What is truly frightening is the amount of power the DPH Commissioner would hold in time of a declared health emergency if S2028 is passed.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
What is truly frightening is the amount of power the DPH Commissioner would hold in time of a declared health emergency if S2028 is passed.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
OK, Domenico. You make the point that mandatory vaccination is not in bill S2028, and you’re right on the face of it. You say the “rumor” about the bill’s dangers is unfounded. But you obviously have a lot of unwarranted faith in the trustworthiness of our government and medical professionals.
You’re correct that bill S2028 reads:
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction. (S2028, lines 409-414.)
Note that “serious danger to public health” remains undefined. And what’s the cut off time on detention? The bill does state that isolation would be only for the period of communicability, and quarantine would be for the usual incubation period of the disease. Individuals who refuse testing or decontamination are subject to isolation or quarantine:
When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health ...[they] may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information ... (S2028, lines 432-439.)
An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health. (Lines 464-469.)
This is somewhat vague: no definitions for “reasonably” or “condition that poses a threat to public health." Remember that that Gulag was populated with people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who assuredly suffered from some “condition”.
Have you ever heard of what happens in some pediatricians’ offices, when they talk young teenage girls into getting an HPV vaccine (when the wary mother is not present)? It's easy for an authority to pressure a reluctant patient who tries to refuse. Have you ever heard stories of what happens in psych wards, when they tell someone they’re “just doing a TB test” -- when in fact they’re planning to inject the distressed patient with who knows what? (No, I’m not speaking first person.)
Now multiply this scenario by a thousand times given fear, panic, uncertainty and irrationality during an “emergency”, and mix in lack of transparency (or competence) from our public servants. Do you still think the newly needle-enabled EMT or dentist will follow the protocol in S2028 to the letter? Do you think a frightened individual who resists will be respected? And what happens when the resister is in forced quarantine? Who’s in charge there? What is the state of mind of the forcibly quarantined citizen? (Line 475 does state, "Isolation and quarantine orders must utilize the least restrictive means necessary." But who gets to determine that?)
And of course we don't really know what's in those flu vaccines. So much for trusting the authorities.
S2028 even includes a provision “to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit,” (all terms and places of treatment undefined) -- with their "permission" of course. Might a person resisting the authorities’ entry into his premises be determined to suffer from “emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs”? And when the authorities “exercise ... their powers ... over facilities including but not limited to communications devices” and a person can’t call his lawyer, what then? Well, then we’ve arrived at a police state, and it doesn’t matter that the new law said no one can be vaccinated against his will. The individual's will no longer counts. There’s only the power of the state.
C’mon Domenico. You’re way too trusting. The patriots have come up with the word “sheeple” for a reason.
Let’s end with this. Who gets to define the governing terms in the law? Current Massachusetts law Ch. 111, section 6 gives this power to the Commissioner of Public Health:
Power to define diseases deemed dangerous to public health; control and prevention
Section 6. The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health.
And if S2028 is passed, it would add after the word “diseases” (in lines 2 and 5) above: “injuries, health conditions, and threats to health.” All to be defined ad hoc by an unelected official (the Public Health Commissioner), possibly in time of crisis.
And as the statists have said, never let a crisis go to waste!
Senator Richard Moore is lead Senate sponsor of the pending Massachusetts pandemic bill S2028, "An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response." So it's worth noting that he began the legislative hearing last March by referring to the "pandemic flu bill"! Hmm, it says nothing about flu in the bill. And the hearing was held in March, before the outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico in April. (We'll be linking to video of that hearing soon.)
Wouldn't the pandemic emergency bill also apply to outbreaks of measles, smallpox, typhus, cholera, tuberculosis, leprosy, HIV, hemorrhagic fevers, and bio warfare in general? (A pandemic is "an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region.") Why would Sen. Moore single out "flu"?
It's no wonder so many Americans are suspicious of the government's efforts to vaccinate us for what appears to be a mild flu. (Why have they fast-tracked the H1N1 vaccine? Why are they fast-tracking everything right now, whether it's Cap & Trade, the stimulus, or the health care takeover?)
As MassResistance has reported, Senator Moore has worked closely with "big pharma" in the past, significantly when he tried to push through a mandatory vaccination of all schoolgirls with Merck's HPV drug Gardasil. Who has his ear now?
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: C. J. DOYLE (781) 251-9739
SCANDAL AT MISSION CHURCH IN BOSTON
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston's most historic Catholic shrine --- the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church --- where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to “celebrate the life” of one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States.
Surgical abortion has claimed more than fifty-one million human lives since 1973. The Catholic religion defines abortion as an “abominable crime”.
President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy's support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions “between gays and straights”.
Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy’s parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, who thanked President Obama for his words and his presence. Both the homilist, Fr. Hession, and Cardinal O'Malley suggested that the late senator had found eternal salvation.
The Catholic Action League called the event “a tragic example of the Church’s willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ”.
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: “Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist.”
During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said ‘I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers’. His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life.”
“No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself.”
Sunday, July 26, 2009
FOX News in New York asks Google: Why are you blocking the MassResistance blog?
(MassResistance email alert, July 24, 2009)
Google has finally given its reason for blocking the MassResistance blog, but it took a call from Fox News in New York to get it. And it seems to be more political - and frightening - than anything else.
Since 2005 the MassResistance blog has been hosted on Google's blogspot blogging site with few problems. For the last several weeks Google has been blocking the MassResistance blog with a warning screen alleging "objectionable content", and requiring readers to click through to get in. The block was put on almost immediately after researcher Amy Contrada posted some articles and photos from transgender and gay-pride related public events, in preparation for the July 14 transgender bill hearing. Several news outlets, including WorldNetDaily, have covered this incident.
WorldNetDaily: Google blocks blog exposing homosexual agenda; "Actions represent trial balloon for government censorship of 'hate' speech"
Fox News gets involved
Earlier this week FoxNews.com in New York called the MassResistance office asking about Google blocking our blog. Fox reporter Josh Miller said they were interested in the story and could see that given Google's huge power it could lead to censorship issues across the Internet. We discussed the details with him. Later that day Miller called us back and said that Fox finally got through to Google headquarters in San Francisco about this. Google told him that we had violated their terms of service regarding content by posting "nudity", and therefore they had put an "interstitial" (i.e., block) on our blog.
Not "nudity" by any rational standard - this is political
This is a completely absurd definition of "nudity." They are referring to our June 27 posting on "gender expression" - a political issue. You can go to the blog page HERE (just click through their warning page) and judge for yourself.
First, the photos they object to are of homosexual and transgender activists doing bizarre things at public events on public streets, where uniformed police were present. Why weren't any of the people arrested for obscenity, one might ask, if Google finds it so offensive?
Second, none of the pictures show genitals or fully "nude" people. Interestingly, they are mostly pictures of women who have amputated their breasts to "become" men, and who are marching shirtless as a statement of their "masculinity". (Ironically, according to Google's own absurd transgender-support policies these women would be considered "men" anyway since that's their "gender identity"!)
Google clearly knows that these are photos of public political events, not Playboy pinups or pornography. And, of course, Google certainly knows what happens at homosexual-related events because Google participates in them. Google is a frequent participant in Gay Pride events around the country, including the ones in San Francisco and New York which are particularly obscene. Furthermore, Google's blogspot site also hosts some of the most obscene, hateful and outrageous homosexual blogs. It's hard to believe that people would even write some of that stuff. Somehow they don't get flagged by Google for anything "offensive". Most people around the country who see this have agreed that this is viewpoint censorship: unquestionably a political act by Google, not an "anti-pornography" move. And as we said to Fox News - it's MassResistance now, but later it could be you.
Scene from in a recent San Francisco Gay Pride Parade
Story dropped by Fox News
We spoke to FoxNews.com today and they informed us that at the last minute they decided not to publish the story on their site. They didn't give a reason. However, the reporter reiterated that these facts still stand and it's definitely a concern.
As we've said before, we think people need to take this seriously. Certainly WorldNetDaily and others are...
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Today (July 14, 2009), the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee will consider the bill to legalize "gay marriage". That's right -- "gay marriage" is still NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts!
The current Massachusetts marriage statute allows only man/woman, husband/wife couples. So Rep. Byron Rushing has filed a bill, every session since 2004, to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. His bill reads:
H1708: Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.
Why has the Legislature never voted on this? Why has the press never recognized that the law was never changed?
Legal means permitted by law.
One reason MassResistance is so hated by the GLBT movement is that we've pointed this out for years. And the 16,000 "married" same-sex couples just don't want to admit that they're part of a Big Lie.
Note: The law criminalizing sodomy has still not been overturned either. Since sodomy is the basis for "gay marriage," the GLBT lobby's bill to decriminalize sodomy will also be heard today. Can't have a "marriage" without consummation!
- Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
- Copulation with a member of the same sex.
- Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
GLAD -- the legal advocacy group behind “gay marriage” and “transgender rights” – has a rich history of defending public perversion. The organization was founded to defend the right of homosexuals to have sex in restrooms at the Boston Public Library. That was in 1978. They brag about this on their web site. Bay Windows tells the story [Ethan Jacobs, “GLAD turns 30,” 1/16/08]:
Back in 1978, about 30 years before Larry Craig and his "wide stance" had pundits and late night comedians buzzing about bathroom hook-ups, Boston police launched a sting operation targeting gay men cruising at Boston Public Library (BPL). They sent in undercover cops to solicit and arrest men, and in two weeks they made 103 arrests. Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), said that such arrests had been common in Massachusetts and around the country and that most men arrested under those circumstances opted to handle the matter quietly, forgoing legal representation and accepting whatever deal police or district attorneys were willing to offer. But the BPL sting triggered an outpouring of anger in Boston’s gay community, and activists organized demonstrations in front of BPL, accusing police of entrapment. The protests also convinced a young attorney named John Ward to found GLAD, which would go on to win marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, secure disability protections for people living with HIV across the country, and win numerous other legal victories on behalf of LGBT people and people living with HIV/AIDS throughout New England.
GLAD has gone on to intimidate the Massachusetts State Police into allowing all sorts of public sex – in the Fens (in Boston’s Back Bay), in historic Minuteman Park in Lexington, in Estabrook Woods in Concord (where an informant told us they recently even had mattresses in the woods, left undisturbed by the police), in public lavatories across the state. If the sex is taking place behind a bush or lavatory door, that’s “private” so it’s OK, thanks to GLAD! (We hate to imagine what’s going on in the Boston Public Library lavatories these days.)
Mary Bonauto, the GLAD attorney who argued the State Police case, later argued for "gay marriage" before the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, and is now challenging the federal Defense of Marriage law (DOMA).
(GLAD is now pushing to decriminalize even more open public sex. They had a forum in January 2008 called "Sex on the Margins." We heard the discussion was "out there.")
If GLAD gets its way on “transgender rights,” this blog won’t just contain a warning from Google. Its author will be slapped with a criminal discrimination charge, and Google will have its green light to begin censoring all blogs standing for traditional values. Get ready.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The pending Body Mutilation ("Transgender Rights") Bill declares it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of "gender identity or expression" yet fails to define either "gender identity" or "gender expression" in any meaningful way. (Likewise, the phrase "sexual orientation" remains undefined in the law.)
Soon, scenes such as those below will be unstoppable in public places ("public accommodations"). They will be considered a "civil right" to "gender expression." And as we've pointed out, GLAD is readying its defense for public sex acts. (Thanks to GLAD, pervs can already can do it in restrooms or behind the bushes in the Fens without worry of arrest.)
We see no need to warn anyone of the upsetting nature of these photos, since we'll all be seeing similar things in public within a few years. [Photos by MassResistance, except as noted.]
Boston Pride celebrant in a public street, June 2009
at Transgender Pride, Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008
[Bay Windows photo]
Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008
Man or woman (?) in skirt with beard & mustache, Transgender Pride,
Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008
Adam Shanahan(left), aka "Raquel Blake", & friends at Boston Pride, June 2008
Queens at Boston Pride, June 2008
More queens at Boston pride, June 2008
How many new perversions ("identities") can they invent? Mass. Transgender Political Coalition T-shirt at Boston Pride, June 2008
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Dr McHugh warned the [NYC Health] board that such changes would make sexual identification impossible. "I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there," he said. "He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Flood of GLBT Lawsuits Predicted after Passage of Mass. Transgender Bill, ENDA, & Federal Hate Crimes Bill
We haven’t already seen lots of anti-bias lawsuits on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” -- but only because the sexual radicals don’t yet have all their ducks in order. Once the federal bills become law (ENDA and the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act”), along with the Massachusetts “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill, they need no longer fear a backlash.
Lawsuits will come to the courts, and complaints will be filed with MCAD -- the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. We’ve warned of the danger of that shadow court system. Its new Chairman, Malcolm S. Medley, recently noted that the GLBT community has been holding back on filing anti-bias complaints, apparently waiting for dust to settle after their “gay marriage” coup. And we believe they’re also waiting for the transgender rights/hate crimes bill to be passed. According to the Bay State Banner (April 30, 2009):
There has not, however, been a sharp rise in formal complaints of discrimination against those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community since the legalization of same-sex marriage statewide in 2003, Medley said. Some gay rights advocates feared a backlash would follow the state Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the monumental case that made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legally recognize same-sex marriages. While there are still those who disagree with the court’s decision, Medley said that his agency must uphold laws set by the state regarding sexual orientation.
The Massachusetts Bar Association reported (June 2008) that MCAD is awaiting action on the transgender rights bill:
Medley said MCAD is watching with interest several bills pending in the Legislature, including the so-called height and weight and transgender bills.
GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) is certainly ready to roll, and has posted a page of “how-to” brochures.
GLAD is the primary legal assault team bringing down traditional values throughout New England. They argued for “gay marriage” in the Goodridge case in Massachusetts, conducted a well-funded campaign to bring “gay marriage” to all six New England states by 2012, and have been busy with pioneering “anti-bias” lawsuits on the basis of (conveniently undefined) “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”.
Formal charges of “anti-LGBT” bias will soon become commonplace, and GLAD is helping with its tutorial. “Verbal harassment” alone can result in criminal or civil prosecution.
GLAD even has brochures informing GLBT students and “transgender youth” of their rights. On this issue, GLAD erroneously states:
Prohibitions against discrimination in public schools require that transgender students must have equal access to ‘the advantages, privileges and courses of study’ of those schools. (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, sec. 5). This must include access to safe, clean, appropriate restroom and locker room facilities.
In fact, that section of the law applies to “sexual orientation” – but not transgenderism or “gender identity.” This raises the question: If “sexual orientation” already covers “transgender rights”, why is the transgender rights bill needed? Since neither phrase is defined in the law, anything goes! But GLAD now wants to ensure the broadest possible protection for perversions yet untried with another vague law.
Friday, June 19, 2009
How is the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” Bill -- H1728/S1687 -- a threat to your rights?
This bill would criminalize any objection to bizarre behaviors covered by the undefined phrase “gender identity or expression.”
Gender identity confusion is considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. But if Bill H1728 passes, the disordered behaviors of “transgender” individuals would be protected as a “civil right”! And power will rest with disturbed individuals who self-identify as the opposite sex, or who act out some public “expression” he or she insists is part of his or her “identity”. This bill is about protecting public, not private, behaviors. It is part of the radical strategy to leave the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” undefined in the bill.
And it’s not only about allowing cross-dressing and sex changes. It would normalize and mandate support for cross-dressing, sex changes, and various other perversions and practices. For example, “gender expression” (and the likewise undefined “sexual orientation”) could be interpreted to protect voyeurism, sado-masochism, prostitution, incest, or even sex in public places. Already, hotels are scared by “sexual orientation” anti-discrimination laws, so won’t deny access to transgender (or sadomasochist) conventions. Things will only get worse if this bill is passed.
In the “public accommodations” portion of the bill, for example:
“Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of … gender identity or expression … or … treatment in any place of public accommodation … or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimina- tion or restriction shall be punished by a fine … or by imprisonment … or both.” [MGL, Ch. 272, Sec. 98, with phrase “gender identity or expression” added by Bill H1728.]
- In Mass. law, “public accommodations” could be interpreted to include any place other than private homes.
- Individuals and churches will lose their freedom of speech and religion to object to transgender behaviors or “gender expression,” or even publicly oppose the new law. No sermon could be delivered, no seminar held disagreeing with this new “civil right” (as it could be considered “incitement” to “distinction or discrimination.”) No effort to overturn it could be organized in any “public accommodation,” no referendum signatures could be collected on sidewalks to overturn the law.
- A crime committed against a self-identified transgender person will receive extra penalties as a “hate crime”.
- Business owners will lose the ability to choose employees suited to their particular environment or clientele, no matter what it means for their profitability. Charges of discrimination could be brought if a “transgender” person is fired for valid causes totally separate from “gender identity”.
- Schools will normalize this psychological disorder to our children, exposing them to unimaginable stresses. Restrooms and locker rooms will be open to the opposite sex. Sports teams, proms, and homecomings will see “transgender” youth demanding “equal” treatment. Children of all ages will be given sensitivity lessons when teachers, staff or even parents undergo “sex changes” (which has already occurred in Newton, Oxford, and Brookline). The youngest children will be forced to imagine the removal of body parts as a healthy and reasonable option. “Anti-bullying” lessons will add this new category of victims.
- Landlords and property owners will not be able to deny rental or sale to anyone protected by the loose phrase “gender identity or expression” – which could include groups of “swingers”, sadomasochists, or even prostitutes.
- Restrooms and locker rooms at any public accommodation will be forced to allow a person who claims to be the opposite sex to use whichever restroom or locker room he or she chooses. It is especially frightening for women to have (often very large) men dressed as women sharing their restroom space.
- “Gender expression” will open the door to sexual activity in public or public nudity. Women claiming to be men will expose their scarred chests (from breast removal) in public. Exhibitionists could claim “expression” when exposing themselves. GLAD – the legal group behind “gay marriage” in New England, as well as transgender rights – actually held a forum recently promoting public sex called “Sex on the Margins.” Jennifer Levi (blue shirt), lead attorney with GLAD for transgender issues, pushes baby stroller at Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass., June 2008 (MassResistance photo).
- Sensitivity training at work will normalize cross-dressing and "transitioning" employees.
- Transgender medical care will be mandated coverage for insurers (including state health insurance) – costs which can run into hundreds of thousands – subsidized by you. This includes hormone treatments, cosmetic treatments, radical body-mutilating sex change surgeries, and psychological counseling. Get ready to see lots more of this if H1728 passes: A young woman who has removed her breasts to become a "boi" or "transman". Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass., June 2008. (MassResistance photo)
- Hospitals, doctors and therapists will be forced to provide this medical care and offer pro-transgender counseling; no religious objections are provided for.
- The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) – a shadow court system without usual legal procedures – will come after all offenders with huge fines, with no appeal possible. (This is already happening in Canada on “sexual orientation” issues.)
- Charges of “bigotry” and “transphobia” will intimidate citizens who object.
CONTACT the Judiciary Committee with your testimony!