turns out over the long run to be just a career.
One day down the road it will occur to some people who should have seen it when it was happening: the criminalization of Christianity happened not in spite of our resistance, but because of what we thought was our "resistance." Our silly, half-hearted children's games created the moral vacuum needed to draw in the evil that is smothering the legal and cultural inheritance that we owe to our children. The criminalization of virtue was inevitable once we decided, unconsciously, to tolerate the counterfeit Christianity in us and around us.
Friday, March 23, 2007
GLBT Anchor Babies
It's clear that children in GLBT-headed households are crucial to the argument for homosexual "marriage". They are the "anchor babies" for the movement. The radical homosexuals understood this long before any of us regular folks were paying attention. That's why they got adoption to homosexual couple "parents" OK'd back in the early 1990s.
Now we see a bill filed in the Mass. legislature this session to legalize homosexual "marriage" (which filing, by the way, proves that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal here) ... It's called: "An act to protect Mass. families through equal access to civil marriage" (H1710). If you've ever been to State House hearings, you'll appreciate their theatrical use of children as props for their "homosexual marriage" argument.
The emotional needs of the "parents" are paramount in such households. But the burdens placed on the children who don't know their biological parent, and who are lacking a parent of each sex [... yes -- there are only two sexes ...] are plastered over with phony studies about same-sex parents (or even single parents by choice) and their children.
(See our earlier posting, "The Pain of not knowing your biological parent.")
So when we see these two articles about labs catering to same-sex parents, it makes us cringe. This biotech intervention in baby-making is out of control.
"Clinics recruit surrogates to provide eggs for gay couples; Homosexuals can pay extra to choose the sex of their baby." (Focus on the Family, CitizenLink, 3-20-07) And if it's the wrong sex, abort!
"News in brief: Growing Generations hits 500-baby milestone" (Bay Windows, 3-22-07)
Now we see a bill filed in the Mass. legislature this session to legalize homosexual "marriage" (which filing, by the way, proves that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal here) ... It's called: "An act to protect Mass. families through equal access to civil marriage" (H1710). If you've ever been to State House hearings, you'll appreciate their theatrical use of children as props for their "homosexual marriage" argument.
The emotional needs of the "parents" are paramount in such households. But the burdens placed on the children who don't know their biological parent, and who are lacking a parent of each sex [... yes -- there are only two sexes ...] are plastered over with phony studies about same-sex parents (or even single parents by choice) and their children.
(See our earlier posting, "The Pain of not knowing your biological parent.")
So when we see these two articles about labs catering to same-sex parents, it makes us cringe. This biotech intervention in baby-making is out of control.
"Clinics recruit surrogates to provide eggs for gay couples; Homosexuals can pay extra to choose the sex of their baby." (Focus on the Family, CitizenLink, 3-20-07) And if it's the wrong sex, abort!
"News in brief: Growing Generations hits 500-baby milestone" (Bay Windows, 3-22-07)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)