How are "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression" defined? Not at all -- by the propenents of bills declaring criminal any discrimination against them. So states all over the country, and now possibly the federal government, have passed or are passing dangerous laws that protect people who may argue their perverted behaviors are protected by the new non-discrimination laws.
Traditional Values Coalition printed the list of sexual "orientations" that could conceivably fall under new protected status. The list comes from the DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. There's ...
... a whole range of sexual orientations that may end up being “protected” by passage of ENDA or H.R. 1592. The list below is from the 2000 edition of the DSM. NOTE: Page numbers are from "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582
Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman (p. 574)
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification (p. 569)
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body (p. 570)
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks (p. 570)
[Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex]
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (p. 576)
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas (p. 576)
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse (p. 576)
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person (p. 576)
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either (p. 571)
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation (p. 573) Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement (p. 574)
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls (p. 576)
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing (p. 575)
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine (p. 576)
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity (p. 575)
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals (p. 576)
Gender Identity Disorders
Homosexual and transgender activists claim that “gender identity” can be different from a person’s biological sex and is inborn. In other words, a man who thinks he’s a woman, should be free to change his sex; a woman who thinks she’s a man should be free to change her sex and be free of alleged “discrimination” in the workplace.
TVC’s report, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream” explains how radical transgender activists are working to overthrow the idea that a person’s biological sex is who they are – not what they think they are. Men are not women; women are not men. To think otherwise is to display evidence of a mental disorder and gender confusion. These conditions are treatable. They should not be normalized as “gender variant” behaviors.
TVC’s report, “Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable” discusses the idea of sexual orientation being on a continuum that can change over time.
The DSM still lists transvestism and gender dysphoria (confusion over one’s status as male or female) as mental problems to be dealt with by a psychiatrist.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Definition of a Women's College?
It all started with radical feminism challenging traditional gender roles. Now the Left has itself completely tied up in knots over gender issues, and it's coming to the surface first at colleges -- specifically, women's colleges, and especially on the "transgender" issues.
But what, we must now ask, is a "women's college"? What are women, after all? The definitions of "woman" and "man" are up for grabs. The most radical colleges and Leftists no longer accept the "binary gender system", so the very concept of a "women's college" should be considered "transphobic"! And the Left dare not be phobic of anything (except the "religious right").
We've commented on the offensive Globe Magazine story that appeared on Easter Sunday about the latest fad of young women at "women's colleges" shooting up with testosterone, then having their breasts removed, then pretending to be men. But it was surprising to see this letter in today's Boston Globe Magazine, pointing out these colleges' logical inconsistencies:
To the Globe Magazine:
As a former member of Smith College's humanities faculty and a psychiatrist who has treated transgendered persons, I found Adrian Brune's piece compelling and her descriptions of their struggles apt. She could have pushed things further, though, by explicitly pointing out the dilemma transmen pose for women's colleges. If the schools admit transmen but exclude biologically born males, they are, in essence, concluding that transmen are not really male. If, on the other hand, these schools want to take transmen seriously and treat them as if they are truly male, they ought to either exclude them or, to avoide utter hypocrisy, admit biologically born males. Oy! What's a smart, liberal, committed women's college to do?
Dr. J Wesley Boyd
Needham
Maybe the problem is that these colleges aren't as smart as they think. And maybe it's time for this insanity to come to a halt. Wake up, Leftists! You're tying yourselves up in knots!
But what, we must now ask, is a "women's college"? What are women, after all? The definitions of "woman" and "man" are up for grabs. The most radical colleges and Leftists no longer accept the "binary gender system", so the very concept of a "women's college" should be considered "transphobic"! And the Left dare not be phobic of anything (except the "religious right").
We've commented on the offensive Globe Magazine story that appeared on Easter Sunday about the latest fad of young women at "women's colleges" shooting up with testosterone, then having their breasts removed, then pretending to be men. But it was surprising to see this letter in today's Boston Globe Magazine, pointing out these colleges' logical inconsistencies:
To the Globe Magazine:
As a former member of Smith College's humanities faculty and a psychiatrist who has treated transgendered persons, I found Adrian Brune's piece compelling and her descriptions of their struggles apt. She could have pushed things further, though, by explicitly pointing out the dilemma transmen pose for women's colleges. If the schools admit transmen but exclude biologically born males, they are, in essence, concluding that transmen are not really male. If, on the other hand, these schools want to take transmen seriously and treat them as if they are truly male, they ought to either exclude them or, to avoide utter hypocrisy, admit biologically born males. Oy! What's a smart, liberal, committed women's college to do?
Dr. J Wesley Boyd
Needham
Maybe the problem is that these colleges aren't as smart as they think. And maybe it's time for this insanity to come to a halt. Wake up, Leftists! You're tying yourselves up in knots!
Italy's Red Sodomy Brigade Issues Death Threats on Bishop
How long until we see this here? Anyone who has the common sense, faith, and courage to speak out against the rampant perversions taking hold in this country is already subject to public ridicule, intimidation, criminal harassment, and even house break-ins. Next come the death threats? It's hard to believe this is happening to a leader of the Catholic Church in Italy. WorldNetDaily reports:
Bodyguards, not altar boys, flank pro-marriage cleric: Archbishop receives death threats, bullet in mail from 'Red Brigade' for opposing same-sex unions
Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco no longer celebrates Mass in the cathedral of Genoa, Italy, with assistance from altar boys or deacons – not since the death threats began after he spoke out against government plans to legalize same-sex unions. Bagnasco, recently appointed head of Italy's Conference of Bishops, stirred controversy last month when the group issued a statement directed at Catholic lawmakers, reminding them of their moral obligation to oppose the move toward mainstreaming homosexuality.
In the statement, Bagnasco made a "slippery-slope" case for what could go wrong in Italian society if the Church's moral position was not upheld. "Why say ‘No’ to forms of legally recognized cohabitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say ‘No’ to incest? Why say ‘No’ to the pedophile party in Holland?” he asked.
Bodyguards, not altar boys, flank pro-marriage cleric: Archbishop receives death threats, bullet in mail from 'Red Brigade' for opposing same-sex unions
Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco no longer celebrates Mass in the cathedral of Genoa, Italy, with assistance from altar boys or deacons – not since the death threats began after he spoke out against government plans to legalize same-sex unions. Bagnasco, recently appointed head of Italy's Conference of Bishops, stirred controversy last month when the group issued a statement directed at Catholic lawmakers, reminding them of their moral obligation to oppose the move toward mainstreaming homosexuality.
In the statement, Bagnasco made a "slippery-slope" case for what could go wrong in Italian society if the Church's moral position was not upheld. "Why say ‘No’ to forms of legally recognized cohabitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say ‘No’ to incest? Why say ‘No’ to the pedophile party in Holland?” he asked.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
"Gay" Propaganda Story Given Out at Brookline H.S.
Take a look at what Brookline High School is giving kids to read: "Am I Blue?"
This short story was a handout at Brookline High's "Day of Silence" (April 25, 2007). It's a slick little fantasy promoting acceptance of homosexuality. A swishy "fairy godfather" shows up to help a young 16-year-old victim of "gay bashing". Through his magic, all the "gay" guys in America turn blue towards the end the story, so the young protagonist can see how much company he'll have if he "comes out". But there are shades of blue.
This is very puzzling. If a guy is light blue, or medium blue, what does that mean? How can a fellow be only "partly gay"? Isn't it an either/or proposition? Or are the light blue guys "bisexual", or still deciding whether or not they're "gay"? Are they only choosing homosexual behaviors part of the time? This gimmick is supposed to help the "confused" 16-year-old boy figure out -- decide -- if he is or isn't "gay".
But -- Is one born "gay", or does one decide to be "gay"? Of course, it's never defined what it means to be "gay". (We notice once again that the GLBT movement avoids definitions.) We suggest this explanation: Every human is born sexual, and is drawn to sexual activity. But -- barring rape -- the sexual activity one engages in is a choice. One can choose heterosexual sex or homosexual sex.
Being "gay" means you decide to engage in sodomy and other homosexual behaviors. Homosexuality or being "gay" is a decision, not an innate characteristic. People are born sexual, but not homosexual. The fairy godfather even says to the boy, when he suddenly starts behaving more "masculine" and not "swishy":
"I walk and talk the way I do because I'm not going to let anyone else define me. I can turn it off whenever I want, you know."
In this "gay" propaganda story, curiously, it appears homosexuality is a choice. The boy is left deciding whether he is, or is not, "gay". He is called "confused". But his confusion is only over how he will choose to behave sexually. And all those blue guys he's shown are meant to encourage him to choose "gayness".
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Q & A on Massachusetts "Trans Rights" Bill
Recently, we were asked by a college journalism student to respond to these questions on the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill," H1722, filed this past January in the Massachusets legislature. Here are our answers. (The fact that anyone even discusses this topic seriously says a lot about where society has gone!)
Q: In January 2007, legislation to outlaw gender-based discrimination and hate crimes in the state of Massachusetts was introduced. Do you think this law WILL pass and do you think this law SHOULD pass, why or why not?
A: The Massachusetts Legislature can be outrageous at times. But we don't think this will pass. And it should not pass. It's complete lunacy. It's a bill that would institutionalize and codify depraved and destructive behavior.
Transgenderism and transsexuality are considered disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (which bowed to homosexual radical pressure in the 1970s and removed homosexuality from its list of disorders -- see their diagnostic manual, DSM-IV). That is one indication of how truly disordered so-called “transgender/transsexual” people are – that even the APA still considers their condition a disorder. It's really very sad: “Trans” people wish to deny their God-given, natural bodies and psyches, but through cross-dressing, hormonal manipulation, and genital mutilation pretend they are something or someone they are not. (They will always have the DNA of their natural sex.) This should not be encouraged by government in any way, which this bill would do by normalizing such disordered and inherently unhealthy behaviors. Transsexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS measured in any vulnerable sub-group. (Just Google this.)
The larger population would be forced to approve of any imaginable manifestation of "gender identity and expression", since these terms are not clearly defined in the bill. (Nor has "sexual orientation" ever been defined in Mass. law.) For example, naked sex in public could be considered "gender expression", and so could prostitution, and even pederasty. Who knows? It's not defined. Wacky judges could let this go anywhere if it becomes law. (See Traditional Values Coalition paper on the many possible sexual behaviors this law could protect: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=3062)
Also, freedom of speech will be curtailed by this law. Any speech or even facial expression that could be considered by the alleged victim as intimidating or discriminatory would be open to possible prosecution. If a "transman" (a woman pretending to be a man) is addressed as a female by a waiter in a restaurant, and is offended by such "discrimination", the restaurant or waiter could be sued. This is insanity, not reasonable law.
Q: Do you think sex-change surgery should be required for the law to recognize a person as transgender? Why or why not?
A: No one should be recognized by law as "transgender" as there is in reality no such thing. Every person is biologically the person he was born as, according to his DNA.
Q: Do you think that changing laws to make it easier for transgender people to be recognized under the law as the gender they feel they are - even if they have not had sex-change surgery - will open doors for criminals to commit identity fraud?
A: This is a red herring. This would be the least of society's problems if this becomes law.
Q: Do gender-neutral bathrooms compromise the safety of women?
Absolutely. And they also offend the normal person's sense of decency and sanity, as well as one's sense of order and common sense. Why is there no law proposed to protect the normal person's feelings of intimidation or threat? It's not just that a man is wearing a woman's clothes. It's the normal person's recognition that such behavior is so unbalanced that anything might be possible on the part of this person. Why is only the "trans" person's perception important here? Why is the normal woman's perception no longer important? This is a classic case of special rights -- for people who are not different because they were born that way, but are making a choice to be perverted and abnormal.
Q: Some states use dollars from taxpayers to fund sex-change surgeries for transgender people who cannot afford the surgery on their own. Do you think taxpayer money should be used for this, why or why not?
A: Absurd. Taxpayer money should not be used to undermine anyone's health, or the health of the larger society.
Q: In January 2007, legislation to outlaw gender-based discrimination and hate crimes in the state of Massachusetts was introduced. Do you think this law WILL pass and do you think this law SHOULD pass, why or why not?
A: The Massachusetts Legislature can be outrageous at times. But we don't think this will pass. And it should not pass. It's complete lunacy. It's a bill that would institutionalize and codify depraved and destructive behavior.
Transgenderism and transsexuality are considered disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (which bowed to homosexual radical pressure in the 1970s and removed homosexuality from its list of disorders -- see their diagnostic manual, DSM-IV). That is one indication of how truly disordered so-called “transgender/transsexual” people are – that even the APA still considers their condition a disorder. It's really very sad: “Trans” people wish to deny their God-given, natural bodies and psyches, but through cross-dressing, hormonal manipulation, and genital mutilation pretend they are something or someone they are not. (They will always have the DNA of their natural sex.) This should not be encouraged by government in any way, which this bill would do by normalizing such disordered and inherently unhealthy behaviors. Transsexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS measured in any vulnerable sub-group. (Just Google this.)
The larger population would be forced to approve of any imaginable manifestation of "gender identity and expression", since these terms are not clearly defined in the bill. (Nor has "sexual orientation" ever been defined in Mass. law.) For example, naked sex in public could be considered "gender expression", and so could prostitution, and even pederasty. Who knows? It's not defined. Wacky judges could let this go anywhere if it becomes law. (See Traditional Values Coalition paper on the many possible sexual behaviors this law could protect: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=3062)
Also, freedom of speech will be curtailed by this law. Any speech or even facial expression that could be considered by the alleged victim as intimidating or discriminatory would be open to possible prosecution. If a "transman" (a woman pretending to be a man) is addressed as a female by a waiter in a restaurant, and is offended by such "discrimination", the restaurant or waiter could be sued. This is insanity, not reasonable law.
Q: Do you think sex-change surgery should be required for the law to recognize a person as transgender? Why or why not?
A: No one should be recognized by law as "transgender" as there is in reality no such thing. Every person is biologically the person he was born as, according to his DNA.
Q: Do you think that changing laws to make it easier for transgender people to be recognized under the law as the gender they feel they are - even if they have not had sex-change surgery - will open doors for criminals to commit identity fraud?
A: This is a red herring. This would be the least of society's problems if this becomes law.
Q: Do gender-neutral bathrooms compromise the safety of women?
Absolutely. And they also offend the normal person's sense of decency and sanity, as well as one's sense of order and common sense. Why is there no law proposed to protect the normal person's feelings of intimidation or threat? It's not just that a man is wearing a woman's clothes. It's the normal person's recognition that such behavior is so unbalanced that anything might be possible on the part of this person. Why is only the "trans" person's perception important here? Why is the normal woman's perception no longer important? This is a classic case of special rights -- for people who are not different because they were born that way, but are making a choice to be perverted and abnormal.
Q: Some states use dollars from taxpayers to fund sex-change surgeries for transgender people who cannot afford the surgery on their own. Do you think taxpayer money should be used for this, why or why not?
A: Absurd. Taxpayer money should not be used to undermine anyone's health, or the health of the larger society.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Boston Doctor Behind Puberty-Blocking Drugs for "Transgender Children" Is Allied with Dangerous Groups
Can you judge people by the company they keep?
Our post on ABC's 20/20 on "transgender children" led us to check out the doctor they quoted as recommending early hormonal intervention for children. Dr. Norman Spack is head of the new Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital Boston, unique in the country. Dr. Spack is also a trustee of Hebrew College in Newton. But look at the other company he keeps:
Dr. Spack presented a workshop at a radical conference promoting total sexual freedom and dangerous perversions, "Transcending Boundaries", last November in Worcester. It was organized by transgender radicals and PFLAG* and co-sponsored by the New England Leather Alliance* (NELA = the BDSM crowd)! How many physicians would be part of a conference where they also held workshops entitled:
*SM101 (Not a “How To” but a “What! Huh?”): How to Talk About BDSM/Leather/Fetish – For Allies, Families, and Professionals [i.e., Bondage & Discipline, Sadomasochism, whips, chains, ropes]
*Polyamory 101 [group sex, multiple partners]
*Legal Issues and Being Kinky: Oil and Water! New England Leather Alliance [how to avoid law enforcement & legal problems when engaging in torture, etc.]
*Bi Men: Coming Out Every Which Way
*Queercrips: We Do Exist, We Do Have Sex, and We Can Be Really Hot [still looking for definition of "queercrips"]
Here's a seminar Dr. Spack gave in Feb. 2007 (co-sponsored by the radical GLBT Stonewall Center at UMass Amherst). He seems to consider it ethical to offer treatment for "relief" from "socially imposed or psychological/physical distress", including "puberty delaying interventions."
Dr. Norman Spack, (Senior Endocrinologist, Children's Hospital & Harvard Med School, Boston, MA):
Ethical and Treatment Dilemmas in Intersex or Gender-Variant Children and Adolescents Children and adolescents struggling with gender identity issues present to their families and health care providers wanting relief from socially imposed or psychological/physical distress. Medical interventions must take into account the child’s physical, emotional and gender identity developmental needs. Families and their providers often struggle to determine the right course of treatment for children exhibiting gender variance as well as those who present with intersex conditions (disorders of sex development). Dr. Spack will share his perspective and answer questions on what it means to initiate medical treatment, such as puberty delaying interventions, for children and adolescents.
We first encountered Dr. Spack back in 2005, when he stood up for a "transitioning" elementary school student in Methuen. In more recent news, the highly respectable Children's Hospital web site (April 2007) posts this:
New clinic addresses intersex and gender issues ... Unique in the Western hemisphere, the clinic will also care for children and young adults who present as transgendered—those who have no known anatomic or biochemical disorder, yet feel like a member of the opposite sex. Such feelings can emerge early, even in the preschool years, and can cause considerable psychological distress. For that reason, transgendered young people are often assumed to have a psychiatric disorder and are placed on psychotropic medications. By late adolescence, a high percentage have attempted suicide. "This will be the first major program in the country that is not only treating DSDs [disorders of sexual differentiation -- actual physical abnormalities at birth, or "intersex"], but also welcoming young people who appear to be transgendered and are considering medical protocols that might help them," says Dr. Spack.
On Dr. Spack, from an international conference on "endocrinological intervention in the gender identity development treatment of adolescents":
The USA: Three eminent American clinicians have made comments on the early suspension of puberty: ... 3 - Dr Norman Spack, at the Children's Hospital Boston has stated ... that "Children's Hospital Boston has just assembled an Interdisciplinary Gender Team which I am co-chairing along with Paed Urologist Dr. David Diamond (Endocrinology, Urology, Genetics, Ethics, Psychology, Neonatology, Gynaecology) that will soon see patients jointly and collaborate in evaluation and research on appropriate patients, from DSD (Disorders of Sex Development) to Transgenderism. It was not I but the entire group that insisted that Gender Identity Disorders be included in the clinical program. We are awaiting approval from our Institutional Review Board and the FDA to acquire already-offered free GnRH analogue for clinical use in carefully selected Tanner 2 transgendered teens."
So there's apparently a group of transgender advocates at Children's Hospital. And what role exactly does the FDA play in approving these drug treatments for "transgender teens"?
++++++++++++++++++++++
*NOTE on PFLAG and NELA:
Remember that PFLAG is the group with the largest representation on the new state "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth." PFLAG is really pushing hard on "transgender children". The BDSM advocates at PFLAG's conference, New England Leather Alliance (NELA), recently held a convention at the Sheraton Danvers which we reported on. NELA recently held this lecture:
"LAYERED PAIN: EXTREME TORTURE -- This presentation will explore and discuss various types of layered pain. This type of edge play requires using extreme safety precautions and seasoned bottoms. Often this type of play involves body fluids such as lymph and blood. It goes beyond the uni-sensation scene and explodes the possibilities...."
NELA has new classes on "Vaginal Fisting 101" and "Japanese Inspired Rope Bondage". On the "fisting" class:
Want to get a 'hand' in? Ever thought about 'human hand puppets'? Well, join us to learn about vaginal fisting. With a hands IN approach! There will be a demo and handOUTs too! SUSIEQ is a bisexual switch from NY, who has been in the scene for over 10 years. She is active in TES, Lesbian Sex Mafia (LSM), NYSMA, Leather Pride Night (LPN), Leather Leadership Conference (LLC), DefendersNY, and the swing scene.
Our post on ABC's 20/20 on "transgender children" led us to check out the doctor they quoted as recommending early hormonal intervention for children. Dr. Norman Spack is head of the new Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital Boston, unique in the country. Dr. Spack is also a trustee of Hebrew College in Newton. But look at the other company he keeps:
Dr. Spack presented a workshop at a radical conference promoting total sexual freedom and dangerous perversions, "Transcending Boundaries", last November in Worcester. It was organized by transgender radicals and PFLAG* and co-sponsored by the New England Leather Alliance* (NELA = the BDSM crowd)! How many physicians would be part of a conference where they also held workshops entitled:
*SM101 (Not a “How To” but a “What! Huh?”): How to Talk About BDSM/Leather/Fetish – For Allies, Families, and Professionals [i.e., Bondage & Discipline, Sadomasochism, whips, chains, ropes]
*Polyamory 101 [group sex, multiple partners]
*Legal Issues and Being Kinky: Oil and Water! New England Leather Alliance [how to avoid law enforcement & legal problems when engaging in torture, etc.]
*Bi Men: Coming Out Every Which Way
*Queercrips: We Do Exist, We Do Have Sex, and We Can Be Really Hot [still looking for definition of "queercrips"]
Here's a seminar Dr. Spack gave in Feb. 2007 (co-sponsored by the radical GLBT Stonewall Center at UMass Amherst). He seems to consider it ethical to offer treatment for "relief" from "socially imposed or psychological/physical distress", including "puberty delaying interventions."
Dr. Norman Spack, (Senior Endocrinologist, Children's Hospital & Harvard Med School, Boston, MA):
Ethical and Treatment Dilemmas in Intersex or Gender-Variant Children and Adolescents Children and adolescents struggling with gender identity issues present to their families and health care providers wanting relief from socially imposed or psychological/physical distress. Medical interventions must take into account the child’s physical, emotional and gender identity developmental needs. Families and their providers often struggle to determine the right course of treatment for children exhibiting gender variance as well as those who present with intersex conditions (disorders of sex development). Dr. Spack will share his perspective and answer questions on what it means to initiate medical treatment, such as puberty delaying interventions, for children and adolescents.
We first encountered Dr. Spack back in 2005, when he stood up for a "transitioning" elementary school student in Methuen. In more recent news, the highly respectable Children's Hospital web site (April 2007) posts this:
New clinic addresses intersex and gender issues ... Unique in the Western hemisphere, the clinic will also care for children and young adults who present as transgendered—those who have no known anatomic or biochemical disorder, yet feel like a member of the opposite sex. Such feelings can emerge early, even in the preschool years, and can cause considerable psychological distress. For that reason, transgendered young people are often assumed to have a psychiatric disorder and are placed on psychotropic medications. By late adolescence, a high percentage have attempted suicide. "This will be the first major program in the country that is not only treating DSDs [disorders of sexual differentiation -- actual physical abnormalities at birth, or "intersex"], but also welcoming young people who appear to be transgendered and are considering medical protocols that might help them," says Dr. Spack.
On Dr. Spack, from an international conference on "endocrinological intervention in the gender identity development treatment of adolescents":
The USA: Three eminent American clinicians have made comments on the early suspension of puberty: ... 3 - Dr Norman Spack, at the Children's Hospital Boston has stated ... that "Children's Hospital Boston has just assembled an Interdisciplinary Gender Team which I am co-chairing along with Paed Urologist Dr. David Diamond (Endocrinology, Urology, Genetics, Ethics, Psychology, Neonatology, Gynaecology) that will soon see patients jointly and collaborate in evaluation and research on appropriate patients, from DSD (Disorders of Sex Development) to Transgenderism. It was not I but the entire group that insisted that Gender Identity Disorders be included in the clinical program. We are awaiting approval from our Institutional Review Board and the FDA to acquire already-offered free GnRH analogue for clinical use in carefully selected Tanner 2 transgendered teens."
So there's apparently a group of transgender advocates at Children's Hospital. And what role exactly does the FDA play in approving these drug treatments for "transgender teens"?
++++++++++++++++++++++
*NOTE on PFLAG and NELA:
Remember that PFLAG is the group with the largest representation on the new state "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth." PFLAG is really pushing hard on "transgender children". The BDSM advocates at PFLAG's conference, New England Leather Alliance (NELA), recently held a convention at the Sheraton Danvers which we reported on. NELA recently held this lecture:
"LAYERED PAIN: EXTREME TORTURE -- This presentation will explore and discuss various types of layered pain. This type of edge play requires using extreme safety precautions and seasoned bottoms. Often this type of play involves body fluids such as lymph and blood. It goes beyond the uni-sensation scene and explodes the possibilities...."
NELA has new classes on "Vaginal Fisting 101" and "Japanese Inspired Rope Bondage". On the "fisting" class:
Want to get a 'hand' in? Ever thought about 'human hand puppets'? Well, join us to learn about vaginal fisting. With a hands IN approach! There will be a demo and handOUTs too! SUSIEQ is a bisexual switch from NY, who has been in the scene for over 10 years. She is active in TES, Lesbian Sex Mafia (LSM), NYSMA, Leather Pride Night (LPN), Leather Leadership Conference (LLC), DefendersNY, and the swing scene.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Are ABC & Barbara Walters Advocating Child Abuse?
Is it child abuse to give a 12-year-old opposite-sex hormone injections? Is it child abuse to schedule your teenage daughter for breast-removal surgery? Is it child abuse to send your little boy to first grade in a dress, and decorate his room in lavender and pink? Is it child abuse to let your child sleep with a 4-foot-long live snake? Is it child abuse to discuss with a little boy how he can have his penis chopped off when he's older?
Isn't this just as bad or worse than an adult sexually assaulting a child? Why is this country so up in arms over homosexual pederast priests, but accepting a major network's promotion of breast removal surgery for a teenage girl?
Hormonal manipulation and genital mutilation of CHILDREN: Sounds like a Nazi medical experiment. And it's blessed by ABC.
If you saw ABC's outrageous 20/20 show yesterday (4-27-07), you would probably say YES -- this is child abuse. The show was a sympathetic and promotional look at so-called "transgender children", called "My Secret Self." But it was more accurately a look at very confused parents and health professionals, and a media personality who's lost all common sense. Barbara Walters was at her simpering worst, putting leading questions to very troubled children and their possibly more troubled parents. ABC has truly reached a new low, instructing us bigoted plebes to "open our hearts and our minds" and thank these "courageous and loving parents."
Unbelievable. If anything illustrates how far this country is sliding into unimaginable evil, this show does. What is wrong with the endocrinologists, psychiatrists, and school staffers who advise parents that their child should "transition" to the opposite sex? What about Dr. Spack here in Boston at Children's Hospital "Gender Management Service Clinic" who advises "early [hormone] intervention is best"? (More on him in an upcoming post.) And the young female doctor at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles who administers hormone injections to children, rendering them forever infertile? Is this child abuse? It goes beyond the promotion of sodomy and other unhealthy sex practices in our schools and media -- because it's actual physical manipulation and mutilation of the child's body -- and soul.
Three children and their parents were profiled:
6-year-old boy: We learn from his mother that we're bigoted if we don't accept "children's transgenderism". We need to listen to the child, she says. He knows if he's really a girl. How could the parent possibly know? The mother recounts him asking as a 2-year-old when the good fairy will come and take his penis off. (Not believable if you've ever had a 2-year-old.) Then we learn that the parents had a "coming out" party for the boy's fifth birthday, where he was allowed to wear a one-piece bathing suit, with his little bulge apparent to all the invitees (proudly recorded on a home video). Next, we see the dance recital where he refused to participate because he couldn't wear a tutu. (But no mention of what sort of parents would sign him up as the only boy in a girly class.)
10-year-old boy: How hideous to hear his mother say of her little boy, "She has a birth defect, and we call it that. I can't think of a worse birth defect, as a woman to have, than to have a penis." We also learn that this mother underwent 11 in-vitro procedures before getting pregnant with twins (a girl, and this poor little boy), plus five miscarriages. (That would make anyone nuts.) The father seemed extremely emotionally unbalanced as well. The mother allowed the boy to cross-dress starting at age 3 without the father's knowledge. When he did find out, he disapproved and the marriage almost dissolved. Now the father sits crying during the interview. The interaction between the twins is clearly unbalanced.
... when Richard was just three years old, Stephanie made the drastic decision to let her son start dressing as a girl. They called it "girl time." Richard could dress up in his sister's clothes but only when his father neil was out of sight. The secret between mother and son went on for months. "I took him shopping by himself and we bought his own skirt and his own little tank top because…that little girl trapped inside was so happy when this would happen. But we knew we had to hide it, and we hid them in the back of the closet," she said.
It's no surprise that this mother credits her son's elementary school principal with encouraging the boy's cross-dressing at school: Feeling helpless, Stephanie spilled all of her secrets to Richard's principal. The response took Stephanie by surprise: Why couldn't Richard come to school in a dress, the principal asked. Then the school directed the Grants to a gender specialist who diagnosed Richard with Gender Identity Disorder. For Stephanie, the diagnosis came as a relief. "Oh my God, we're not making this up. This is real. There's a diagnosis," she said.
And here's the Boston link in this story: Dr. Norman Spack, founder of the Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital, Boston:
But a growing number of specialists, including Dr. Spack, believe that early intervention is a better option, and the Grants say that Riley can't wait to undergo this protocol. First, at the onset of puberty, hormone blockers are prescribed to stop the surge of hormones coursing through an adolescent's body. "It basically puts you at a kind of pre-pubertal state, or in limbo, so to speak. Still growing, but not really maturing in either direction," said Spack, founder of the Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital of Boston.
A few years later, cross-hormones are taken. For biological males, this means taking estrogen; for biological females, testosterone. These cross-hormones simulate the puberty of the opposite sex. In Riley's case, for example, estrogen will cause her to grow breasts and develop a feminine body shape. But hormone therapy is expensive and comes with risks. Riley increases her chances of getting breast cancer because of the estrogen. And cross hormones render transgender teenagers sterile.
And the boy's mother says he's already prepared to take the next step: having his penis chopped off.
17-year-old girl: How awful to hear parents supporting their teenage daughter's plans to have her breasts removed before going to college, and in the interim allowing her to have testosterone injections (which have already lowered her voice). The girl shows the uncomfortable "binder" she wears now to smash her large breasts. She has gone through a bout with "cutting" (though the mother was too upset to say where on the girl's body), as a way of "getting out her anger." (If she cut her breasts, what's the problem? They're about to be chapped off anyhow ... with the parents' approval.) It's not surprising to learn that she is in a suburb of Los Angeles, and that there's a young doctor who has absolutely no qualms about injecting her with male hormones. Ask yourself where this girl came up with this terminology when she wrote to her parents (at age 14):
What am I? I ask myself this all the time. Right now what I believe myself to be is an FtM, or a female-to-male transsexual. A male identifying individual. A boy in a girl's body. That's what I think I am. That's what I believe I am, but I may be wrong. Gender and sexuality are such strange things. They're not really things that can be defined, but we've tried as hard as we can to separate ourselves into groups, haven't we? Male and female. Straight and gay. Maybe it's something to do with my chromosomes, or some traumatic experience I had when I was very young. What I think I know is: I'm a boy.
Send your comments to ABC 20/20!
Isn't this just as bad or worse than an adult sexually assaulting a child? Why is this country so up in arms over homosexual pederast priests, but accepting a major network's promotion of breast removal surgery for a teenage girl?
Hormonal manipulation and genital mutilation of CHILDREN: Sounds like a Nazi medical experiment. And it's blessed by ABC.
If you saw ABC's outrageous 20/20 show yesterday (4-27-07), you would probably say YES -- this is child abuse. The show was a sympathetic and promotional look at so-called "transgender children", called "My Secret Self." But it was more accurately a look at very confused parents and health professionals, and a media personality who's lost all common sense. Barbara Walters was at her simpering worst, putting leading questions to very troubled children and their possibly more troubled parents. ABC has truly reached a new low, instructing us bigoted plebes to "open our hearts and our minds" and thank these "courageous and loving parents."
Unbelievable. If anything illustrates how far this country is sliding into unimaginable evil, this show does. What is wrong with the endocrinologists, psychiatrists, and school staffers who advise parents that their child should "transition" to the opposite sex? What about Dr. Spack here in Boston at Children's Hospital "Gender Management Service Clinic" who advises "early [hormone] intervention is best"? (More on him in an upcoming post.) And the young female doctor at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles who administers hormone injections to children, rendering them forever infertile? Is this child abuse? It goes beyond the promotion of sodomy and other unhealthy sex practices in our schools and media -- because it's actual physical manipulation and mutilation of the child's body -- and soul.
Three children and their parents were profiled:
6-year-old boy: We learn from his mother that we're bigoted if we don't accept "children's transgenderism". We need to listen to the child, she says. He knows if he's really a girl. How could the parent possibly know? The mother recounts him asking as a 2-year-old when the good fairy will come and take his penis off. (Not believable if you've ever had a 2-year-old.) Then we learn that the parents had a "coming out" party for the boy's fifth birthday, where he was allowed to wear a one-piece bathing suit, with his little bulge apparent to all the invitees (proudly recorded on a home video). Next, we see the dance recital where he refused to participate because he couldn't wear a tutu. (But no mention of what sort of parents would sign him up as the only boy in a girly class.)
10-year-old boy: How hideous to hear his mother say of her little boy, "She has a birth defect, and we call it that. I can't think of a worse birth defect, as a woman to have, than to have a penis." We also learn that this mother underwent 11 in-vitro procedures before getting pregnant with twins (a girl, and this poor little boy), plus five miscarriages. (That would make anyone nuts.) The father seemed extremely emotionally unbalanced as well. The mother allowed the boy to cross-dress starting at age 3 without the father's knowledge. When he did find out, he disapproved and the marriage almost dissolved. Now the father sits crying during the interview. The interaction between the twins is clearly unbalanced.
... when Richard was just three years old, Stephanie made the drastic decision to let her son start dressing as a girl. They called it "girl time." Richard could dress up in his sister's clothes but only when his father neil was out of sight. The secret between mother and son went on for months. "I took him shopping by himself and we bought his own skirt and his own little tank top because…that little girl trapped inside was so happy when this would happen. But we knew we had to hide it, and we hid them in the back of the closet," she said.
It's no surprise that this mother credits her son's elementary school principal with encouraging the boy's cross-dressing at school: Feeling helpless, Stephanie spilled all of her secrets to Richard's principal. The response took Stephanie by surprise: Why couldn't Richard come to school in a dress, the principal asked. Then the school directed the Grants to a gender specialist who diagnosed Richard with Gender Identity Disorder. For Stephanie, the diagnosis came as a relief. "Oh my God, we're not making this up. This is real. There's a diagnosis," she said.
And here's the Boston link in this story: Dr. Norman Spack, founder of the Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital, Boston:
But a growing number of specialists, including Dr. Spack, believe that early intervention is a better option, and the Grants say that Riley can't wait to undergo this protocol. First, at the onset of puberty, hormone blockers are prescribed to stop the surge of hormones coursing through an adolescent's body. "It basically puts you at a kind of pre-pubertal state, or in limbo, so to speak. Still growing, but not really maturing in either direction," said Spack, founder of the Gender Management Service Clinic at Children's Hospital of Boston.
A few years later, cross-hormones are taken. For biological males, this means taking estrogen; for biological females, testosterone. These cross-hormones simulate the puberty of the opposite sex. In Riley's case, for example, estrogen will cause her to grow breasts and develop a feminine body shape. But hormone therapy is expensive and comes with risks. Riley increases her chances of getting breast cancer because of the estrogen. And cross hormones render transgender teenagers sterile.
And the boy's mother says he's already prepared to take the next step: having his penis chopped off.
17-year-old girl: How awful to hear parents supporting their teenage daughter's plans to have her breasts removed before going to college, and in the interim allowing her to have testosterone injections (which have already lowered her voice). The girl shows the uncomfortable "binder" she wears now to smash her large breasts. She has gone through a bout with "cutting" (though the mother was too upset to say where on the girl's body), as a way of "getting out her anger." (If she cut her breasts, what's the problem? They're about to be chapped off anyhow ... with the parents' approval.) It's not surprising to learn that she is in a suburb of Los Angeles, and that there's a young doctor who has absolutely no qualms about injecting her with male hormones. Ask yourself where this girl came up with this terminology when she wrote to her parents (at age 14):
What am I? I ask myself this all the time. Right now what I believe myself to be is an FtM, or a female-to-male transsexual. A male identifying individual. A boy in a girl's body. That's what I think I am. That's what I believe I am, but I may be wrong. Gender and sexuality are such strange things. They're not really things that can be defined, but we've tried as hard as we can to separate ourselves into groups, haven't we? Male and female. Straight and gay. Maybe it's something to do with my chromosomes, or some traumatic experience I had when I was very young. What I think I know is: I'm a boy.
Send your comments to ABC 20/20!
Globe Did Not Fact Check on Disgraced MIT Dean
Never trust the Boston Globe. Look at how many times they went to that shining light in the college admissions world, now disgraced Dean of Admissions at MIT (who fabricated her credentials), Marilee Jones: Just Google Boston Globe and Jones. Granted, MIT and many others were inexcusably gullible. Did it have anything to do with not wanting to question a woman in a high place? But what ever happened to fact checking by reporters? In 2004, the Globe wrote:
Jones, 52, who earned bachelor's and master's degrees in biology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, came to MIT in 1978. She thought she would get a lab job, but jumped at the chance to help the admissions office attract more female applicants. When she began, women were 17 or 19 percent of the student population; in this year's freshman class, they make up 45 percent. She became dean in 1998.
Note that this woman with no college degree of her own seems to have played a big role in wildly increasing the number of women students at MIT.
Jones, 52, who earned bachelor's and master's degrees in biology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, came to MIT in 1978. She thought she would get a lab job, but jumped at the chance to help the admissions office attract more female applicants. When she began, women were 17 or 19 percent of the student population; in this year's freshman class, they make up 45 percent. She became dean in 1998.
Note that this woman with no college degree of her own seems to have played a big role in wildly increasing the number of women students at MIT.
Boston Globe: Civil Unions = Homophobia
Today's Boston Globe editorial on New Hampshire's recent legislative approval of civil unions admits what everyone should realize by now: "Civil unions" are just a way station on the road to full-fledged sodomy "marriage". To paraphrase the Globe: Civil unions are insulting to "gays", and nothing short of sodomy "marriage" will do. State bans on sodomy "marriage" are shameful. Civil unions are demeaning and insulting to "gays". Therefore, civil unions are a form of homophobia.
(We've noted that GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is arguing in Connecticut that civil unions are bad because they render homosexual couples second-class citizens -- but at the same time, Connecticut's legalization of civil unions is an argument for homosexual "marriage". So how can anyone still fall for the line the legalization of civil unions protects real marriage?)
From the Globe:
"Live free and civilly united" (4-28-07)
The circle of tolerance widened Thursday, as the New Hampshire Legislature gave final passage to a bill authorizing civil unions in that state. The state's Democratic governor, John Lynch, has vowed to sign the measure, which will take effect in January....
Civil unions are an awkward creation. It is demeaning to gay couples to recognize by law that they are fit for most or all of the rights of marriage -- and then deny them the single word that best describes their partnership....
In time, we believe, people in states with laws or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage will come to see those provisions as a mark of shame. States that offer marriage to straight couples and marriage-lite to gays will recognize the absurdity of the situation -- and the insult to gay couples inherent in it.
(We've noted that GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is arguing in Connecticut that civil unions are bad because they render homosexual couples second-class citizens -- but at the same time, Connecticut's legalization of civil unions is an argument for homosexual "marriage". So how can anyone still fall for the line the legalization of civil unions protects real marriage?)
From the Globe:
"Live free and civilly united" (4-28-07)
The circle of tolerance widened Thursday, as the New Hampshire Legislature gave final passage to a bill authorizing civil unions in that state. The state's Democratic governor, John Lynch, has vowed to sign the measure, which will take effect in January....
Civil unions are an awkward creation. It is demeaning to gay couples to recognize by law that they are fit for most or all of the rights of marriage -- and then deny them the single word that best describes their partnership....
In time, we believe, people in states with laws or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage will come to see those provisions as a mark of shame. States that offer marriage to straight couples and marriage-lite to gays will recognize the absurdity of the situation -- and the insult to gay couples inherent in it.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Definitions Please!
MassResistance has filed a bill, S2095, that would remove "undefined sexual terminology" -- namely "sexual orientation" -- from the Massachusetts statutes. And we're now warning that the new Massachusetts "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" Bill H1722 does not clearly define "gender identity and expression" which it proposes to protect. The possible miscarriages of justice are unimagineable if this terminology is embedded undefined in law.
We're not the only ones thinking along these lines. There are some very savvy Congressmen fighting the same battle in D.C. But how do the pansexual radicals get away with such brazen defiance of legal standards? Promoting sweeping "hate crimes" legislation (HR1592) without any definition of the terms central to their new law: "sexual orientation," and "gender identity and expression"!
And why is the establishment "conservative" media not reporting on this? We're reading excellent reports on the D.C. hearings on the new federal transgender "hate crimes" bill HR1592 from Traditional Values Coalition. But no one else seems fully informed on the danger of this Pandora's box about to be opened up. Excerpts from TVC's Rev. Lou Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty's report on the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee:
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
For almost 11 hours Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition, and CEO Andrea Lafferty monitored every move in the Judiciary Committee relevant to the HR 1592, the Hate Crimes bill. They sat in the front row from early morning until it was concluded around 9:15 p.m. All 25 Republican amendments were defeated. The purpose of the Markup is to vote on amendments to the bill. There are 23 Democrats and 17 Republicans. HR 1592 passed by a party line vote, all Democrats supported it and all Republicans opposed. Following is their account of the “Markup.” …
Republican Congressman Dan Lungren from California stating that no where in the bill are the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” definition and he asked for a definition. The democrats referred to what they said was an accepted definition of sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. The republicans did not agree stating that heterosexuality was not an orientation. The democrats did not want to discuss a definition of even sexual orientation or have it in the bill. They wanted no definitions.
Friends, it was obvious. There are many additional orientations that would have had to be included in sexual orientation. Also, they would have to agree to a definition of gender identity and they did not want that. They obviously did not want to define gender identity to include she-male, cross-dresser, drag queen, transgender, transsexual, etc….
Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13….
Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.
The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?” And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”
Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct. It is evident what HR 1592 is about. It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the truth.
It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth.
It is about threatening them with prison so they won’t dare speak the truth.
We're not the only ones thinking along these lines. There are some very savvy Congressmen fighting the same battle in D.C. But how do the pansexual radicals get away with such brazen defiance of legal standards? Promoting sweeping "hate crimes" legislation (HR1592) without any definition of the terms central to their new law: "sexual orientation," and "gender identity and expression"!
And why is the establishment "conservative" media not reporting on this? We're reading excellent reports on the D.C. hearings on the new federal transgender "hate crimes" bill HR1592 from Traditional Values Coalition. But no one else seems fully informed on the danger of this Pandora's box about to be opened up. Excerpts from TVC's Rev. Lou Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty's report on the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee:
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
For almost 11 hours Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition, and CEO Andrea Lafferty monitored every move in the Judiciary Committee relevant to the HR 1592, the Hate Crimes bill. They sat in the front row from early morning until it was concluded around 9:15 p.m. All 25 Republican amendments were defeated. The purpose of the Markup is to vote on amendments to the bill. There are 23 Democrats and 17 Republicans. HR 1592 passed by a party line vote, all Democrats supported it and all Republicans opposed. Following is their account of the “Markup.” …
Republican Congressman Dan Lungren from California stating that no where in the bill are the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” definition and he asked for a definition. The democrats referred to what they said was an accepted definition of sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. The republicans did not agree stating that heterosexuality was not an orientation. The democrats did not want to discuss a definition of even sexual orientation or have it in the bill. They wanted no definitions.
Friends, it was obvious. There are many additional orientations that would have had to be included in sexual orientation. Also, they would have to agree to a definition of gender identity and they did not want that. They obviously did not want to define gender identity to include she-male, cross-dresser, drag queen, transgender, transsexual, etc….
Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13….
Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.
The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?” And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”
Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct. It is evident what HR 1592 is about. It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the truth.
It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth.
It is about threatening them with prison so they won’t dare speak the truth.
ABC Joins Propaganda Campaign for "Transgender Children"
ABC will show "My Secret Self: A Story of Transgender Children" with Barbara Walters interviewing children and their families.
Friday, April 27, 2007 on "20/20" at 10 p.m. EDT
Preview of "Transgender Children" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3079668
ABC has also posted: "Transgender Children: Frequently Asked Questions and Resources" from PFLAG, one of the most extreme organizations in America. PFLAG holds an annual conference in the fall which promotes not only transsexuality, but also polygamy, swinging, BDSM, and other dangerous perversions.
See also: "Born in the Wrong Body" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3073483
Friday, April 27, 2007 on "20/20" at 10 p.m. EDT
Preview of "Transgender Children" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3079668
ABC has also posted: "Transgender Children: Frequently Asked Questions and Resources" from PFLAG, one of the most extreme organizations in America. PFLAG holds an annual conference in the fall which promotes not only transsexuality, but also polygamy, swinging, BDSM, and other dangerous perversions.
See also: "Born in the Wrong Body" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3073483
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
African-American Ministers Speak Out on "Gay Rights" Bills
Buried in the Boston Globe story today, "Gay-rights proposals gain in Congress" is a note on how African-American ministers from around the country spoke out against the federal "gay rights bills." We hope that Boston's Black Ministerial Alliance and others in Massachusetts will take a close look at our state version of a "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill, H1722.
Citizen Link also covered the Capitol Hill press conference:
Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and president of Exodus International, said the law would pave the way to criminalize thoughts and religious beliefs. "We stand today with many in the African-American community who also recognize that one's sexuality can be changed, but one's skin color cannot," he said.
"This legislation says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now than when we were living as homosexuals. We categorically reject this mindset and reaffirm every American's value and right to equal protection under the law."
Bishop Harry Jackson, founder and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, Pastor Marvin Winans, Bishop Larry Brandon and Bishop Liston Paige joined Chambers to speak out against homosexuality being equated with civil rights.
"We call upon Congress to promote legislation that affirms authentic equality and protects our religious freedoms," Chambers said.
From the Globe report :
"Courts have an interesting way of interpreting laws, and once this can of worms is open, it will be very hard to close," said Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit. "This step of recognizing homosexuality as a protected class would be a huge advancement in this nation toward adopting and condoning this behavior as natural."
Citizen Link also covered the Capitol Hill press conference:
Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and president of Exodus International, said the law would pave the way to criminalize thoughts and religious beliefs. "We stand today with many in the African-American community who also recognize that one's sexuality can be changed, but one's skin color cannot," he said.
"This legislation says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now than when we were living as homosexuals. We categorically reject this mindset and reaffirm every American's value and right to equal protection under the law."
Bishop Harry Jackson, founder and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, Pastor Marvin Winans, Bishop Larry Brandon and Bishop Liston Paige joined Chambers to speak out against homosexuality being equated with civil rights.
"We call upon Congress to promote legislation that affirms authentic equality and protects our religious freedoms," Chambers said.
From the Globe report :
"Courts have an interesting way of interpreting laws, and once this can of worms is open, it will be very hard to close," said Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit. "This step of recognizing homosexuality as a protected class would be a huge advancement in this nation toward adopting and condoning this behavior as natural."
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Truth about "Gay" Parenting
The New York Post will report this -- but the Boston Globe wouldn't even consider it. And we're only hearing about it because it's a divorce and child custody dispute of a high-profile couple, former N.J. Governor Jim McGreevey and his abandoned wife, Dina . . .
The scenario: a little girl in a "home" with Daddy and his "lover". What happens when she needs comforting at night? Naturally, she goes to Daddy's bedroom. And what does she see there? A life-size photo of a naked man on the wall. (It's art, of course.) And who knows what she experiences if she wants to cuddle with Daddy (& his male "lover") in bed?
This story is about possible shared custody by a mom and her recently "out" husband. Should we call him "bisexual"? (Was he born that way? Or was he born homosexual? It's all so confusing!)
But Dina McGreevey is "homophobic" according to soon-to-be ex-husband, Jim McGreevey, because she objects to their 5-yr-old sharing a bed with him and his male "lover" and seeing a huge photo of a nude man on the wall.
And this is about the reality of homosexuals adopting. (We think of the fellow who writes for the Boston Globe Magazine "Coupling" series about the little daughter he and his "husband" adopted.)
From the New York Post:
McGreevey's "gay poster boy" (4-22-07)
This is the full-frontal nude photograph that hung in the bedroom of New Jersey's disgraced love gov, Jim McGreevey, when his 5-year-old daughter came for sleepovers - and the source of his estranged wife's claims that he's an unfit parent. The 50-by-60-inch print in the master bedroom of the Plainfield, N.J., home of McGreevey and partner Mark O'Donnell is part of a series called "Naked Gay Friends" by Manhattan photographer Richard Renaldi, and was featured in Blue, a gay men's magazine....
Last week, McGreevey's estranged wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, filed a motion seeking full custody of their daughter, Jacqueline. Her argument took specific issue with the "life-size photograph of a nude model" hanging in the bedroom. The suit questioned whether it "was appropriate for his 'little girl' - to use his description of our child - to be viewing the photograph in question." She also asked that Jacqueline be forbidden to share a bed with her dad and his boyfriend during sleepovers.
"It is one thing for children to sleep with a parent or parents," she said in a written response to McGreevey's divorce filing. "It is quite another for children to sleep with a parent and a third party." The former governor, who has filed for joint custody of Jacqueline, claims in court papers that his wife has "seemingly irrational fears" about his sexuality.
Matos McGreevey - whose tell-all book about being a gay man's wife, "Silent Partner," comes out on May 1 - has blasted back at McGreevey's "insinuations" that she's homophobic.
The scenario: a little girl in a "home" with Daddy and his "lover". What happens when she needs comforting at night? Naturally, she goes to Daddy's bedroom. And what does she see there? A life-size photo of a naked man on the wall. (It's art, of course.) And who knows what she experiences if she wants to cuddle with Daddy (& his male "lover") in bed?
This story is about possible shared custody by a mom and her recently "out" husband. Should we call him "bisexual"? (Was he born that way? Or was he born homosexual? It's all so confusing!)
But Dina McGreevey is "homophobic" according to soon-to-be ex-husband, Jim McGreevey, because she objects to their 5-yr-old sharing a bed with him and his male "lover" and seeing a huge photo of a nude man on the wall.
And this is about the reality of homosexuals adopting. (We think of the fellow who writes for the Boston Globe Magazine "Coupling" series about the little daughter he and his "husband" adopted.)
From the New York Post:
McGreevey's "gay poster boy" (4-22-07)
This is the full-frontal nude photograph that hung in the bedroom of New Jersey's disgraced love gov, Jim McGreevey, when his 5-year-old daughter came for sleepovers - and the source of his estranged wife's claims that he's an unfit parent. The 50-by-60-inch print in the master bedroom of the Plainfield, N.J., home of McGreevey and partner Mark O'Donnell is part of a series called "Naked Gay Friends" by Manhattan photographer Richard Renaldi, and was featured in Blue, a gay men's magazine....
Last week, McGreevey's estranged wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, filed a motion seeking full custody of their daughter, Jacqueline. Her argument took specific issue with the "life-size photograph of a nude model" hanging in the bedroom. The suit questioned whether it "was appropriate for his 'little girl' - to use his description of our child - to be viewing the photograph in question." She also asked that Jacqueline be forbidden to share a bed with her dad and his boyfriend during sleepovers.
"It is one thing for children to sleep with a parent or parents," she said in a written response to McGreevey's divorce filing. "It is quite another for children to sleep with a parent and a third party." The former governor, who has filed for joint custody of Jacqueline, claims in court papers that his wife has "seemingly irrational fears" about his sexuality.
Matos McGreevey - whose tell-all book about being a gay man's wife, "Silent Partner," comes out on May 1 - has blasted back at McGreevey's "insinuations" that she's homophobic.
Monday, April 23, 2007
New Hampshire Tyranny
After the New Hampshire House rushed a civil unions bill through with hardly any notice to the citizenry, voters are now being told they can't observe from the Gallery this Thursday morning as the Senate is expected to vote for homosexual "marriage" (by another name). The Governor is expected to sign the bill immediately. From Cornerstone Policy Research in New Hampshire:
UPDATE ON “CIVIL UNIONS” = SAME SEX MARRIAGE 04-19-07
GOVERNOR LYNCH SHOVES CIVIL UNIONS/SAME SEX MARRIAGE FORWARD!!!
Governor John Lynch chooses to ignore the will of the people and will side with the radical left wing of the Democrat party to sign “civil unions=same sex marriage legislation. In just four short months, Governor Lynch and the Democrat Party will turn independent New Hampshire into a mirror image of her liberal neighboring states. The Governor says he is against same sex marriage, but civil unions is same sex marriage under another label.
HB 437 is scheduled for a vote in the full Senate for on Thursday, April 26, 2007. Click here to read the Rules of the Senate. State House Security contacted Cornerstone Policy Research today to warn that citizens will not be allowed to stand in the gallery. It seems that the State House does not want the citizens to appear for the Senate vote....
NH Governor John Lynch:
phone 603-271-2121
Office of the Governor, State House, Concord, NH 03301
UPDATE ON “CIVIL UNIONS” = SAME SEX MARRIAGE 04-19-07
GOVERNOR LYNCH SHOVES CIVIL UNIONS/SAME SEX MARRIAGE FORWARD!!!
Governor John Lynch chooses to ignore the will of the people and will side with the radical left wing of the Democrat party to sign “civil unions=same sex marriage legislation. In just four short months, Governor Lynch and the Democrat Party will turn independent New Hampshire into a mirror image of her liberal neighboring states. The Governor says he is against same sex marriage, but civil unions is same sex marriage under another label.
HB 437 is scheduled for a vote in the full Senate for on Thursday, April 26, 2007. Click here to read the Rules of the Senate. State House Security contacted Cornerstone Policy Research today to warn that citizens will not be allowed to stand in the gallery. It seems that the State House does not want the citizens to appear for the Senate vote....
NH Governor John Lynch:
phone 603-271-2121
Office of the Governor, State House, Concord, NH 03301
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Virginia Tech & the Culture of Death
It's appalling -- but in a way not surprising -- to read in the Boston Globe that the murderer at Virginia Tech was enrolled in a credit course on the horror genre in literature and films. ("Saugus native had reached out to troubled Cho," 4-21-07). Legitimize and focus on the "horror genre", and who knows what will come of it. From a Roanoke, VA newspaper story (10-31-06 -- Halloween) on the "Contemporary Horror" class that Cho was enrolled in at Virginia Tech:
... only at Tech is [Brent Stevens, the instructor] allowed to indulge his love of horror in the classroom. This is the first year for his class English 3984: Contemporary Horror. Stevens considers it the highlight of his career and appreciates that Tech's English department was open-minded enough to allow him to teach it.
"People raise an eyebrow as you can well imagine when you tell them you're getting paid to do something like this," he said. Stevens strives to make the class intellectual -- exploring the history of horror and what the development of the genre says about the culture....
The class of 35 students is about half men [including Cho] and half women and gender roles in horror movies are an oft-discussed topic in class. In addition to two papers, a midterm and a final exam, students in Stevens' class keep a "fear journal" to track their reactions to the material they encounter as well as discuss their own fears. "This class is much more personal than other literature classes because the text feeds off our own personal history and what we are afraid of," [a] junior English major ... said.
So what scares Stevens? "When I was young it was the idea that everyone you love turns against you," he said. Classic films such as "Night of the Living Dead," in 1968, played on that fear as well as the fear of communism turning people into mindless zombies. The genre developed to capitalize on the fear of repercussions of newfound freedoms in the 1970s -- teenagers driving around in a Volkswagen minibus are the victims of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" -- to morality lessons during the conservative 1980s -- think Jason getting vengeance on the misbehaving camp counselors in "Friday the 13th."
Chilling. It's a warning not to "play" with such evil. And why didn't our beloved Boston Globe note that article on Mr. Stevens' course? Here's what the Globe did mention:
Saugus native Ross Alameddine knew the gunman who killed him at Virginia Tech, often sitting next to him last fall in an English class about the genre of horror, classmates said yesterday.... [A] 21-year-old senior also in the horror class, said Cho behaved strangely, writing his name down as "question mark" on the attendance sheet and refusing to introduce himself to other students when the professor asked everyone to say hello the first day....
[Students watched] campy horror films ... during the course. "One of the first movies we watched was 'Friday the 13th,' the original," [another student] said. "We would talk about how the final scene in that is so great..."[T]he class on horror ... featured films like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and the writings of Edgar Allan Poe and Patricia Cornwell's book on Jack the Ripper ...
Now while Poe may be legitimate literature, why are "campy horror films" taken seriously for academic study? For some decades now at most universities, one could actually construct a major in the Culture of Death. You could take courses in:
The Bible as Fantasy Literature
God Is Dead: Nietzsche and Beyond
Existentialism
Feminist Theory
The Marquis de Sade Then & Now
History of Abortion Rights in America
Queer Theory/Gender Studies
Michel Foucault
The Horror Genre in Literature and Film
The Holocaust as Fraud
American Imperialism ... etc.
And then, for an honors thesis ...
... only at Tech is [Brent Stevens, the instructor] allowed to indulge his love of horror in the classroom. This is the first year for his class English 3984: Contemporary Horror. Stevens considers it the highlight of his career and appreciates that Tech's English department was open-minded enough to allow him to teach it.
"People raise an eyebrow as you can well imagine when you tell them you're getting paid to do something like this," he said. Stevens strives to make the class intellectual -- exploring the history of horror and what the development of the genre says about the culture....
The class of 35 students is about half men [including Cho] and half women and gender roles in horror movies are an oft-discussed topic in class. In addition to two papers, a midterm and a final exam, students in Stevens' class keep a "fear journal" to track their reactions to the material they encounter as well as discuss their own fears. "This class is much more personal than other literature classes because the text feeds off our own personal history and what we are afraid of," [a] junior English major ... said.
So what scares Stevens? "When I was young it was the idea that everyone you love turns against you," he said. Classic films such as "Night of the Living Dead," in 1968, played on that fear as well as the fear of communism turning people into mindless zombies. The genre developed to capitalize on the fear of repercussions of newfound freedoms in the 1970s -- teenagers driving around in a Volkswagen minibus are the victims of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" -- to morality lessons during the conservative 1980s -- think Jason getting vengeance on the misbehaving camp counselors in "Friday the 13th."
Chilling. It's a warning not to "play" with such evil. And why didn't our beloved Boston Globe note that article on Mr. Stevens' course? Here's what the Globe did mention:
Saugus native Ross Alameddine knew the gunman who killed him at Virginia Tech, often sitting next to him last fall in an English class about the genre of horror, classmates said yesterday.... [A] 21-year-old senior also in the horror class, said Cho behaved strangely, writing his name down as "question mark" on the attendance sheet and refusing to introduce himself to other students when the professor asked everyone to say hello the first day....
[Students watched] campy horror films ... during the course. "One of the first movies we watched was 'Friday the 13th,' the original," [another student] said. "We would talk about how the final scene in that is so great..."[T]he class on horror ... featured films like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and the writings of Edgar Allan Poe and Patricia Cornwell's book on Jack the Ripper ...
Now while Poe may be legitimate literature, why are "campy horror films" taken seriously for academic study? For some decades now at most universities, one could actually construct a major in the Culture of Death. You could take courses in:
The Bible as Fantasy Literature
God Is Dead: Nietzsche and Beyond
Existentialism
Feminist Theory
The Marquis de Sade Then & Now
History of Abortion Rights in America
Queer Theory/Gender Studies
Michel Foucault
The Horror Genre in Literature and Film
The Holocaust as Fraud
American Imperialism ... etc.
And then, for an honors thesis ...
Friday, April 20, 2007
Virginia Tech & the Constitution
Yes, there is a Constitutional angle on the sad events at Virginia Tech. Our Founding Fathers understood that the basic right to self-defense had to be protected. The Second Amendment is one statement of that. As a strong supporter of the right to bear arms, it was refreshing to see Alan Keyes's take on the incident in Virginia:
Excerpt from Defending ourselves: The constitutional strategy
Lessons from Virginia Tech shootings
Alan Keyes, 4-19-07
Right now, the American people are understandably caught up in the emotional reaction to the horrifying events at Virginia Tech University. Leftist pols and media manipulators around the country and the world fanatically clamor that we should round up the usual "suspects" — that is, the guns responsible for all this violence. They want to distract us from the issues of human responsibility that are at its core. The responsibility of the killer. The responsibility of the police and university officials. The responsibility of gun-ban advocates whose success at Virginia Tech made certain that no one in Norris Hall was armed to interrupt the killer's methodical spree by forcing him to defend himself, or slow down in fear of his own life....
Far from suggesting that we should restrict or ban possession of firearms, the Virginia Tech killing spree illustrates two points often made by supporters of the Second Amendment: 1) Disarming the population leads to a higher death toll from violence. 2) The police cannot or will not protect people from deadly assault. They are organized mainly to enforce the law, not to protect our persons from harm....
Given the very real likelihood of terrorist infiltration and action, nothing we do by law can eliminate the gunmen. They will always be a threat. Instead of pretending to do what we can never achieve, we should concentrate on doing what is certainly within our power. We can make sure that our population is enriched with a leaven of defenders, so that no gunmen, lone or otherwise, could ever again act with the calm assurance that he is in no danger from his intended victims....
Our Constitution already provides the concept we need to achieve this strategic objective — the militia. In its proper constitutional sense, the term means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the community's defense when it's attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to those — such as the police, the military, or even the National Guard — who formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population....
Read more ...
Excerpt from Defending ourselves: The constitutional strategy
Lessons from Virginia Tech shootings
Alan Keyes, 4-19-07
Right now, the American people are understandably caught up in the emotional reaction to the horrifying events at Virginia Tech University. Leftist pols and media manipulators around the country and the world fanatically clamor that we should round up the usual "suspects" — that is, the guns responsible for all this violence. They want to distract us from the issues of human responsibility that are at its core. The responsibility of the killer. The responsibility of the police and university officials. The responsibility of gun-ban advocates whose success at Virginia Tech made certain that no one in Norris Hall was armed to interrupt the killer's methodical spree by forcing him to defend himself, or slow down in fear of his own life....
Far from suggesting that we should restrict or ban possession of firearms, the Virginia Tech killing spree illustrates two points often made by supporters of the Second Amendment: 1) Disarming the population leads to a higher death toll from violence. 2) The police cannot or will not protect people from deadly assault. They are organized mainly to enforce the law, not to protect our persons from harm....
Given the very real likelihood of terrorist infiltration and action, nothing we do by law can eliminate the gunmen. They will always be a threat. Instead of pretending to do what we can never achieve, we should concentrate on doing what is certainly within our power. We can make sure that our population is enriched with a leaven of defenders, so that no gunmen, lone or otherwise, could ever again act with the calm assurance that he is in no danger from his intended victims....
Our Constitution already provides the concept we need to achieve this strategic objective — the militia. In its proper constitutional sense, the term means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the community's defense when it's attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to those — such as the police, the military, or even the National Guard — who formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population....
Read more ...
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Romney's "Flip-Flop Conservative" Backers
Watch this video before reading further:
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Only 1.4% of Adults Homosexual?
While the homosexual community may not like Dr. Cameron, he's just reporting others' recent research (below) that only 1.4% of Canadians are homosexual. So don't believe that 10% lie! More likely, homosexuals probably comprise somewhere between 1-2% of our population. If such a small number is having such a powerful, huge and destructive impact on American society, how can they allege debilitating discrimination?
Canadian Research Suggests only 1.4% of Adults Homosexual
PHILADELPHIA, March 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18-44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among younger adults. "What happened to the older homosexuals? Some may have ceased to be sexually active," said Paul Cameron, "or they may have died. Recent reports from Scandinavia indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of heterosexuals."
Canadian Research Suggests only 1.4% of Adults Homosexual
PHILADELPHIA, March 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18-44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among younger adults. "What happened to the older homosexuals? Some may have ceased to be sexually active," said Paul Cameron, "or they may have died. Recent reports from Scandinavia indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of heterosexuals."
Monday, April 16, 2007
Jesuit Urban Center's rainbow flag photos disappear
The Boston Globe is sad that the "gay" Catholic church, the Jesuit Urban Center (Church of the Immaculate Conception) in Boston, is closing down.
This blog once linked to a hideous photo of the interior of this beautiful church -- draped with rainbow flags. But now, as we read that the JUC is closing down, their rainbow photos have disappeared from their online catalog. (Sadly, we didn't save it.) We were, however, able to retrieve this photo of JUC church members marching in a "Gay" Pride parade. And their rainbow flag icon is still available.
The church assures the Globe that its "gay" identity had nothing to do with its closing. We wonder... From the Globe:
The Jesuit Urban Center, a predominantly gay Catholic congregation in Boston's South End, will close at the end of July, and the landmark church in which services are held will be put up for sale, the Jesuit religious order announced yesterday. The Rev. Thomas J. Regan , the superior of the New England Jesuits, said in an interview that the rationale for the closing is purely financial. ...
Regan said that he had received no pressure from the Vatican, the Jesuit headquarters in Rome, or the Archdiocese of Boston, to close the church, and that the sexual orientation of the worshipers played no role in his decision.
He said that the Jesuits would continue to welcome gays and lesbians to worship at St. Ignatius of Loyola , the parish they oversee in Chestnut Hill, and that there are two other downtown congregations that have been reaching out to gay Catholics, the Paulist Center on Beacon Hill and St. Anthony Shrine, operated by the Franciscans, near Downtown Crossing.
Regan also said members of the congregation may choose to worship at the nearby Cathedral of the Holy Cross, also in the South End, but many gay Catholics are likely to balk at that option because the cathedral is the seat of Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley , who has been an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. ...
The decision to close the Jesuit Urban Center comes nearly seven years after the Jesuits fired a nun and a priest from the Urban Center because the nun, Sister Jeannette T. Normandin , was allowed to help perform two baptismal rites for adopted sons of gay male couples. The Jesuits at the time said that the violation had nothing to do with the sexuality of the children's parents, but that baptismal rites, except in emergencies, are to be performed by priests. ...
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Homosexual Lobby's Latest Plan to Scuttle Marriage Amendment?
VoteOnMarriage had better listen up. A recent opinion piece in the radical homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows -- by the simpering house-"husband" ("married" to a man) who writes Boston Globe magazine articles about buying pink dresses for "their" baby daughter -- floats the latest idea on how to block the marriage amendment.
As VoteOnMarriage prepares for the next Constitutional Convention (which could come as early as May 9), where their amendment needs to be approved for a second time by at least 50 legislators before moving on to the voters, they should ready their arguments against the Bay Windows crowd, who say:
The following section (4) of the article [Article 48, outlining the procedure for citizen-initiated amendemt proposals] notes that upon receiving affirmative votes from one-fourth of the representatives [which happened on Jan. 2, 2007], the initiative “shall be referred to the next general court,” as it has been.
But this is the catch: in section 5, the final step of the process, there is no similar stated requirement for a second vote. Instead, there is only the conditionally-worded provision, that the initiative shall go before voters “if [it] shall again receive the affirmative votes…” The lack of a call for a second vote is not a mere technicality; or, I should say, in the law, there are no “mere” technicalities. Judges and legislators alike continually turn their eyes to the letter of the law, not the romantic or impassioned interpretations thereof, to settle questions of legal merit.
One might argue that the second vote is implicit, and that its omission from the text is a word-saving device by the amendment’s authors. But this seems unlikely when one reads the entire text; the article goes to great and somewhat linguistically unwieldy lengths to include all necessary factors, like the allowance for a submission of an amended version of the initiative’s wording. In terms of this debate, then, Article 48 is quite explicit about what is required: one vote on the initiative. For legislators who wish to be seen as towing the line, forcing upon the text an imagined requirement for a second vote is to then trump the actual law in favor of appearing to obey it. And to what end? Our legislators have already fulfilled their duties. They can now stand proud before the citizenry, able to state without hesitation that they took the job seriously and got it done.
Bay Windows also kindly provides the text of Article 48 at the end of this opinion piece. Of course, liberals only refer to original documents if they see an opening to manipulate some unintended loophole.
As VoteOnMarriage prepares for the next Constitutional Convention (which could come as early as May 9), where their amendment needs to be approved for a second time by at least 50 legislators before moving on to the voters, they should ready their arguments against the Bay Windows crowd, who say:
The following section (4) of the article [Article 48, outlining the procedure for citizen-initiated amendemt proposals] notes that upon receiving affirmative votes from one-fourth of the representatives [which happened on Jan. 2, 2007], the initiative “shall be referred to the next general court,” as it has been.
But this is the catch: in section 5, the final step of the process, there is no similar stated requirement for a second vote. Instead, there is only the conditionally-worded provision, that the initiative shall go before voters “if [it] shall again receive the affirmative votes…” The lack of a call for a second vote is not a mere technicality; or, I should say, in the law, there are no “mere” technicalities. Judges and legislators alike continually turn their eyes to the letter of the law, not the romantic or impassioned interpretations thereof, to settle questions of legal merit.
One might argue that the second vote is implicit, and that its omission from the text is a word-saving device by the amendment’s authors. But this seems unlikely when one reads the entire text; the article goes to great and somewhat linguistically unwieldy lengths to include all necessary factors, like the allowance for a submission of an amended version of the initiative’s wording. In terms of this debate, then, Article 48 is quite explicit about what is required: one vote on the initiative. For legislators who wish to be seen as towing the line, forcing upon the text an imagined requirement for a second vote is to then trump the actual law in favor of appearing to obey it. And to what end? Our legislators have already fulfilled their duties. They can now stand proud before the citizenry, able to state without hesitation that they took the job seriously and got it done.
Bay Windows also kindly provides the text of Article 48 at the end of this opinion piece. Of course, liberals only refer to original documents if they see an opening to manipulate some unintended loophole.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Romney Burning Through His Millions
After personally receiving 8 or 10 campaign mailings from the Romney campaign already, it's not surprising to see the Boston Globe this morning: "Romney money going fast" (4-14-07). The latest mailing was a glossy photo of the Romney family with a response page headed "Family Photo Confirmation" and we're asked to check off this statement along with the donation amount:
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Stem cells, test-tube babies, & paganism
"The prospect of all-female conception"
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent, 4-13-07
Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue. [read more...]
Musings from a MassResistance reader:
Gaia worshipers rejoice! Check this out! Weird science is erasing the need for men for human reproduction; this in turn will ultimately erase men from the planet. Voila! Brave New World.
How did we get here?
First we condone and accept divorce. This leads to looking the other way and giving wider acceptance to adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations. "Hell, they're gonna do it any way, so why not accept it. We shouldn't judge anyone else's lifestyle." ... So goes the relativist's reasoning.
Next comes acceptance of prophylactics, the pill, and birth control. But isn't this contrary to nature or God's will? ... "Now, now, don't get all preachy with me!"
Christians and Jews begin to embrace divorce (as opposed to marital maturity) as a legitimate answer to marital problems. "Gay-Lesbian-Transgender" groups see the opportunity to normalize their behaviors and begin seeking to legitimize their co-habitations as legal partnerships. Thank goodness for "no-fault" divorce making it all easier. What about the kids? no problem... "they're resilient... they'll adapt!" ...Right...
"Gee, why bother with marriage at all... let's all hook-up and shack up! It' better than getting a divorce; who are you to lecture me?" GLT's now seek legitimization as "married"couples.
Babies outside of marriage? No problem! There's no shame to this... After all, as a noted feminist once said, a dad is just a "sperm provider." They just take off sooner or later anyway. And there are great Social Services safety nets to help out.
Alternative #2. Just go visit Planned parenthood and "poof" ... no baby! ... In your ninth month? ... No problem! ... We'll just induce labor, kill and dismember the baby while it is in the birth canal. (OR ... you can always hook up with meth-heads who will help you abuse your baby to death.)
Too squeamish for that? Is your child in and out of Child/Family Service foster homes? Well then, give up your baby for adoption ... Lots of GLT couples out there wanting to adopt... Isn't a loving home better than no home or a series of foster homes inside the "system?" Let's not digress...
Now we reach the point where we can possibly create "female sperm"...
Let's see ... erotic Aphrodite was the "goddess" of love and lustful attractions, born from the foam of the sea. Now scientists are intent on "creating" (at the altar of Hermes, 'god of science') the goddess Hermaphrodite so that lesbian couples (followers of Sappho) can have babies! Even the most hard core, male-hating feminists should step back from this precipice.
What's next? "Male ova" from men's bone marrow for all those followers of Eros? How about: Stem-cell babies raised like farm catfish in special amniotic ponds? Science for the sake of science.
All noble Christian and Jewish believers might want to recognize this for what it is: creeping pagan god and goddess worship.
This is copyright infringement of the worst kind. Is anyone else weary of all of the pretending? ... whether it is this are phony manipulation of climate data for political purposes? Terrorists and anarchists are trying to blow up the world and we are interested in bizarre and unholy distractions.
It is time to pray earnestly for God to set His Kingdom aright on Earth.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent, 4-13-07
Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue. [read more...]
Musings from a MassResistance reader:
Gaia worshipers rejoice! Check this out! Weird science is erasing the need for men for human reproduction; this in turn will ultimately erase men from the planet. Voila! Brave New World.
How did we get here?
First we condone and accept divorce. This leads to looking the other way and giving wider acceptance to adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations. "Hell, they're gonna do it any way, so why not accept it. We shouldn't judge anyone else's lifestyle." ... So goes the relativist's reasoning.
Next comes acceptance of prophylactics, the pill, and birth control. But isn't this contrary to nature or God's will? ... "Now, now, don't get all preachy with me!"
Christians and Jews begin to embrace divorce (as opposed to marital maturity) as a legitimate answer to marital problems. "Gay-Lesbian-Transgender" groups see the opportunity to normalize their behaviors and begin seeking to legitimize their co-habitations as legal partnerships. Thank goodness for "no-fault" divorce making it all easier. What about the kids? no problem... "they're resilient... they'll adapt!" ...Right...
"Gee, why bother with marriage at all... let's all hook-up and shack up! It' better than getting a divorce; who are you to lecture me?" GLT's now seek legitimization as "married"couples.
Babies outside of marriage? No problem! There's no shame to this... After all, as a noted feminist once said, a dad is just a "sperm provider." They just take off sooner or later anyway. And there are great Social Services safety nets to help out.
Alternative #2. Just go visit Planned parenthood and "poof" ... no baby! ... In your ninth month? ... No problem! ... We'll just induce labor, kill and dismember the baby while it is in the birth canal. (OR ... you can always hook up with meth-heads who will help you abuse your baby to death.)
Too squeamish for that? Is your child in and out of Child/Family Service foster homes? Well then, give up your baby for adoption ... Lots of GLT couples out there wanting to adopt... Isn't a loving home better than no home or a series of foster homes inside the "system?" Let's not digress...
Now we reach the point where we can possibly create "female sperm"...
Let's see ... erotic Aphrodite was the "goddess" of love and lustful attractions, born from the foam of the sea. Now scientists are intent on "creating" (at the altar of Hermes, 'god of science') the goddess Hermaphrodite so that lesbian couples (followers of Sappho) can have babies! Even the most hard core, male-hating feminists should step back from this precipice.
What's next? "Male ova" from men's bone marrow for all those followers of Eros? How about: Stem-cell babies raised like farm catfish in special amniotic ponds? Science for the sake of science.
All noble Christian and Jewish believers might want to recognize this for what it is: creeping pagan god and goddess worship.
This is copyright infringement of the worst kind. Is anyone else weary of all of the pretending? ... whether it is this are phony manipulation of climate data for political purposes? Terrorists and anarchists are trying to blow up the world and we are interested in bizarre and unholy distractions.
It is time to pray earnestly for God to set His Kingdom aright on Earth.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Morality Does Belong in Politics
Is President Bush a sincere Christian who understands the application of his faith in the public square? Does Mitt Romney really share our Judeo-Christian beliefs, and understand that they are the basis of good government and laws?
Both politicians recently shied away from discussions of morality in the public square. Bush failed to stand of for his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who stated the obvious -- that homosexuality is immoral. And Romney recently said that there was no place for discussions of morality or immorality in politics. Unbelievable.
Q: "Since General Pace made his comments -- they got a lot of attention -- about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue. Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?"
A: Bush replied, "I -- I -- I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation. I do believe the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy is good policy."
Saying homosexuality is immoral is no different from saying murder or theft or adultery are immoral. But murder, theft, and adultery have not been politicized by murderers, thieves, and adulterers. And sodomy has been politicized as a "civil right" by its practitioners.
It seems President Bush and Mitt Romney have forgotten the basis of all our laws. Judge Roy Moore's commentary on "Nazis, Nuremberg and the law of God" (4-11-07) serves as a timely reminder:
Both the British and American prosecutors [at Nuremberg] were expressing something well understood in the law at that time – the law of man and nations is subject to the laws of God and the laws of nature. Sir William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1765 explained the law of nature in this way:
"This law of nature, being co-eval [co-existent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. ..."
The fact that the law of God is the basis for international law was not new to British and American jurisprudence at the Nuremberg trials. In 1791, James Wilson, one of our first United States Supreme Court justices appointed by President Washington, explained the "law of nations" (international law) as follows:
"The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. ... The law of nations as well as the law of nature is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations as well as the law of nature is of origin divine."
Wilson emphasized that all law "flows from the same divine source: It is the law of God. ... Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."
Both politicians recently shied away from discussions of morality in the public square. Bush failed to stand of for his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who stated the obvious -- that homosexuality is immoral. And Romney recently said that there was no place for discussions of morality or immorality in politics. Unbelievable.
Q: "Since General Pace made his comments -- they got a lot of attention -- about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue. Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?"
A: Bush replied, "I -- I -- I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation. I do believe the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy is good policy."
Saying homosexuality is immoral is no different from saying murder or theft or adultery are immoral. But murder, theft, and adultery have not been politicized by murderers, thieves, and adulterers. And sodomy has been politicized as a "civil right" by its practitioners.
It seems President Bush and Mitt Romney have forgotten the basis of all our laws. Judge Roy Moore's commentary on "Nazis, Nuremberg and the law of God" (4-11-07) serves as a timely reminder:
Both the British and American prosecutors [at Nuremberg] were expressing something well understood in the law at that time – the law of man and nations is subject to the laws of God and the laws of nature. Sir William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1765 explained the law of nature in this way:
"This law of nature, being co-eval [co-existent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. ..."
The fact that the law of God is the basis for international law was not new to British and American jurisprudence at the Nuremberg trials. In 1791, James Wilson, one of our first United States Supreme Court justices appointed by President Washington, explained the "law of nations" (international law) as follows:
"The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. ... The law of nations as well as the law of nature is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations as well as the law of nature is of origin divine."
Wilson emphasized that all law "flows from the same divine source: It is the law of God. ... Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Romney Shoots Foot, Not Varmints
Fun and more fun. "Romney's the new John Kerry." Watch this great video of the NH fellow in the hunter's cap who simply asked Romney his position on the Second Amendment -- then got an answer about how hard it is to hit a rabbit with a .22.
Then, you can browse the latest Gallup Poll. For all of Romney's "impressive" fundraising (but wait ... isn't BIG $ in politics BAD?), his poll numbers are PITIFUL. Check out EyeOn08's comments too: "Romney is almost as disliked at John McCain, even though half of GOP voters don’t know anything about Romney. The number of people who dislike him is only going up…"
GOP %
Rudy Giuliani 38
John McCain 16
Newt Gingrich 10
Fred Thompson 10
Mitt Romney 6
Then, you can browse the latest Gallup Poll. For all of Romney's "impressive" fundraising (but wait ... isn't BIG $ in politics BAD?), his poll numbers are PITIFUL. Check out EyeOn08's comments too: "Romney is almost as disliked at John McCain, even though half of GOP voters don’t know anything about Romney. The number of people who dislike him is only going up…"
GOP %
Rudy Giuliani 38
John McCain 16
Newt Gingrich 10
Fred Thompson 10
Mitt Romney 6
Monday, April 09, 2007
Radical Gill Foundation Funds Mass. Groups
We've noted before the Gill Foundation's funding of the most radical homosexual/transgender madness in Massachusetts (and around the country). "The Gill Foundation, established in 1994 by software entrepreneur Tim Gill, seeks to secure equal opportunity for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. The Gill Foundation is the nation's largest funder focusing primarily on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights." (See our past postings on its activities in Massachusetts here and here.)
Here's Gill's list of groups it's openly supporting in Massachusetts. (Add to this legislative campaigns, and very possibly other groups not named!) --
ACLU Foundation - Massachusetts
AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts
Bisexual Resource Center
CIGSYA
Common Cause Massachusetts
CPPAX Education Fund
Family Diversity Projects
Fenway Community Health
Freedom to Marry Foundation
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Gay & Lesbian Athletics Foundation
Greater Boston PFLAG
Institute for Gay & Lesbian Strategic Studies
International Foundation for Gender Education
Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action
Massachusetts NOW Foundation
MassEquality Education Fund
Men's Resource Center of Western Mass.
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Foundation
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Network/La Red, The
Northeast Action
Pride Zone
Project 10 East, Inc.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice of Massachusetts
Roxbury Community Technology Center
Tapestry Health
Theater Offensive, The
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Teen Equality Center (UTEC)
Victory Programs, Inc.
Here's Gill's list of groups it's openly supporting in Massachusetts. (Add to this legislative campaigns, and very possibly other groups not named!) --
ACLU Foundation - Massachusetts
AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts
Bisexual Resource Center
CIGSYA
Common Cause Massachusetts
CPPAX Education Fund
Family Diversity Projects
Fenway Community Health
Freedom to Marry Foundation
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Gay & Lesbian Athletics Foundation
Greater Boston PFLAG
Institute for Gay & Lesbian Strategic Studies
International Foundation for Gender Education
Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action
Massachusetts NOW Foundation
MassEquality Education Fund
Men's Resource Center of Western Mass.
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Foundation
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Network/La Red, The
Northeast Action
Pride Zone
Project 10 East, Inc.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice of Massachusetts
Roxbury Community Technology Center
Tapestry Health
Theater Offensive, The
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Teen Equality Center (UTEC)
Victory Programs, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)