Romney's recent statements on sex ed (see YouTube) are laughable. Look, we're in Massachusetts, and we're the group behind the current Parents' Rights law that guarantees parents advance notice and the right to opt their child out of any school instruction involving human sexuality issues. So we know about this issue of sex ed in the schools. What a joke that Romney is acting as the defender of parents' rights in this matter!
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
Friday, July 20, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Pro-Life Activists Who Don't Hold Back the Truth
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that pro-life protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in showing a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (It's encouraging to hear about a good ruling once in a while!) But the attorney for the defendants noted that, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," and urged "they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Focus on the Family Still Delusional About Romney?
The Denver Post reported recently that Mitt Romney met with James Dobson and other top officers of Focus on the Family. See "Romney faces skepticism" (7-16-07):
... "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon, but that remains to be seen," James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based but nationally influential Focus on the Family evangelical ministry, said in a radio interview in October. The observation is momentous. Dobson's first-ever endorsement to the Christian faithful of a presidential candidate is cited by political operatives as crucial to President Bush's 2004 re-election.
Dobson currently is "sequestered," busy writing his latest book and unavailable for interviews. But a top Focus on the Family official said Dobson's observation remains valid, despite a recent visit Romney paid to Dobson at his offices this spring.
During a round of fundraising in Colorado Springs, Romney spoke with Dobson, Focus on the Family senior vice president Tom Minnery and others for a little more than 30 minutes. ... "If Mitt is the (Republican) nominee, I think he'll get a large portion of evangelical votes," Minnery said. ... "I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative." ...
John Haskins comments:
Is Tom Minnery still delusional about Slick Willard? So sad, and so destructive. What would it take to open this man's eyes?
"I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative."
Huh? Mitt Romney? "Obviously very conservative"? "On social issues"?
Based on decisions he's made? On which planet?
Here on planet Earth, in full public view, while we and our "legal experts" had our eyes tightly shut, Mitt Romney made illegal, unconstitutional decisions tearing down religious freedom, destroying marriage, nullifying parents' rights. He:
* forced public officials to perform sodomy-based "marriages" or resign;
* forced Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals or close down -- citing a law that, as even liberal former governor Mike Dukakis pointed out, does not exist;
* forced Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacients, violating their Constitutional freedom of religion and reversing the ruling of his own Commissioner of Health that no law required such orders;
* designed and signed a law creating a state health care system that will kill not fewer, but more, babies in the womb, and permanently and unconstitutionally gives Planned Parenthood an official voice as part of state government;
* expanded government funding for pro-homosexuality propaganda for children;
* failed to enforce, even once, the parents' rights law intended to guarantee that parents can protect their children from monstrous, evil homosexual brainwashing.
Romney's anti-moral, anti-parent, anti-constitution, anti-marriage record goes on and on. The sheer volume and cravenness of it sickens the stomach. Never in my years of following politics closely have I known of any candidate whose record offered more abundant and meticulously documented proof that he is NOT conservative, than the record of Willard Mitt Romney. Yet Focus On the Family's Tom Minnery still calls Romney, "obviously very conservative on social issues"!
Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we believe political lies not because they are believable, but because we want to. It is truly sad and discouraging to read that someone with the influence that Minnery is so completely in denial about Mitt Romney's willing role in the relentless debauching of childhood, the natural human family, and our constitutional form of government. This is freakish, tragic denial, utterly divorced from reality. What terrible damage such public statements do to Americans' -- and especially Christians' -- efforts to identify moral leadership. Every such public denial of the proven facts about Romney is instantly seized upon by the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-Christian establishment and by their enablers in the "conservative" establishment. If a Democrat had done such things he would be opposed at every turn by "pro-family conservatives." Only a clean-cut Republican with a photogenic family and "great presidential hair" could have pulled this off and still have the Minnerys, Sekulows, David Frenches and Hugh Hewitts covering up for him.
We are witnessing a truly poisoned placebo "conservatism" collaborating in its own destruction. This "pro-family social conservatism" has many of the characteristics which George Orwell, Whittaker Chambers and Malcolm Muggeridge found among the writers, clergy. lawyers and intellectuals of the first half of the 20th Century, whose relentless, aggressive, self-righteous denial served communism's liquidation of over 100 million human beings. Imagined intellectual and moral superiority is a truly addictive and dangerous thing. Facts no longer mean anything, as Orwell, Muggeridge and others warned.
Whittaker Chambers' biographer Sam Tanenhaus wrote that Lenin's authoritarianism was "precisely what attracts Chambers… He had at last found his church." We are witnessing something very similar as "conservative" and "pro-family" careerists deny the provable anti-constitutional, anti-child, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-morality legacy of Willard Mitt Romney. What is the fatal attraction? It is Romney's utter moral emptiness -- beautified by the total aesthetic picture of his wealth, Ivy League credentials, photogenic family, endless repetition of assigned conservative mantras, and that great hair. These are precisely what attracts many "conservatives" to him. This moral hollowness, dignified by the lovely and seductive picture of worldly success, is the essence of the church that calls itself "conservatism."
How revealing of the obsession with outward appearances that has made spiritually impotent the elite of what we trusted as "social conservatism," the pro-family movement and the Christian Church. Orwell, Chambers and Muggeridge at least finally saw and accepted the obvious truth and escaped the ambush their own willful delusions had prepared for them. The will to be seduced that Muggeridge described is exactly what the reaction will be among many when the Antichrist finally gets his turn to seduce them: "And power was given to him to deceive the peoples."
Other than that, this is just another article shifting attention from Romney's rampage through the Massachusetts Constitution, his sodomy-based "marriages," etc. to the unrelated issue of his Mormonism -- a win-win for liberals, since they mock Mormonism, but they get to paint Christians as intolerant bigots for rejecting Mormonism as a cult.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part II
The July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper (PP) uses a typical propaganda ploy in its attempt to normalize homosexual "parenting": It focuses on the innocent beauty of children, and the child's emotions regarding his "parents." The PP starts with the glowing face of a strawberry blonde imp on their cover, whose sideways smile leads your eye directly to the feature headline, "Gay Parenting: 'See Us as Family'." And whose heart wouldn't go out to the smiling boy "who is happy his parents got married" in a half-page color photo of a smiling "family" -- two men and a boy -- on the beach. We learn the boy was adopted from Russia. And we respond: "What a wonderful thing!"
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
Monday, July 16, 2007
Defining Treason Down: Alliance Defense Fund & Romney
More on Saturday's big story in WorldNetDaily, "Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage; 'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority' " featured in our July 14 post.
Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."
Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."
Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."
So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."
Of course that's not nearly good enough.
It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.
If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.
So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.
The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).
Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.
The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:
Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.
Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."
Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."
Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."
So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."
Of course that's not nearly good enough.
It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.
If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.
So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.
The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).
Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.
The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:
Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Experts Say Romney Created Homosexual "Marriage" -- WorldNetDaily
(from our 12-21-06 posting:)DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
In November 2006, Governor Mitt Romney held a phony "marriage rally" on the steps of the Massachusetts State House. MassResistance was there, calling on the Governor to reverse his unconstitutional orders (before leaving office in January 2007) to his Department of Public Health, Town Clerks, and Justices of the Peace that implemented illegal "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts. We received no response from the Governor either in November, or to a formal letter signed by 44 prominent national conservative leaders in December. Finally, the national conservative press is beginning to understand and report the truth about Mitt Romney's subversion of Constitutional government in Massachusetts. It's amazing how, in this world of controlled media, it took three years to get this "NEWS" out. Thanks to WorldNetDaily for their courage in reporting the truth! In today's WorldNetDaily:
Breaking News!
ELECTION 2008
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Experts: Credit Romney
for homosexual marriage
'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
--WND
Friday, July 13, 2007
Resistance to Federal Hate Crimes Bill
Hey, "radical right": You'd better be mobilizing against the federal "hate crimes" bill, S1105, like the radical left says you are. Our pitiful Mass. Senator Teddy has SNEAKED his "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill" into a Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill! Here's
(1) a video of a press conference by pastors speaking out against this assault on Christianity in Washington, D.C. last Wednesday (July 11);
(2) an alert from the Liberty Counsel;
(3) an alert from the transgender crowd (the most radical left).
(1) Here is the video of the recent Hate Crime rally -- calling America to wake up -- that we videotaped in Washington DC this last week. ... PLEASE consider what [hate crimes legislation] is going to do to ALL Christians who preach using God's word to condemn sin. PLEASE pass this on.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2481333456096867929&hl=en
Joe Rizoli
(2) From the Liberty Counsel:
The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new formyesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)introduced the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as thisweek. Introduced as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Kennedy amendment is one of more than 100 amendments attached to the Defense Reauthorization bill. An ABC 20/20 investigation showed that the Matthew Shepard murder, portrayed by activists as a hate crime because Shepard was homosexual, was in fact a bungled robbery that had nothing to do with Shepard's homosexuality.
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime. In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. Liberty Counsel has published alegal memo that explains the dangers of hate crimes legislation.
The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Hate Crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation is bad law because it criminalizes speech and does nothing toprevent violent crimes. All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate Crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values."
(3) From the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition:
Today Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), which is being debated in the Senate this week and next. This amendment could be voted on as early as today. In short, today transgender people are one giant step closer to gaining federal hate crimes protections! The language of today's amendment is identical language to that of S. 1105, which the Senators introduced in April.
"[T]he Radical Right is mobilizing their base to oppose the federal hate crimes bill. They're using scare tactics and flat-out lies in hopes of killing Kennedy's amendment. Make sure that your Senators hear your voice and the true importance of this bill. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would:
- Extend existing federal protections to include "gender identity, sexual orientation, gender and disability"
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
- Mandate that the FBI begin tracking hate crimes based on actual or perceived gender identity
- Remove limitations that narrowly define hate crimes to violence committed while a person is accessing a federally protected activity, such as voting
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
(1) a video of a press conference by pastors speaking out against this assault on Christianity in Washington, D.C. last Wednesday (July 11);
(2) an alert from the Liberty Counsel;
(3) an alert from the transgender crowd (the most radical left).
(1) Here is the video of the recent Hate Crime rally -- calling America to wake up -- that we videotaped in Washington DC this last week. ... PLEASE consider what [hate crimes legislation] is going to do to ALL Christians who preach using God's word to condemn sin. PLEASE pass this on.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2481333456096867929&hl=en
Joe Rizoli
(2) From the Liberty Counsel:
The so-called "hate crimes" legislation took a new formyesterday when Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)introduced the controversial amendment to a Defense Reauthorization bill. This move will could push senators to vote on the issue as early as thisweek. Introduced as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Kennedy amendment is one of more than 100 amendments attached to the Defense Reauthorization bill. An ABC 20/20 investigation showed that the Matthew Shepard murder, portrayed by activists as a hate crime because Shepard was homosexual, was in fact a bungled robbery that had nothing to do with Shepard's homosexuality.
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to homosexual behavior. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individuals who are even suspected of committing a crime. In a debate on a similar bill that passed the House in May, Rep. Artur Davis, who supported the bill, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. Liberty Counsel has published alegal memo that explains the dangers of hate crimes legislation.
The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Hate Crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation is bad law because it criminalizes speech and does nothing toprevent violent crimes. All crimes are motivated by hate. Hate Crimes laws will not be used to punish the perpetrator, but will be used to silence people of faith, religious groups, clergy, and those who support traditional moral values."
(3) From the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition:
Today Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), which is being debated in the Senate this week and next. This amendment could be voted on as early as today. In short, today transgender people are one giant step closer to gaining federal hate crimes protections! The language of today's amendment is identical language to that of S. 1105, which the Senators introduced in April.
"[T]he Radical Right is mobilizing their base to oppose the federal hate crimes bill. They're using scare tactics and flat-out lies in hopes of killing Kennedy's amendment. Make sure that your Senators hear your voice and the true importance of this bill. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would:
- Extend existing federal protections to include "gender identity, sexual orientation, gender and disability"
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
- Mandate that the FBI begin tracking hate crimes based on actual or perceived gender identity
- Remove limitations that narrowly define hate crimes to violence committed while a person is accessing a federally protected activity, such as voting
- Allow the Justice Department to assist in hate crime investigations at the local level when local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to fully address these crimes
Romney Doesn't Fool WorldNetDaily
This is big in the conservative world: WorldNetDaily's founder/editor Joseph Farah hits Mitt right between the eyes. See "Don't Be Fooled by Romney" (7-13-07). MassResistance's work over the past year, exposing Romney's injury to our Constitution, has paid off! Excerpts from Farah's article, on Romney's implementation of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts:
He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...
Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...
If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...
He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...
Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...
If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The National Review "Mothership" and Romney
Left: The MothershipDon't miss this in WorldNetDaily today:
"Romney's 'constitutional bungling' criticized: Leaders say he ordered 'homosexual marriage' even though court never asked him to" (7-12-07). National Review's puffy coverage of Romney is the topic.
The article contains hysterically funny quotes from Kathryn Jean Lopez (Romney cheerleader) of National Review Online. She claims NRO provides in-depth coverage, yet we've NEVER seen anything there approaching the detail of this WND story. In fact, Lopez reverts to childish name-calling, continuing the NR pattern of complete avoidance of the constitutional issues. From WND:
The publication responded that the criticism was nothing more than a public relations stunt. "National Review Online has run pieces and blog posts criticizing and lauding Governor Romney on marriage and a whole host of other issues, as we have with others of the Republicans up for primary consideration next year. ..." Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online's editor, told WND. "Both marriage and the presidential election deserve more serious treatment than Mass Resistance's public-relations stunt. That's what we strive to do here at National Review Online and our mothership, National Review," she said.
We suggest that NR take lessons from WND on thoughtful political reporting! And maybe it's time for Kathryn Jean to return to the "mothership" -- National Review magazine -- in some more controlled role. Maybe the mothership needs to clean house. We suggest the mothership hire a few more real conservatives (and grown-ups). And maybe it's time for NR to stop taking big donations from Presidential candidates and their surrogates.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Lawsuit Against Church in NJ: Coming Soon to Mass.
One of the many ways "the sky is falling": LifeSite News reports that a lesbian couple in New Jersey is suing a church for refusing to let them have their "civil union" ceremony on church property. It won't be long before we see similar lawsuits in Massachusetts against churches that refuse homosexual "marriage" ceremonies on their properties. Just as in New Jersey law, Massachusetts bans discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of "sexual orientattion." Freedom of religion? What's that?
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union." Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.
Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. "The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. ...
Here's the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated ... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union." Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.
Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. "The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. ...
Here's the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated ... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Maryland Schools to Promote Anal Sex
The public health consequences of state-sanctioned sodomy-based "marriages" will be profound, compounding the decades of denial regarding HIV/AIDS transmission (dictated by radical homosexual activists). We already see the effect in our Massachusetts public schools, which now claim they must teach that anal sex is the equivalent of natural and healthy heterosexual intercourse -- because "gay marriage is legal."
Where were the physicians in the great non-debate on homosexual "marriage" in our State House? In the subsequent push to force homosexual sex on our schoolchildren, for example through Rep. Alice Wolf's "comprehensive health education" bill, a prominent public health physician stepped forward to point out that anal intercourse was five times more likely to result in HIV infection than vaginal intercourse (according to CDC statistics), and should not be presented to children as an acceptable behavior. But would it have made a difference if there had been 250 physicians joining with him? It didn't in Maryland! It seems most of our legislators are brain dead, and can't even absorb the most obvious facts any more.
Even in states without the fantasy of "legal" homosexual "marriage", the education establishments are out of control. PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) tells us that despite a petition signed by 270 PHYSICIANS, the Maryland Department of Education will forge ahead with an extreme and dangerous message to their children, that anal sex is an option just as valid and safe as vaginal intercourse! See today's press release from PFOX:
Maryland State School Board Advances “Sexual Diversity” Above Children’s Safety
News Advisory: July 10, 2007
Contact: PFOX@pfox.org www.pfox.org
ROCKVILLE , Maryland – In its ruling last week regarding a controversial sexuality curriculum in Montgomery County , the Maryland State Board of Education (MBOE) has implicitly authorized local school boards to promote “sexual diversity” to students and teach about anal sex while excluding warnings of the medical dangers pertaining to such practices.
Both the MBOE and Montgomery County School Board rejected a petition from 270 local medical doctors to include warning about anal sex critical to student safety as issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and National Institutes of Health.
The MBOE has also ruled that Maryland schools may teach questioning and confused students that homosexuality is “innate,” a controversial and unproven theory advanced by gay advocacy groups serving on the Montgomery County School Board’s curriculum advisory committee.
“In order to pander to these forces, sound education doctrine will now be turned on its head in Maryland ,” said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). “The MBOE has taken the preposterous position that questioning children can now be taught that they are ‘born that way’ until science proves otherwise ‘with a preponderance of evidence.’”
“Millions of dollars and three decades of research have failed to prove that homosexuality is innate or that change is not possible,” said Griggs. “After our expert testimony and briefs, it became obvious that science failed to justify the Montgomery County Public Schools’ biased and anti-exgay curriculum. Because they know that what they want to teach is not factual, MBOE instead claims that teaching children to ‘respect differences in sexuality’ of transgenders, transsexuals, homosexuals and cross-dressers is a ‘civic virtue.’ ” The Montgomery County School Board reappointed the curriculum advisory committee members who openly attack ex-gays and discourage equal access by ex-gay supporters.”...
PFOX leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached via their website at www.pfox.org
A copy of this press release is online.
Where were the physicians in the great non-debate on homosexual "marriage" in our State House? In the subsequent push to force homosexual sex on our schoolchildren, for example through Rep. Alice Wolf's "comprehensive health education" bill, a prominent public health physician stepped forward to point out that anal intercourse was five times more likely to result in HIV infection than vaginal intercourse (according to CDC statistics), and should not be presented to children as an acceptable behavior. But would it have made a difference if there had been 250 physicians joining with him? It didn't in Maryland! It seems most of our legislators are brain dead, and can't even absorb the most obvious facts any more.
Even in states without the fantasy of "legal" homosexual "marriage", the education establishments are out of control. PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) tells us that despite a petition signed by 270 PHYSICIANS, the Maryland Department of Education will forge ahead with an extreme and dangerous message to their children, that anal sex is an option just as valid and safe as vaginal intercourse! See today's press release from PFOX:
Maryland State School Board Advances “Sexual Diversity” Above Children’s Safety
News Advisory: July 10, 2007
Contact: PFOX@pfox.org www.pfox.org
ROCKVILLE , Maryland – In its ruling last week regarding a controversial sexuality curriculum in Montgomery County , the Maryland State Board of Education (MBOE) has implicitly authorized local school boards to promote “sexual diversity” to students and teach about anal sex while excluding warnings of the medical dangers pertaining to such practices.
Both the MBOE and Montgomery County School Board rejected a petition from 270 local medical doctors to include warning about anal sex critical to student safety as issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and National Institutes of Health.
The MBOE has also ruled that Maryland schools may teach questioning and confused students that homosexuality is “innate,” a controversial and unproven theory advanced by gay advocacy groups serving on the Montgomery County School Board’s curriculum advisory committee.
“In order to pander to these forces, sound education doctrine will now be turned on its head in Maryland ,” said Regina Griggs, Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). “The MBOE has taken the preposterous position that questioning children can now be taught that they are ‘born that way’ until science proves otherwise ‘with a preponderance of evidence.’”
“Millions of dollars and three decades of research have failed to prove that homosexuality is innate or that change is not possible,” said Griggs. “After our expert testimony and briefs, it became obvious that science failed to justify the Montgomery County Public Schools’ biased and anti-exgay curriculum. Because they know that what they want to teach is not factual, MBOE instead claims that teaching children to ‘respect differences in sexuality’ of transgenders, transsexuals, homosexuals and cross-dressers is a ‘civic virtue.’ ” The Montgomery County School Board reappointed the curriculum advisory committee members who openly attack ex-gays and discourage equal access by ex-gay supporters.”...
PFOX leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached via their website at www.pfox.org
A copy of this press release is online.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" - Part I
Same-sex "parenting" is not a biological possibility. It is a twisted social construct of 21st-century secular Western values and IVF clinics.God's construct is one man/one woman marriage with children. The failure of heterosexual marriage and parenting is the failure of man, not of God's design. (That's called "original sin".) And when it happens, our society used to be quick to label it a failure: the words used were dysfunction, abandonment, desertion; illegitimacy, etc. But now, not only are such judgments (on us all) silenced, but we may not even speak out against a "family" based on parents bonded through sexual perversions.
And worse, the July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper promotes "gay parenting" as legitimate. The very fact that the issue is addressed in the magazine means it's equated with normal parenting. Allowing such illegitimate use of the words "parenting" and "family" for such unnatural social arrangements is the first step to total acceptance of the other, the abnormal as the real thing. Yet the editor of the Parents' Paper [alison.murray@parenthood.com] dishonestly claims in her "Editor's Note" on p. 8:
"... we don't take sides on the issue of gay marriage; instead, we seek to illuminate -- to bring understanding -- to the plight of same-sex couples raising children. They face all of the same obstacles that the rest of us do, and then some. These parents are always mindful that others are watching, and sometimes disapproving, of their childrearing. The solution for many is to build their own communities of support. Read [our] article ... for some enlightening insight into how that's done."
Note the word "plight" -- the magazine clearly sides with same-sex parents. (The "plight" was very consciously chosen by the adults involved.) Anyone who doesn't accept same-sex parenting clearly is lacking understanding, is not "illuminated". The feature article "See Us As a Family" [discussed Part II of our commentary, coming soon] clearly supports and encourages such "families" by giving helpful tips, just as the magazine does for normal families.
But what of the plight of the children being brought up by "same-sex couples"! Last weekend's Boston Globe Magazine ran another article normalizing "two mommies" -- where one of the mommies actually admitted her son's verbalized yearning for a father he'll never really know. See "Two Moms and No Dad -- For Now" ("for now" meaning, that's because the lucky kids might get to meet their sperm-donor "dad" when they get older, and are past all those annoying years when they wanted him to do stuff with them.) If you don't get the heebie-jeebies when reading this, you're ABNORMAL:
When 10-year-old John was 3, he told me one morning as I was driving him to preschool that not having a dad made him feel sad. He has said this on a number of occasions over the past seven years. We do what we can to fill the gap. He's very athletic, and we take him to play baseball, soccer, basketball, and ice hockey, anywhere that men congregate to coach and cheer on their sons.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers.
These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father. The scourge of HIV ended the lives of some of my gay men friends whom I had asked to help me start a family 15 years ago, and the two straight men friends who volunteered were subsequently un-volunteered by their girlfriends. In the end, I scoured the country for donors who would agree to meet the children at a specified later date. When I became pregnant with our first child, I bought $10,000 worth of his sperm so that all our children would be genetically related.
I feel him with us much of the time. He is on the Brookline soccer fields when the mother of one of Katie's friends says, "Your donor must be an Olympian!" Katie runs like a gazelle. I feel his presence when I look at the children and see a wonderful similarity among them, despite two being born to me, and one to my partner. He is there when our Christmas cards go out, and we get back notes referring to "your beautiful children." In six years, when Katie turns 18, John will be 16 and Meg 10.
That is when they can meet him. I don't know what level of interest he will have in them or they in him. I can only hope that it will be mutual, and it will be strong.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers.
These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father. The scourge of HIV ended the lives of some of my gay men friends whom I had asked to help me start a family 15 years ago, and the two straight men friends who volunteered were subsequently un-volunteered by their girlfriends. In the end, I scoured the country for donors who would agree to meet the children at a specified later date. When I became pregnant with our first child, I bought $10,000 worth of his sperm so that all our children would be genetically related.
I feel him with us much of the time. He is on the Brookline soccer fields when the mother of one of Katie's friends says, "Your donor must be an Olympian!" Katie runs like a gazelle. I feel his presence when I look at the children and see a wonderful similarity among them, despite two being born to me, and one to my partner. He is there when our Christmas cards go out, and we get back notes referring to "your beautiful children." In six years, when Katie turns 18, John will be 16 and Meg 10.
That is when they can meet him. I don't know what level of interest he will have in them or they in him. I can only hope that it will be mutual, and it will be strong.
Whose emotional well-being are the Parents' Paper and Boston Globe most concerned for -- the children's? or the adults'? And is it just a coincidence that the Boston Parents' Paper and the Boston Globe Magazine both feature articles promoting same-sex parenting in this lazy month of July?
In case you missed our posting from some months back, read this very sad piece by a young woman who was the product of an anonymous sperm donation: "The Pain of Not Knowing Your Biological Parent."
Boston Parents' Paper (offices in Jamaica Plain ... are we surprised?)
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.comPublisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Sunday, July 08, 2007
WorldNetDaily on How to Bring Down "Big Sodomy"
Time for the ex-gays suffering from HIV/AIDS and other "gay" diseases to take it to the courts. Sue all those complicit in covering up the truth about the health dangers of the GLBT "lifestyle", just like the smokers suffering from lung cancer did against "Big Tobacco". See the WorldNetDaily, "Will ex-gays bring down 'Big Sodomy'?".
... After all, the biggest losers aren't the Christian right or grass-roots Americans, who have voted overwhelmingly against "alternative" definitions of marriage. The biggest losers are those who gaily fling themselves into the arms of the deadly beast that devours them whole. ...
Once enough of the victims have seen how they have been duped by the universities, politicians, media, business (deep pockets), Hollywood, politicians and, yes, the gay agenda itself, to throw away their health and life expectancy, they will come out swinging, marching boldly behind their lawyers.
The reverse "coming out" of Michael Glatze is the first major chink in the ramparts of Big Sodomy. More major players will be announcing themselves in time, demonstrating the fallacy of "once gay always gay," the sandy foundation on which the gay agenda is premised. And once science does its work, they will "win." The way the smokers "won."
Hopefully Americans aren't as slow this time to accept the findings, as we were when all we did was smoke. If you have a friend or relative who has been persuaded by the media, big business, politicians, university programs, including courses of study, or any person or group to try this deadly lifestyle, and especially if your friend or relative is already suffering from a serious disease contracted as a result of it, talk to him or her at the first opportunity about the very real possibility of starting a class-action lawsuit against the group or groups that persuaded them to enter into the activity that did them in. If you happen to be in a care-giving profession, that is a shoe in the door. ...
... After all, the biggest losers aren't the Christian right or grass-roots Americans, who have voted overwhelmingly against "alternative" definitions of marriage. The biggest losers are those who gaily fling themselves into the arms of the deadly beast that devours them whole. ...
Once enough of the victims have seen how they have been duped by the universities, politicians, media, business (deep pockets), Hollywood, politicians and, yes, the gay agenda itself, to throw away their health and life expectancy, they will come out swinging, marching boldly behind their lawyers.
The reverse "coming out" of Michael Glatze is the first major chink in the ramparts of Big Sodomy. More major players will be announcing themselves in time, demonstrating the fallacy of "once gay always gay," the sandy foundation on which the gay agenda is premised. And once science does its work, they will "win." The way the smokers "won."
Hopefully Americans aren't as slow this time to accept the findings, as we were when all we did was smoke. If you have a friend or relative who has been persuaded by the media, big business, politicians, university programs, including courses of study, or any person or group to try this deadly lifestyle, and especially if your friend or relative is already suffering from a serious disease contracted as a result of it, talk to him or her at the first opportunity about the very real possibility of starting a class-action lawsuit against the group or groups that persuaded them to enter into the activity that did them in. If you happen to be in a care-giving profession, that is a shoe in the door. ...
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The Myth of "Gays" Wanting "Gay Marriage"
[Graph from Boston Globe, 5-17-07]We posted on the dramatic decline in homosexual "marriages" taking place in Massachusetts a few months back. People are starting to notice. At Boston Pride, the Ramrod anonymous sodomy bar and the "Bears" with their folding chairs made a lot louder statements than that dishonest lobbying organization called MassEquality. Now we hear that in Toronto (a very "gay" city), hardly any homosexual "marriages" are taking place!
Along these lines, see this piece by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America: " 'Gays' don't want 'marriage' after all" (WorldNetDaily, 7-6-07). Excerpts from Barber:
The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as "marriage equality" and "gay rights," the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.
...But getting married isn't even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals who choose to engage in a lifestyle largely delineated by short-lived and unstable relationships at best – and more often by casual and promiscuous sexual encounters.
Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics, there have been only 9,695 total "gay marriages" in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Gov. Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the "gay marriage" novelty toy still had its sheen.
In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the "gay-pride" plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 "gay" couples had "married" in Massachusetts.
Even more telling – though not particularly surprising – are statistics coming out of Canada where "gay marriage" is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto – which boasts of having one of the world's largest homosexual populations –only one Canadian "gay" couple has "married" so far this year, according to a report by Reuters....
The good news is Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for "same-sex marriage." A recent survey by the Pew Center ...
Violent Lesbian & Gay Gangs Surface in Schools
The latest shocker: new violent homosexual gang activity is springing up in high schools across America. The O'Reilly Factor broke this news nationally a few weeks back, but since we don't watch much TV, we're only just now encountering this in Americans for Truth's report, "MUST VIEWING: Lesbian Gangs Raping Girls; GLAAD Tries to Block Airing of News Segment"(7-6-07). Watch the
... two video links that homosexual activists with the group GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) desperately tried to prevent the public from seeing:
1. The original Memphis TV news report on lesbian gang violence, including school washroom rapes of female students;
2. O’Reilly’s follow-up report on the lesbian assaults.
LifeSite News also reported on this:
Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls, Some Attacked in School Washrooms
By John-Henry Westen
MEMPHIS, July 3, 2007 - Last week, the Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor exposed the increasing trend of lesbian gang violence terrorizing neighbourhoods and schools, especially in large cities across the United States. According to FOX News crime analyst Rod Wheeler there are some 150 such gangs in the DC area alone, including Washington, Maryland, and Virginia.
The gangs, known as Dykes Taking Over (DTOs) or Gays Taking Over [GTOs], are forcing children into homosexuality. Wheeler told host Bill O’Reilly: “there is this national underground network, if you will, Bill, of women that’s lesbians and also some men groups that’s actually recruiting kids as young as 10 years old in a lot of the schools in the communities all across the country.”
In addition to carrying weapons and violently attacking people the lesbian gangs rape girl victims they recruit. “As a matter of fact,” said Wheeler, “some of the kids have actually reported that they were actually forced into, you know, performing sex acts and doing sex acts with some of these people.” ...
... two video links that homosexual activists with the group GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) desperately tried to prevent the public from seeing:
1. The original Memphis TV news report on lesbian gang violence, including school washroom rapes of female students;
2. O’Reilly’s follow-up report on the lesbian assaults.
LifeSite News also reported on this:
Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls, Some Attacked in School Washrooms
By John-Henry Westen
MEMPHIS, July 3, 2007 - Last week, the Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor exposed the increasing trend of lesbian gang violence terrorizing neighbourhoods and schools, especially in large cities across the United States. According to FOX News crime analyst Rod Wheeler there are some 150 such gangs in the DC area alone, including Washington, Maryland, and Virginia.
The gangs, known as Dykes Taking Over (DTOs) or Gays Taking Over [GTOs], are forcing children into homosexuality. Wheeler told host Bill O’Reilly: “there is this national underground network, if you will, Bill, of women that’s lesbians and also some men groups that’s actually recruiting kids as young as 10 years old in a lot of the schools in the communities all across the country.”
In addition to carrying weapons and violently attacking people the lesbian gangs rape girl victims they recruit. “As a matter of fact,” said Wheeler, “some of the kids have actually reported that they were actually forced into, you know, performing sex acts and doing sex acts with some of these people.” ...
Friday, July 06, 2007
Children's Hospital Boston Trolling for "Trans" Young Adults
We recently got wind that Children's Hospital, already drawing attention for Dr. Norman Spack's transgender hormonal experiments with pre-pubescent children, is trolling for "transgender" young adults for a study. The lure? A CVS gift certificate.
What's shocking, once again, is that a major hospital in Boston accepts the idea that gender is fluid, and that there is a legitimate self-identified population of "transgender" people. This message was sent to "trans" college students by Gunner Scott, "female-to-male" member of the Mass. Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, and genius behind "Gendercrash".
From: Gunner <gunnerscott@gmail.com
Date: Jun 22, 2007
Subject: Researchers at Children's Hospital looking for transgender people between 18-30
To: Mtpc members, mtpccollege, mtpcwest, etc.
Are you between the ages of 18-30 years old? Researchers at Children's Hospital Boston would like your help! We are conducting a study to improve questions on a new health survey for young adults. Participants will:
* Take a short email survey about gender.
* Then be interviewed afterward over the telephone so you can tell us what you think of the survey questions and how we can improve them.
* Receive a CVS gift card.
Contact Lisa: 617-355-5797; HealthMeasures@childrens.harvard.edu
-- Gunner
Find out how you can support HB 1722 -"An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes" visit http://www.masstpc.org/ MassachusettsTransgender Political Coalition
What's shocking, once again, is that a major hospital in Boston accepts the idea that gender is fluid, and that there is a legitimate self-identified population of "transgender" people. This message was sent to "trans" college students by Gunner Scott, "female-to-male" member of the Mass. Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, and genius behind "Gendercrash".
From: Gunner <gunnerscott@gmail.com
Date: Jun 22, 2007
Subject: Researchers at Children's Hospital looking for transgender people between 18-30
To: Mtpc members, mtpccollege, mtpcwest, etc.
Are you between the ages of 18-30 years old? Researchers at Children's Hospital Boston would like your help! We are conducting a study to improve questions on a new health survey for young adults. Participants will:
* Take a short email survey about gender.
* Then be interviewed afterward over the telephone so you can tell us what you think of the survey questions and how we can improve them.
* Receive a CVS gift card.
Contact Lisa: 617-355-5797; HealthMeasures@childrens.harvard.edu
-- Gunner
Find out how you can support HB 1722 -"An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes" visit http://www.masstpc.org/ MassachusettsTransgender Political Coalition
Thursday, July 05, 2007
More on Romney & Marriott Porn
We were pleased to see James Dobson's Focus on the Family has addressed the Romney-Marriott Hotels-porn issue. See our post on this yesterday. And listen to the audio of today's "Family News in Focus" (7-5-07): Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, an outspoken critic of pornography, is called to task for his ties to Marriott hotels; a chain that makes money by providing porn to guests.
Then we saw this AP report: "Romney criticized for hotel pornography" which includes the usual Romney prevarications. Note that he's not against the porn in the hotel rooms, but is only worried about kids accidentally stumbling on it!
During a recent Associated Press interview, Romney said he did not recall pornography coming up for discussion while he was on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001. Despite being chairman of the board's audit committee, he also said he was unaware of how much revenue pornography may have generated for the hotel chain.
Romney said his current concern is not about pornography per se, but children unwittingly stumbling upon it on the Internet or television. "I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity," the former Massachusetts governor said.
Funny, he didn't have a problem with his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth introducing Massachusetts children to obscenity.
Then we saw this AP report: "Romney criticized for hotel pornography" which includes the usual Romney prevarications. Note that he's not against the porn in the hotel rooms, but is only worried about kids accidentally stumbling on it!
During a recent Associated Press interview, Romney said he did not recall pornography coming up for discussion while he was on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001. Despite being chairman of the board's audit committee, he also said he was unaware of how much revenue pornography may have generated for the hotel chain.
Romney said his current concern is not about pornography per se, but children unwittingly stumbling upon it on the Internet or television. "I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity," the former Massachusetts governor said.
Funny, he didn't have a problem with his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth introducing Massachusetts children to obscenity.
Catholics Across America Outraged at Pseudo-Catholic Mass. Legislators
There's outrage nationally among faithful Catholics over recent votes by Massachusetts legislators. From the Concerned Roman Catholics of America:
MORE ON GRAVE SCANDAL WITHIN THE "KNIGHTS" OF COLUMBUS- FOUR MORE ADDED TO LIST OF JUDAS KNIGHTS IN MASS.
I have just heard from John O’Gorman, the Fighting Knight of Columbus from Massachusetts , that the 170,000 signature Initiative Petition to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman was thwarted by the Legislature, meeting in joint Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14 2007. The sad part is it would have passed to go on the ballot in 2008 had it not been for the votes of at least sixteen men who call themselves Knights of Columbus who voted against the Church they are supposed to be Knights of, and for the sodomites they support! They are:
Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, and House Majority Leader John Rogers.
State Reps: Garrett Bradley, Bob Deleo, Stephen Di Natale, Chris Donelan, Christopher Fallon, Kevin Honan, Charles Murphy, Angelo Puppolo and Bob Spellane, Bob Nyman, and Paul McMurtry.
State Senators: Tom McGee, Michael Knapik, and Michael Morrissey.
It only required 50 votes to bring this to the people of Massachusetts for a vote. The vote was 45 to do so. If the sixteen so called Knights had voted with the Church, and for the good of society, they would have had SIXTY ONE! God have mercy on their much compromised souls!
Seven of these Judases have PRO-CHOICE RATINGS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MASS,, they are: The Speaker Dimasi, Bradley, Donelan, Honan , Murphy, Spellane, and McGee!
It seems that the Knights of Columbus, like the Bishops they follow, like to write nice things but run when they are asked to back up their writings with actions! In 2003, they actually passed a Resolution to in effect expel from the Order any Knight who supports abortion by forbidding these persons any honors or speaking platforms. WHAT A JOKE! Actually it is worse than a joke, because we have been told that whenever a Council tried to enforce the Resolution, that Council was quickly told not to do so by either their State or Supreme Offices!
Our Divine Savior had a great deal to say about such as these "Knights" when he said "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within, are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."—Matt. XXIII. 25-28. Does anyone wonder what the Lord will say to these men when they stand before His Judgment seat?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher,
Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Anaheim, CA
June 16, 2007
MORE ON GRAVE SCANDAL WITHIN THE "KNIGHTS" OF COLUMBUS- FOUR MORE ADDED TO LIST OF JUDAS KNIGHTS IN MASS.
I have just heard from John O’Gorman, the Fighting Knight of Columbus from Massachusetts , that the 170,000 signature Initiative Petition to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman was thwarted by the Legislature, meeting in joint Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14 2007. The sad part is it would have passed to go on the ballot in 2008 had it not been for the votes of at least sixteen men who call themselves Knights of Columbus who voted against the Church they are supposed to be Knights of, and for the sodomites they support! They are:
Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, and House Majority Leader John Rogers.
State Reps: Garrett Bradley, Bob Deleo, Stephen Di Natale, Chris Donelan, Christopher Fallon, Kevin Honan, Charles Murphy, Angelo Puppolo and Bob Spellane, Bob Nyman, and Paul McMurtry.
State Senators: Tom McGee, Michael Knapik, and Michael Morrissey.
It only required 50 votes to bring this to the people of Massachusetts for a vote. The vote was 45 to do so. If the sixteen so called Knights had voted with the Church, and for the good of society, they would have had SIXTY ONE! God have mercy on their much compromised souls!
Seven of these Judases have PRO-CHOICE RATINGS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MASS,, they are: The Speaker Dimasi, Bradley, Donelan, Honan , Murphy, Spellane, and McGee!
It seems that the Knights of Columbus, like the Bishops they follow, like to write nice things but run when they are asked to back up their writings with actions! In 2003, they actually passed a Resolution to in effect expel from the Order any Knight who supports abortion by forbidding these persons any honors or speaking platforms. WHAT A JOKE! Actually it is worse than a joke, because we have been told that whenever a Council tried to enforce the Resolution, that Council was quickly told not to do so by either their State or Supreme Offices!
Our Divine Savior had a great deal to say about such as these "Knights" when he said "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within, are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."—Matt. XXIII. 25-28. Does anyone wonder what the Lord will say to these men when they stand before His Judgment seat?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher,
Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Anaheim, CA
June 16, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Mitt Romney and Marriott Hotels Pornography
How much money has Romney made on hotel porn sales?
By John Haskins
While Mitt Romney served on the Marriott Hotels Board of Directors for ten years in the 1990s, he benefitted financially from the chain's profiteering on hard-core pornography (available via in-room TV). If we break down Marriott profits during the period when Romney was involved, how much money did this devout Mormon make from porn purchases?
Romney has broken all records for talking out of all sides of his many mouths. Consider, he:
* is supposedly a devout Mormon, yet has shown not one consistent commitment on any single moral issue in his entire career;
* promised to "be more effective in advancing the homosexual revolution than ..." Ted Kennedy -- the one promise in his entire political career which he clearly has followed through on -- yet he now campaigns as a hero of traditional values;
* said both that homosexuals have a right to be scoutmasters, and conversely, that the Scouts have a right to exclude homosexual adults;
* says both that homosexuals have a right to adopt children, and conversely, that children have a right to both a father and a mother;
* claims to oppose "activist judges" and called the Goodridge decision "tyrannical," yet conversely, treated it not as the mere declaratory judgment it admitted to be, but as if it were a law overriding statutes and binding on the people (against the Massachusetts Constitution);
* claims to be "pro-life" yet opposes protecting human life with a federal amendment -- citing strangely enough a states' rights federalism that he contradicts by pretending to back a federal marriage amendment (which merely draws attention away from his unconstitutional orders to public officials to perform sodomy-based "marriage" though they still violate the law).
Mitt Romney is among the most the most obviously fraudulent, demagogic liars in over two centuries of American politics. His polish and brazenness exceeds that of the infamous "Slick Willie" Clinton. Those falling for his surreal p.r. campaign will someday realize that Romney and his political handlers are snickering at the endless ability of pro-establishment social conservatives to swallow lies.
Appearances aside, Romney's true religion has never been Mormonism, but mammonism. And as he quietly spreads around his lucre buying support, he's been finding out how easily the "elite" of social conservatism can be bought off. And that is one reason why he gets the kid-gloves treatment from "pro-family" media, pundits, lawyers and groups that purport to have a pro-family, socially conservative, constitutionalist commitment and world view.
See the story at MSNBC (7-3-07), First Read: The Day in Politics
"Oh-eight (R): More on McCain's Day"
by Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director
ROMNEY: CBN's Brody reports on an issue that could get traction in evangelical circles in the South: "Some anti-pornography groups are demanding answers as to how much presidential candidate Mitt Romney knew about the Marriott hotel chain's profits of pornography sales during his nearly ten years on the Board of Directors in the 1990s. The hotel chain is one of many that offer pay-per-view sex videos for sale through in-room entertainment."
From CBN's Brody:
During his run for President, Romney has campaigned on a platform of "family values" recently telling a graduation class, "Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and television and video games." Some of these conservative grassroots activists want to know whether he spoke up or tried to put a stop to Marriott's business dealings back then.
Phil Burress, founder of Citizens for Community Values has been fighting hotel chains for decades on this issue. He tells The Brody File that every month a group of roughly 15 anti-pornography leaders meet in Washington to discuss the latest happenings. Mitt Romney's Marriott connection has come up repeatedly. "Ever since he announced president, it's been a topic of discussion."
Mitt Romney's campaign told CBN the following: "Governor Romney's role as board member was in an advisory capacity on financial matters related to the company and, obviously, he did not have a role in the day-to-day operations or decisions of individual franchise holders."
John Harmer, President of the anti-pornography group The Lighted Candle Society and the former Lieutenant Governor of California under Ronald Reagan isn't buying it. He wants to hear more. "My attitude toward board members is that they are fully responsible," Harmer said. "They knew exactly what they were receiving. I don't think any board member under any rationale could claim ignorance. You're either a board member or not. I can't imagine a board member going a full year and not receiving a revenue report from the company."
Previous news accounts researched by The Brody File show that Romney was paid more than $100,000 per year while on the board of Marriott. When he left in 2002, J.W. Marriott, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International, called him, "an active, hands-on Director… From his first days on our Board nine years ago, Mitt has been an extraordinarily effective director and visionary leader."
Mitt Romney has a very close relationship with the Marriott family.
Note: One Michael Marriott is a big-time homosexual activist in Salt Lake City, and was largely responsible for bringing GLBT volunteers into the Salt Lake City Olympics while Mitt Romney was in charge. And oh yes, the Boy Scouts were denied a big role in that same Olympics for some reason.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Bisexual Girls at Higher Risk for Pregnancy?
A few weeks ago, we read about the "Surprising results from health risk survey for LGB youth" in the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows (6-21-07). We saw that "sexually active LGB youth are three times as likely to face an unwanted pregnancy as their straight peers" and that "risks of suicide, violence, drug use and even cigarette smoking for LGB youth has decreased over the last 10 years."
The unsurprising part of the report must be this: "The YRBS [Massachusetts survey] also found that sexual minority youth were at greater risk for contracting HIV and other STDs than their peers. In 2005, sexual minority youth were twice as likely to report having been diagnosed with HIV or another STD as their straight peers." And so why are we encouraging and supporting these behaviors in our schools?
Back to the pregnancies. We're confused: who exactly is getting pregnant here, part-time "lesbian" girls or "bisexual" girls? And who is impregnating them? Other lesbian girls? Bisexual boys? Or are the girls consorting with (horrors!) heterosexual males? Or is it just "bisexual" girls we're talking about? Then why doesn't the story say just "bisexual"? We think it's because that would expose the absurdity of that term, which heightens awareness that all the "GLBT" identities are really chosen behaviors, not an innate characteristic.
This 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey once raises questions on its scientific reliability. First of all, are there standard, accepted definitions for the words "lesbian, gay, and bisexual", known to teenagers taking the survey? And are all the teenagers who so identify on the survey sincere, or are some of them pulling someone's chains? We've commented before that we have overheard kids joking about how they lie on this survey for the fun of it, about their "sexual identity" and a lot of other things, including suicide, drug taking -- you name it. This survey is clearly a political tool of the GLBT/AIDS activists/Planned Parenthood/teachers' union/social services crowd. It sure keeps the money flowing to them. It provides the dishonest basis for the "safe schools" program, which pushes gay/straight alliance clubs, school "safe spaces", the "Day of Silence" and diversity assemblies in our schools.
From the Bay Windows story:
... the state’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), showed at least two surprising results. The first was that, according to the 2005 survey, sexually active LGB youth are three times as likely to face an unwanted pregnancy as their straight peers. The second is that risks of suicide, violence, drug use and even cigarette smoking for LGB youth has decreased over the last 10 years.Goodenow [Dept. of Education official in charge of the survey] explained that since the mid 90s the YRBS, which has been administered to nearly 24,000 public school students throughout the state since its inception, has included two questions that allow DOE to identify LGB youth and compare their risk for violence, harassment and health issues with those of their straight peers.
Over a 10-year period, from 1995 to 2005, Goodenow examined health risk trends for “sexual minority youth,” a category that includes any youth who identifies on the YRBS as GLB or who reports having sex partners of the same sex. Sexual minority youth make up about five percent [so why do we always hear 10%?] of the total student population across most years of the survey, and in almost every case, Goodenow said, they are at greater risk for health problems, violence and suicide. Data about the greater risk of suicide among LGBT youth in particular helped spur the creation of the state’s Safe Schools programs.... The 2005 YRBS found that sexual minority youth were four times as likely as their straight peers to have made a suicide attempt in the past year.
“These are the best indications we have about what’s going on in kids’ lives,” said Goodenow. The YRBS also found that sexual minority youth were at greater risk for contracting HIV and other STDs than their peers. In 2005, sexual minority youth were twice as likely to report having been diagnosed with HIV or another STD as their straight peers....
The unsurprising part of the report must be this: "The YRBS [Massachusetts survey] also found that sexual minority youth were at greater risk for contracting HIV and other STDs than their peers. In 2005, sexual minority youth were twice as likely to report having been diagnosed with HIV or another STD as their straight peers." And so why are we encouraging and supporting these behaviors in our schools?
Back to the pregnancies. We're confused: who exactly is getting pregnant here, part-time "lesbian" girls or "bisexual" girls? And who is impregnating them? Other lesbian girls? Bisexual boys? Or are the girls consorting with (horrors!) heterosexual males? Or is it just "bisexual" girls we're talking about? Then why doesn't the story say just "bisexual"? We think it's because that would expose the absurdity of that term, which heightens awareness that all the "GLBT" identities are really chosen behaviors, not an innate characteristic.
This 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey once raises questions on its scientific reliability. First of all, are there standard, accepted definitions for the words "lesbian, gay, and bisexual", known to teenagers taking the survey? And are all the teenagers who so identify on the survey sincere, or are some of them pulling someone's chains? We've commented before that we have overheard kids joking about how they lie on this survey for the fun of it, about their "sexual identity" and a lot of other things, including suicide, drug taking -- you name it. This survey is clearly a political tool of the GLBT/AIDS activists/Planned Parenthood/teachers' union/social services crowd. It sure keeps the money flowing to them. It provides the dishonest basis for the "safe schools" program, which pushes gay/straight alliance clubs, school "safe spaces", the "Day of Silence" and diversity assemblies in our schools.
From the Bay Windows story:
... the state’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), showed at least two surprising results. The first was that, according to the 2005 survey, sexually active LGB youth are three times as likely to face an unwanted pregnancy as their straight peers. The second is that risks of suicide, violence, drug use and even cigarette smoking for LGB youth has decreased over the last 10 years.Goodenow [Dept. of Education official in charge of the survey] explained that since the mid 90s the YRBS, which has been administered to nearly 24,000 public school students throughout the state since its inception, has included two questions that allow DOE to identify LGB youth and compare their risk for violence, harassment and health issues with those of their straight peers.
Over a 10-year period, from 1995 to 2005, Goodenow examined health risk trends for “sexual minority youth,” a category that includes any youth who identifies on the YRBS as GLB or who reports having sex partners of the same sex. Sexual minority youth make up about five percent [so why do we always hear 10%?] of the total student population across most years of the survey, and in almost every case, Goodenow said, they are at greater risk for health problems, violence and suicide. Data about the greater risk of suicide among LGBT youth in particular helped spur the creation of the state’s Safe Schools programs.... The 2005 YRBS found that sexual minority youth were four times as likely as their straight peers to have made a suicide attempt in the past year.
“These are the best indications we have about what’s going on in kids’ lives,” said Goodenow. The YRBS also found that sexual minority youth were at greater risk for contracting HIV and other STDs than their peers. In 2005, sexual minority youth were twice as likely to report having been diagnosed with HIV or another STD as their straight peers....
Monday, July 02, 2007
Gregg Jackson on Homofascism in Massachusetts
Gregg Jackson, talk show host on WRKO's "Pundit Review" (AM680), just published this column on the homofascist victory in Massachusetts. June 14 confirmed of the total corruption of the Massaachusetts Legislature. Whether one supported the weak marriage amendment voted on that day or not, 3/4 of our Legislators have betrayed Christian morality and common sense.
"Tyranny Rears Its Head: In the Birthplace of Liberty Gay Bullies Prove They Rule The Puritan State"
GrassTopsUSA Guest Commentary
By Gregg Jackson (7-2-07)
"Tyranny Rears Its Head: In the Birthplace of Liberty Gay Bullies Prove They Rule The Puritan State"
GrassTopsUSA Guest Commentary
By Gregg Jackson (7-2-07)
... The legislature's tyranny is more outrageous and destructive than what the colonists faced. Twenty days before July 4, 2007 your Cradle of Liberty became, officially, the Test Tube of Totalitarianism. The American Revolution began here in a revolt against a tyrannical monarchy. But now a New American Revolution has begun in the land of the Minutemen. The revolt against America's ultimate "founding Father," the Creator referenced throughout the Declaration of Independence occurred 36 hours before Fathers Day. Is that coincidence or design? Is it coincidence that it happened 20 days before the annual celebration of the birth of Democracy? Is it coincidence that just before the 4th of July, the city once called "The New Jerusalem" has become what Massachusetts' founders would call "The New Sodom?" ...
Puritan State lawmakers legalized lawlessness, brash rebellion against the man on whom Western Civilization bases time. Contrary to liberal theologians' repeated twisting of Scripture, Jesus never condoned homosexuality, as they do. Homosexuals are not exempt from the love of Jesus, but homosexual marriage mocks Him, God's law and all those who have died defending God's nation in the modern world.
The Cradle of Liberty is now the Cradle of American Fascism. Persecution of Christians is the next step. People who believe the Bible and don't accept the doctrine that homosexuality is normal and natural began years ago. Brian Camenker, the main Massachusetts critic of the gay agenda, has been viciously persecuted for years. His radio program was taken off the air a few weeks before the legislature's tyrannical vote. ... Funny. That's exactly what the communists do when they takeover a country: silence critics....
Sunday, July 01, 2007
VoteOnMarriage Continues to Consort with Enemy
Last week, we were surprised to see that one of VoteOnMarriage's spokespersons agreed to be interviewed by the extremist homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows. ["VoteOnMarriage.org spokeswoman says another ballot campaign unlikely," 6-22-07.] One Ms. Barstow said another marriage amendment campaign is unlikely. (Though we've heard VOM is still seriously considering one.)
Speaking with Bay Windows is in line with VOM's thinking --that it's possible to dialogue with these people, that MassEquality's Marc Solomon is an honorable man, and all that. But wait -- we're confused: Didn't we just read immediately after VOM's defeat that Kris Mineau, main spokesman for VOM, was accusing legislators of taking bribes? And where did those bribes come from? The very close-knit radical homosexual community, led by MassEquality and rallied by Bay Windows? Yet Barstow complimented MassEquality on doing a great job defeating her amendment! And bared her supporters' emotions to Bay Windows. Unbelievable.
VoteOnMarriage.org spokeswoman Lisa Barstow chalked up the reversal of fortune to being outmatched both financially and politically by the pro-equality team. She emphasized the changed political landscape, which saw newly elected leaders Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray align with House Speaker Sal DiMasi to defeat the amendment. “And I think that frankly, MassEquality did a great job,” said Barstow. “I think we did a great job.”
The difference, she said, is that in addition to having the bully pulpit on three fronts, MassEquality had the financial resources to better organize to defeat the amendment. “Within the resources we had to work with … we feel like we did everything we could do,” said Barstow, noting that volunteers “poured out their hearts” working long days on the campaign. “It’s a campaign so people really take it to heart. So obviously the loss has been crushing.” Barstow was quick to note that, “Folks haven’t given up overall. But what the next phase will look like is still under consideration.”
Barstow did say that going forward, the organization will be examining ethical questions about the impact the political support of the state’s three most powerful leaders had on defeating the amendment. Said Barstow, “What swayed those nine [legislators]? … Was it pure persuasion of the speaker or was it the dangling jobs? Was it facing life in the basement of the State House or a potential chairmanship? The Democrat Party effort poured into this — statewide and national — was just unbelievable,” she said.
And the gullibility of some on the pro-family side is just unbelievable.
Speaking with Bay Windows is in line with VOM's thinking --that it's possible to dialogue with these people, that MassEquality's Marc Solomon is an honorable man, and all that. But wait -- we're confused: Didn't we just read immediately after VOM's defeat that Kris Mineau, main spokesman for VOM, was accusing legislators of taking bribes? And where did those bribes come from? The very close-knit radical homosexual community, led by MassEquality and rallied by Bay Windows? Yet Barstow complimented MassEquality on doing a great job defeating her amendment! And bared her supporters' emotions to Bay Windows. Unbelievable.
VoteOnMarriage.org spokeswoman Lisa Barstow chalked up the reversal of fortune to being outmatched both financially and politically by the pro-equality team. She emphasized the changed political landscape, which saw newly elected leaders Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray align with House Speaker Sal DiMasi to defeat the amendment. “And I think that frankly, MassEquality did a great job,” said Barstow. “I think we did a great job.”
The difference, she said, is that in addition to having the bully pulpit on three fronts, MassEquality had the financial resources to better organize to defeat the amendment. “Within the resources we had to work with … we feel like we did everything we could do,” said Barstow, noting that volunteers “poured out their hearts” working long days on the campaign. “It’s a campaign so people really take it to heart. So obviously the loss has been crushing.” Barstow was quick to note that, “Folks haven’t given up overall. But what the next phase will look like is still under consideration.”
Barstow did say that going forward, the organization will be examining ethical questions about the impact the political support of the state’s three most powerful leaders had on defeating the amendment. Said Barstow, “What swayed those nine [legislators]? … Was it pure persuasion of the speaker or was it the dangling jobs? Was it facing life in the basement of the State House or a potential chairmanship? The Democrat Party effort poured into this — statewide and national — was just unbelievable,” she said.
And the gullibility of some on the pro-family side is just unbelievable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)