HILLLARY CLINTONS

GAY, LESBIAN, &

FEMINIST TASK
FORCE


Hillary Clintons Femi-Nazi
Lesbian Advocacy Revealed!

By: Dr. Michael Sunstar, D.D.
Copyright 2008

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1
PHOTOS OF HILLARYS LESBIAN FEMI-NAZI GIRLFRIENDS
REVEALS HOW HILLARY SUPPORTS AND DEFENDS LESBIANISM
AND HOMOSEXUALITY

CHAPTER 2
RUDY GUILIANI CROSS DRESSING WAS A JOKE NOT TO BE
TAKEN SERIOUSLY

CHAPTER 3
THE DEMOCRATIC GAY AND FEMINIST AGENDA

CHAPTER 4
HILLARY CLINTON ON ABORTION AND PARTIAL-BIRTH
ABORTION YET SHE WANTS TO GIVE BABIES $5,000.00 EACH
FOR COLLEGE?

CHAPTER 5
PHOTOS SHOWING THE LESBIAN WOMEN WHOM HILLARY
CLINTON IS SISTERS WITH


FOR A FULL EXPOSE ON WHAT HILLARY CLINTON ENDORSES,
SEE LESBIAN PHOTOGRAPHY VOLUMES I, II, AND III!
CHAPTER 1
PHOTOS OF HILLARYS LESBIAN FEMI-NAZI GIRLFRIENDS
REVEALS HOW HILLARY SUPPORTS AND DEFENDS
LESBIANISM AND HOMOSEXUALITY




HILLARY LOOKING QUITE GAY AT HER HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY
SPONSORED PLATFORM GAYS AND LESBIANS LOVE HILLARY!
http://trosch.org/wom/hillarygay.jpg

Hillary Rodham Clinton, born October 26, 1947, former first lady who is pro abortion
and pro gay and lesbian, married in 1975 at age 28 and has one daughter, Chelsea (has
been publicly drunk) who was born February 27, 1980. She joined the faculty of the
University of Arkansas Law School in 1975 and the Rose Law Firm in 1976.

And New Yorkers elected her their representative in the U. S. Senate ! ! ! The cardinal
and bishops who did not oppose her election should consider themselves under
condemnation. Same in regard to Senator Ted Kennedy an automatically
excommunicated Catholic.

Hillary Clinton's LGBT Supporters
Hillary Clinton has released her list of LGBT Supporters. The list includes at least
two folks who were actively involved in the Howard Dean campaign, Ethan Geto
and Mirian Saez. Not suprisingly, there are also several folks here from the so
called 'HRC Massachusetts Gay Mafia', as described by the Blade including
Mary Breslauer and Hillary Rosen. Hillary Clinton received a warm reception at a
recent HRC event.
Here is the complete list:
Christopher Barley, New York City physician
Mary Breslauer, HRC's XM radio show The Agenda
llene Chaiken, creator and executive producer of The L Word
Bruce Cohen, film and television producer
Tom Duane, New York state senator
Steve Elmendorf, president of Elmendorf Strategies
Ethan Geto, publicist and political consultant
Emily Giske, Democratic National Committe
Deborah Glick, New York state Assembly
Chad Griffin, political consultant
Rebecca Haag, executive director of AlDS Action
Fred Hochberg, former Bill Clinton cabinet appointee and dean at The New
School
Roberta Kaplan, attorney
Billie Jean King, sports legend and activist
Neel Lattimore, Hillary's former press secretary as First Lady, currently
communications director at Children's Defense Fund
Rachel Lavine, New York state committee member
Danny O'Donnell, New York state Assembly
Christine Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council
Hilary Rosen, recording industry executive, HRC board member
Peter Rosenstein, gay rights activist
Mirian Saez, Democratic National Committee
Jeff Soref, former chair of the Democratic National Committee LGBT caucus
Jill Stauffer, HRC board member
Sally Susman, executive vice president for global communications at Estee
Lauder Companies
Matthew Titone, New York state Assembly
David Wilson, HRC board member


Pro Abortion Feminist
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The woman behind the Monica events!
Is that a HIEL?
Believer in the One World Order

Title: HILLARY CLINTON WEARS NEW LAPEL PIN THAT REPRESENTS
HER AS AN ILLUMINIST


Subtitle: Hillary Clinton and some Administration associates have been wearing a
lapel pin that is clearly an ancient symbol used by the Masters of the llluminati.
This illustrates the contention that Hillary and Bill Clinton are practicing
llluminists. The public use if this pin gives credence to the concept that the New
World Order is very, very close. The New World Order is coming! Are you ready?
Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being
gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!
THE CUTTlNG EDGE
lt has been reported that Bill and Hillary are practicing llluminist witches,
through the series entitled, "Clinton's Fatal Leadership". There have been
reported many evidences of this phenomenon, but only after the Biblical
foundation was set in NEWS1215, "Clinton ldentifiable ln Biblical Prophecy As
One Of The 10 Kings of Daniel 2 & 7, and of Revelation 17." lf you have not yet
read this article you are encourage to do so now. Then read the full article and
others in the series by clicking on the link on The Cutting Edge home page
entitled, "Clinton's Scandals". click BACK to return to this web page.
PHOENlX BlRD ONE OF MAJOR SYMBOLS OF THE lLLUMlNATl
The Phoenix Bird is one of the foremost symbols of the llluminati, according
to Doc Marquis. Therefore, since Hillary Clinton is wearing this symbol, we can
know conclusively that she is an llluminist. Further, since this llluminist lapel pin
was worn by two people very close to President Bill Clinton, we can know for
certain that he is an llluminist, too. [This lapel pin was seen being worn by:
Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services and Bettie Currie,
Clinton's Personal Secretary, see U.S. News & World Report, 2/9/98].
Finally, this lapel pin was seen being worn by Conservative Republican
Jeanne Kirkpatrick! This fact demonstrates conclusively that both Democrats and
Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, are equally committed to the New
World Order! Now you are deceived no longer and you know the truth of what is
really going on in Washington, D.C. President Clinton will not get removed from
office because that is most definitely not the plan, as the Republican leadership
is just as committed to the New World Order as is Clinton.
HILLARY CLINTON RECEIVING BLESSING
FROM A SHAMAN
This picture is truly worth 1,000 words. Here, we
see Hillary being "blessed" by a Native American
shaman, giving her a traditional American blessing.
Native American spirituality is quite the rage these
days, as you can see for yourself by going into a New
Age bookstore, where you will find so many books
touting their old religion. The reason New Agers and
witches of all stripes are really "into" Native American
spirituality is that the Native lndians practiced an Earth
Mother worship very close to our current New Age. ln
fact, Native Americans are held up continuously as
supreme examples of an entire nation "living close to
Nature", in "perfect harmony and balance." Hillary would have had no trouble
allowing a Native American shaman to bless her and pray over her.
The facts seem to be all in. Bill and Hillary Clinton are just what Doc
Marquis said they were, telling me back in 1992 that they both were practicing
llluminist Witches, with Hillary outranking Bill in the occult world. Again, if you
have not read our articles on the Clinton Scandals, we urge you to do so. After
reading these articles, you will understand that our leaders are truly what the
Bible says they will be at the End of the Age -- powerful, Black Magic witches,
just as Antichrist will be when he arises.
http://cuttingedge.org/articles/scandals.cfm

HlLLARY CLlNTON AND LESBlAN ROSlE O' DONNELL CUTTlNG A PUMPKlN
ON WlTCH DAY.

http://www.hillary.org/hillary/hill.rosie.pumpkin.jpg

March 15, 2007
HRC: Homosexuality Is Not Immoral
Appearing on Bloomberg News, Sen. Hillary Clinton:
"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified
with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with
General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But
the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is
not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a
grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country.
And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our
allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their
country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of
military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming.
That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating
people because of who they are or who they love."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/hrc_homosexuali.html


Hillary Clinton and Ellen Degeneres


U.S. Senate candidate first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, right,
marches with Geraldine Ferraro in New York's Columbus Day
Parade, Monday, Oct. 9, 2000. Others in photo are unidentified. (AP
Photo/Suzanne Plunkett)

Endorsement of Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential run
ln an issue of Newsweek Magazine (12/25/06 - 1/1/07) she announced her
support for speculated presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. ln the
article, entitled What We Learned the Hard Way, she thanked Walter Mondale for
taking down the "Men Only" sign from the White House. She compared his
selecting her as a running mate to Roman Catholic Al Smith's running for
president in 1928 and opening the door for Catholic John F. Kennedy in 1960.
Ferraro wrote an e-mail on March 29, 2007 to members of Team Hillary to try
and gather support for Hillary Clinton's fundraising as the March 30th deadline for
donations approached.
She has vowed to help protect Clinton from Republican attacks, such as the
Swiftboat campaign that destroyed nominee Senator John Kerry in the close-cut
2004 presidential election. During Clinton's successful bid for the senate, Ferraro
campaigned with the former First Lady, helping her secure the votes of Queens
residents.

Views on abortion
As a Catholic, Ferraro came under fire from the Roman Catholic Church for being
pro-choice on abortion, a position in conflict with Catholic moral doctrine.
>@
She
strongly defended her position at the debate, which earned her rapturous
applause and even admiration from her opponent.
>@

http://www.stonewallvets.org/PRlDEdemocrats.htm

PRlDE Democrats ("PRlDE") is a New York City-wide political club.
The PRlDE name is an acronym: Pride Rainbow lndependent
Democrats Etcetera. PRlDE Dems is primarily -- but definitely not
exclusively -- a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender ("GLBT")
political organization. PRlDE Dems has the longest-reaching Gay
historical roots of any Gay political club in New York. lt commenced
and incrementalized as the political arm of the STONEWALL Veterans'
Association ("S.V.A."). lt took a quarter-of-a-century for this political
group to get its own name and identity but when it did, on the occasion
of the international "Stonewall 25", it got the best and the most
appropriate moniker: PRlDE!

PRlDE Democrats sponsored the largest candidates' forum -- literally a
political "who's who" -- in the history of the State of New York. Among
those cabdidates who attended and spoke were Geraldine Ferraro,
Mark Green, Betsy McCaughey, Peter Vallone, Sr., Charles Hynes,
James Larocca, Sandra Frankel, Eliot Spitzer, Oliver Koppell, Catherine
Abate, Evan Davis, Edolphus Towns, Ken Diamondstone, Eric
Schneiderman, Danny O'Donnell, Jerry Goldfedder, Carlos Manzano,
Aubrey Lees, Christopher Lynn, Christine Quinn, et al. The forum was
held at the Gay & Lesbian Community Services Center on West 13th
Street in Greenwich Village, Manhattan, on Thursday evening, August
27, 1998. lt started right on time at 7 p.m. and lasted right up to 11 p.m.
for four 'all-seats-taken/standing-room-only' hours. Williamson had the
big Assembly Hall decorated with red, white, blue and pink balloons. ln
another break from the usual, he allowed the candidates to post their
campaign posters on the walls. Prior to the event, we were repeatedly
told by most all: "Don't have a political forum in late, hot, summer
August; no one will come. Besides, so many people are on vacation
then". Williamson Henderson announced that when he throws an
event, people will come even if there's a "heat wave". There was! The
Gay Center's barely acceptable air-conditioning system then (years
before the renovation) would be severely tested that very hot evening.
lt failed -- and totally broke down. Hot, hot, hot.

http://www.justhillary.com/herwords/ferraro0328.php

Fundraising letter for Hillary Rodham Clinton sent by Geraldine Ferraro...March 28, 2007...
Dear Supporter,
It's been 23 years since I was the first woman on a major party presidential slate, and I
remember what it was like breaking that barrier -- including the barrage of attacks at the
hands of the Republicans.
Now Hillary is poised to break the biggest glass ceiling of them all. This time, when we elect
the best, most qualified candidate for president, for the first time we'll be putting a woman in
the White House.
We can do it. We can make history and elect the leader America needs. Let's tell Hillary
we've got her back.
Please rush a contribution before the March 31 deadline -- it's just three days away.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/march31
It's hard to believe that in the decades since I was the first woman nominee for vice president,
with all the progress we've made, no other woman has been able to get so far. But now's the
time.
Now is the time to elect someone whose victory will tell all our sons and daughters that they
can be president -- that there are no barriers to talent and ability. And Hillary's the one who
can do it.
Some of you were with me when I ran, and you remember that it wasn't easy. I know better
than anyone how the Republicans will throw everything they have at Hillary -- because they
know she has the best chance to beat them in November 2008.
So let's stand with Hillary and give her the support she needs now to win.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/march31
A strong showing by this crucial March 31 deadline will make a big difference for Hillary's
campaign. And when we elect her president, her leadership will make all the difference in the
world for the things we believe in and the values we share.
Please act right now.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/march31
Thank you.
Cordially,
Geraldine A. Ferraro
P.S. Don't believe it when you read that Hillary doesn't need your contribution -- trust me,
she does. This is going to be a hard race fought on all sides, and every dollar matters. With so
many big states moving their primaries up, we need to show now that Hillary can go all the
way to the White House. Please pass this message on to your friends and family with a
personal note asking them to support Hillary.





HlLLARY AND ELLEN APPLAUDlNG AND SMlLlNG TOGETHER
http://www.suprmchaos.com/hrc-ellen_101405.jpg


Hillary Rodham Clinton with talk show host Ellen DeGeneres
riding the Staten Island ferry, 2005


HILLARY AND ELLENS BOOBS & NIPPLES ALMOST TOUCHING




Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., listens to a question
from singer Melissa Etheridge at the Visible Vote '08: A Presidential Forum in the
Hollywood area of Los Angeles on Thursday, Aug. 9, 2007. The event, co-
sponsored by cable channel Logo and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation
focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. (AP Photo/Kevork
Djansezian)




NOTICE WHERE HILLARYS HAND IS TUCKED UNDER!
Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton,D-NY, right, greets panelist
singer Melissa Etheridge after speaking at the Visible Vote '08: A Presidential
Forum in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles on Thursday, Aug. 9, 2007. Looking
is fellow panelists Joe Solmonese, center, The event, co-sponsored by cable
channel Logo and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation focused on lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. (AP Photo/Kevork
Djansezian) http://www.flickr.com/photos/15056253@N00/1075462786/




Hillary Clinton: l'm not a lesbian.
NY Daily News ^
Posted on 09/21/2007 6:07:08 AM PDT by John Cena
Hillary Clinton officially declared she's not a lesbian - not that there's anything
wrong with that.
During an interview with The Advocate to be published next week, Sean
Kennedy, the gay magazine's news and features editor, asked the presidential
candidate, "How do you respond to the occasional rumor that you're a lesbian?"
"People say a lot of things about me, so l really don't pay any attention to it," Sen.
Clinton (D-N.Y.) replied.
"lt's not true, but it is something that l have no control over. People will say what
they want to say."
Kennedy told the Daily News he's convinced. "l 100% believe she's a straight,
heterosexual woman," he said.

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/



Fighting For the LGBT Community
Hillary has been a longtime friend of the lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGBT) community. She has fought for policies
that promote equality, while taking a strong stand against forces
that have tried to marginalize the LGBT community.

Hillarys Vision As President, Hillary will replace the divisive
leadership of the past six years. She will work with the LGBT
community and allies in Congress to change laws. The LGBT
community will always have an open door to a Clinton White
House. She knows that working together, we can continue to
work against hate and stand united for equality.

Supports civil unions Hillary will work to ensure that all
Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits from
health insurance and life insurance, property rights, and more.

Pass ENDA It is inconceivable to Hillary that people who work
hard and do a good job every day can still be fired because of
who they are or who they love. Its unfair, its un-American, and
she will put a stop to it once and for all.

Pass federal hate crimes legislation Hillary believes that hate
crimes undermine the fundamental principle upon which our
nation was founded, namely that all men and women are equal.
She will strengthen law enforcement and prosecution against
discriminatory acts of violence against gays, lesbians, and
transgender individuals by signing the Matthew Shepard Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act into
law.

End Dont Ask Dont Tell Hillary knows that courage, honor,
patriotism and sacrifice the traits that define our men and
women in uniform have nothing to do with sexual
orientation. Shes concerned that the military is discharging
people with critical skills including desperately needed Arabic
language skills. Hillary believes that this is a matter
of national security and will fix it.
Hillarys Record

As First Lady and U.S. Senator, Hillary has championed numerous
proposals to improve the lives LGBT Americans. Hillarys
accomplishments on behalf of the LGBT community include:

Fought against Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) In 2004
and again, in 2006, Hillary worked to defeat the FMA. As Chair of
the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, she
met with leaders of the LGBT community to come up with a
smart strategy to stop FMA. Hillary wont stand for anyone trying
to write discrimination into the Constitution.

Supported ENDA Throughout her Senate career, Hillary has
been an original cosponsor of the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act, which would finally end employment
discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgender
individuals.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/coalitions/lgbtforhillary/watchpartie
s/lgbtrights.pdf

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fd0b09779a.htm

Hillary Clinton, while publicly opposing the exploitation of
women, (see quotations above), kept a close association with Ng
Lap Seng, a kingpin of the international slave prostitution trade.
Lap Seng also dabbles in heroin trafficking, arms smuggling and
murder-for-hire. His prostitution empire is known for abducting
very young women and girls from villages throughout Indochina.
Lap Seng visited the White House 12 times. Hillary Clinton posed
for photographs with him, and he often sat at the right hand of
the Clintons at White House dinners. Even though an
international criminal, Lap Seng received security clearance due
to his large financial contributions to the Democratic National
Committee.

Clinton Linked To 'International Trafficking of
Women'
By Charles Smith
October 26, 1999 World Net Daily
Despite White House denials, the Clinton administration has had major contacts
with Asian organized crime syndicates such as the Triads, and has befriended
kingpins of international prostitution operations. Unraveling the tangled web
involving Bill Clinton, Beijing and Asian organized crime starts with the
president's close, and self-described "old," friendship with Arkansas restaurant
owner Charlie Yah Lin Trie. Trie, who managed to donate hundreds of thousands
of dollars to Bill Clinton and the Democratic party, is alleged to be a member of
the "4 Seas" Triad, an organization of underworld lords based in Hong Kong.
lndeed, much of the money donated by Trie came directly following visits to the
White House by others linked to the Triads, including Macau millionaire Ng
Lapseng, whose main business is his Fortuna hotel and hostess service of
brothels.
"Ng LapSeng spent two days inside the residence at the White House with Bill
Clinton," stated Ed Timperlake, co-author of "Year of the Rat," the runaway best-
selling book on Bill Clinton's Chinese connections.
"Ng came in to visit with huge wads of cash in his pockets," said Timperlake
during an exclusive WorldNetDaily interview. "Not just an oval office coffee visit,
but inside the presidential living quarters. Ng Lapseng even obtained a clear
photograph of himself with President Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton,
standing in front of a DNC (Democratic National Committee) emblem during a
fundraiser. lt's in the book."
The brochure advertising Ng's Fortuna hotel boasts, "attractive and attentive
hostesses from China, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, lndonesia and
Burma together with erotic girls from Europe and Russia offer you an exciting
and unforgettable evening with friends or business associates."
Ng's cash links to Clinton are direct and deep. He entered the United States with
over $300,000 cash in his pockets, and subsequently visited the White House 12
times, according to Timperlake's book. ln addition, Ng wired Charlie Trie "from
$1.1 million to $1.5 million. ... Of this amount, at least $645,000 made its way
through Trie to the DNC as illegally laundered campaign contributions."
One of Ng's operations includes DNC fundraiser Ted Sioeng in a firm called Ang-
Du lnternational. Ang-Du, according to the Wall Street Journal, abducts Thai
women for Macau brothels. Sioeng, however, is best known for his photographic
appearance with Vice President Al Gore at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple.
Clinton's ties to international trafficking in women have even caused some
traditional supporters to oppose the administration. "The Clinton administration
and the World Bank helped Thailand organize and nationalize their prostitution
business," stated National Organization for Women Dulles (Virginia) Chapter
President Marie Jose Ragab. "lt is state-sponsored trafficking in women,
complete with passports, transportation and infrastructure."
"Last year in Thailand alone, trafficking 600,000 women and girls brought $5
billion into the country," Ragab wrote in the NOW Times back in 1992. "The
women and girls, the commodity, are invisible. There are millions of them with no
identity, no international laws to protect them, no one to reclaim them. Their
passports are confiscated by the traffickers upon arriving in countries they may
never have heard of. Sold or leased by catalogues, on videos, or 'sight unseen,'
they are 'parked' in centers to allegedly work as maids, telephone operators,
mothers' helpers. Eighty percent will be seriously physically abused."
"This is a form of slave trade," Ragab said recently. "lt is worse now because of
the Clintons. lt was typical for this administration" to meet with Ng Lapseng. "This
is one of the reasons why we endorsed Republicans this year."
The documented contacts between Triad gangsters and the White House also
include a "Presidential Business Development Mission," personally approved by
Bill Clinton.
According to U.S. Commerce Department materials, in September 1994,
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Loral Aerospace CEO Bernard Schwartz
were invited to sail on an evening paradise cruise from Hong Kong with a "who's
who" of Triad business families.
The official Commerce Department "guest list" for a Sept. 2, 1994 dinner on
board the "Pacific Princess" included several family-run businesses closely
associated with the Communists in Beijing and the Triad gangs such as
Raymond Kwok, C.H. Tung, Walter Kwok, Canning Fok, and Chinese billionaire
Li Ka-Shing. Who are these people?
Li Ka-Shing teamed with Robert Kwok and Henry Fok, according to a recent
biography titled "Li Ka-Shing," to form the China lnternational Trust lnvestment
Company (ClTlC), described in a 1997 Rand Corporation report as an
"investment concern under China's governmental State Council." The guest list
for the Pacific Princess included the Executive Director of ClTlC, Robert Adams.
The Fok family leader, Henry Fok, is reported to be a member of the 14K Triad.
According to Timperlake and co-author Bill Triplett, "Henry Fok first made his
name by running United Nations-embargoed goods to China during the Korean
War. His son was later convicted for trying to bring Chinese machine guns into
the United States."
The Kwok family, reportedly led by Robert Kwok, allegedly is involved in the
heroin smuggling business inside Burma. However, Peter Kwok served as a
consultant to the China Overseas Shipping Company (COSCO), and COSCO
Hong Kong Holdings, a company owned by Li Ka-Shing. ln 1989, Kwok helped
ClTlC and Li Ka-Shing raise $120 million to buy a Hughes-built communications
satellite for AsiaSat, a company part owned by the Chinese Army unit COSTlND
(the Commission on Science, Technology and lndustry for National Defense).
Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Ca., also knows the Kwok family well. Feinstein's
financial ties include her husband, Richard Blum, who is part owner of the far
east investment firm, Newbridge Capitol Corp. Blum's partner at Newbridge is
Peter Kwok.
ClTlC, the joint firm formed by Li Ka-Shing, Henry Fok, and Robert Kwok also
has a special status. "ClTlC", states the Rand report, "became identified with the
PLA as a result of the scandal surrounding Wang Jun and his visit to the White
House on 6 February 1996." ln February 1996, President Clinton met with
Chinese arms dealer Wang Jun after taking a donation from Arkansas DNC
donor Charlie Trie. The Rand Corp. noted that "Wang Jun is both director of
ClTlC and Chairman of Poly Group, the arms trading company of the General
Staff Department. Poly Technologies, Ltd., was founded in 1984, ostensibly as a
subsidiary of ClTlC, although it was later exposed to be the primary commercial
arm of the PLA General Staff Department's Equipment Sub-Department."
What does it all mean? "The leadership in Beijing openly states that there are
'good patriotic' Triads," stated Timperlake. "The merging of the Triads, financiers
like Li Ka-Shing, and the leadership in Beijing is a nasty law enforcement
problem. lt is almost state-sponsored gangsterism."
The Clintons Shrug at Sex Trafficking
By William J. Bennett and Charles W. Colson
January 10, 2000 - Wall Street Journal
Over the past few months the Clinton administration has lobbied for the United
Nations to adopt a protocol that would lend legitimacy to prostitution and hard-
core pornography.
This effort has been spearheaded by the President's lnteragency Council on
Women, a group whose honorary chairman is none other than Hillary Rodham
Clinton. Although the proposal has drawn opposition from across the political
spectrum, the administration is forging ahead with its plans. Whether it succeeds
in these morally indefensible ambitions will depend on a crucial U.N. vote
scheduled for later this month.
First some background. lt's been estimated that each year some two million
women and children world-wide are sent into lives of sexual bondage, usually as
prostitutes. "Over the last 10 years, the numbers of women and children that
have been trafficked have multiplied so that they are now on a par with estimates
of the numbers of Africans who were enslaved in the 16th and 17th centuries,"
according to Laura J. Lederer of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of
Government. What we are dealing with, then, is a huge number of human-rights
violations.
Yet in Vienna a week from today when the U.N. Convention on Transnational
Organized Crime votes on its protocol to combat international trafficking in
women and children White House representatives will take the first step toward
legitimizing the sexual-trafficking business. Negotiations on this Vienna Protocol
have been going on for the past year and a half. Since December, however, the
White House delegation has worked to narrow the definition of sexual trafficking,
in a way that would allow certain prostitution rings to flourish. lt has done so
despite the objections of a majority of the G-7 countries and other developing
nations, whose women are the principal victims of sex trafficking.
Existing U.N. Convention
To secure its goal, the Clinton administration must effectively repeal an existing
U.N. convention that strictly forbids prostitution and requires punishment of any
person who "procures, entices or leads away, for the purposes of prostitution ...
even with the consent of that person." The Clinton group also believes that
international actions against pornography rings should be restricted to
pornographers who work without the "consent" of the women they use, thereby
granting the international pornography "industry" the sort of legitimacy and legal
status it has long sought. Hillary Clinton has been quite active as the honorary
chairman of the President's lnteragency Council on Women, speaking out about
the evils of sexual trafficking. ln Reykjavik, lceland, in October, she said: "No
government and no citizen should rest until we stop this modern form of slavery,
protect its victims and prosecute those who are responsible." But as is so often
the case with the Clintons, what they do is at odds with what they say.
The White House position, should it prevail, would effectively ensure that
prostitution and pornography would be treated as legitimate career options for
women, as long as women "consent" to it and no force is involved. ln defining the
term sexual exploitation, the administration has supported using the phrase
forced prostitution rather than simply prostitution. ln this instance the adjective
forced makes all the difference. lf the administration's position is accepted, the
focus of attention would shift from the profiteers who traffic in women to the
supposed state of mind of the victimized women. lt would create loopholes long
sought by perpetrators, insulating them from criminal prosecution. "Practically
speaking, this [new definition] is a virtual bar to prosecution," says J. Robert
Flores, a former prosecutor with both the New York District Attorney and the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Even if it were practical to distinguish between consent and force in such cases,
the administration's position would still contradict common sense and decency.
Prostitution and pornography inevitably exploit women, whether they consent to it
or not. And it is not only conservatives who are opposed to the administration's
policies in this matter.
ln a stinging letter sent last week to Mr. Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Patricia lreland,
Eleanor Smeal and other feminist leaders wrote that "the definition of trafficking
advocated by the administration would not cover some of the most common
methods of sex trafficking which prey on and profit from the economic
desperation of women, girls, and their families by securing their 'consent' to sale
in prostitution." The letter goes on to explain why narrowing the definition of
sexual trafficking will hurt, not help, potential victims.
These objections have been echoed by women's groups from Bangladesh to
Ukraine, and by the European Women's Lobby, a human-rights coalition of more
than 2,800 dues-paying member organizations. They recognize what the Clinton
administration does not: There can be no meaningful "consent" to one's own
sexual exploitation particularly when one lives in poverty and desperate
circumstances.
The Clinton administration purports to be pro-woman. Nevertheless, in addition to
its effort to weaken the Vienna Protocol, the administration has steadfastly
opposed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This bipartisan legislation was
passed unanimously by the House lnternational Relations Committee, with the
support of a broad coalition of religious, human-rights and women's groups. The
legislation's definition of sex trafficking would include any "purchase, sale,
recruitment, harboring, transportation, transfer or receipt of a person for the
purpose of a commercial sex act."
End to U.S. Subsidies
Mrs. Clinton's Council on Women has opposed the bill because it allegedly
imposes "mandatory sanctions" on countries that do not prosecute the most
severe forms of trafficking. This is a double standard; the administration supports
sanctions against countries that do not adhere to other, far less important
standards of commercial conduct. And it is dishonest. The bill requires that the
president either end nonhumanitarian foreign aid to offending countries or
provide such assistance pursuant to a waiver. The only "sanction" is an end to
U.S. subsidies, and even this sanction is not mandatory.
What, then, needs to be done? First, the Clinton administration should see to it
that the Vienna delegation's position is reversed forthwith, well before the final
Jan. 17 vote. Second, Congress should uncover the reasons why the
administration has taken the current position. Third, the administration should
cease its opposition to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
The reasons for the Clinton administration's course of action are hard to fathom.
What is certain is that if it does not reverse its course, its actions in Vienna will be
counted as yet one more shameful act committed by this deeply corrupt
administration .
Mr. Bennett is co-director of Empower America. Mr. Colson is chairman of Prison
Fellowship Ministries

Jorge Cabrera with Hillary Clinton in front
of the White House Christmas Tree
:KRLV-RUJH&DEUHUD"

Jorge Cabrera, a drug smuggler who has emerged as one of the most notorious
supporters of President Clinton's re-election campaign, was asked for a campaign
contribution in the unlikely locale of a hotel in Havana by a prominent Democratic
fund-raiser, congressional investigators have learned.
On his return to the United States several days after that meeting, in November
1995, Cabrera wrote a check for $20,000 to the Democratic National Committee
from an account that included the proceeds from smuggling cocaine from
Colombia to the United States, said the investigators, who spoke on condition of
anonymity.
ln early January 1996, three weeks after having attended the Christmas
reception at the White House, Cabrera was arrested
and charged with importing 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States on
boats through the Florida Keys. Late last year, he pleaded guilty to those charges
and was sentenced to 19 years in federal prison and fined $1.5 million.

Drug Smuggler Made Clinton Donation in
Cuba, Investigators Say
By OCA 1AA AATTA Jr.
Aw 1rR Tms
AprI 4, J997
MlAMl -- Jorge Cabrera, a drug smuggler who has emerged as
one of the most notorious supporters of President Clinton's re-
election campaign, was asked for a campaign contribution in the
unlikely locale of a hotel in Havana by a prominent Democratic
fund-raiser, congressional investigators have learned. The
investigators said the fund-raiser, whom they identified as Vivian
Mannerud, a Cuban-American businesswoman from Miami, told
Cabrera at a meeting at the Copacabana Hotel in Havana that in
exchange for a contribution he would be invited to a fund-raising
dinner in honor of Vice President Al Gore in an exclusive enclave
near Miami.
Ms. Mannerud owns Airline Brokers Co., an airline charter
service that operates among Havana, the Bahamas and Mexico.
On his return to the United States several days after that
meeting, in November 1995, Cabrera wrote a check for $20,000
to the Democratic National Committee from an account that
included the proceeds from smuggling cocaine from Colombia to
the United States, said the investigators, who spoke on condition
of anonymity.
Within two weeks of the contribution, Cabrera met Gore at the
dinner in Miami. Ten days later, Cabrera attended a Christmas
reception at the White House hosted by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
At the events, Gore and Mrs. Clinton posed for photographs with
Cabrera, who has two felony convictions dating from the 1980s
and is now in a prison here on a drug-smuggling conviction.
ln an interview, Ms. Mannerud, who has spoken with the
investigators, said she could not recall soliciting a contribution
from Cabrera in Cuba, although she vaguely recalled meeting
him there. lt is unclear why Cabrera was approached in Cuba
and how much Ms. Mannerud or other Democratic fund-raisers
might have known about his criminal background.
The White House and the Democratic National Committee said
the party returned the $20,000 from Cabrera in October, after
deciding it was an improper donation. A spokeswoman for the
committee, Amy Weiss Tobe, made that point again in a recent
interview, adding, "Once we found out about Cabrera's past, we
immediately returned the money, and we feel we have put this
behind us."
Cabrera's contribution and smuggling conviction, which became
public knowledge three weeks before Election Day in November,
were one of the first examples of the questionable fund-raising
practices that have brought criticism to the Democratic Party. By
now, the case has come to symbolize the Democratic National
Committee's frenetic drive for campaign cash.
ln early January 1996, three weeks after having attended the
Christmas reception at the White House, Cabrera was arrested
and charged with importing 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the
United States on boats through the Florida Keys. Late last year,
he pleaded guilty to those charges and was sentenced to 19
years in federal prison and fined $1.5 million.
The new details about the location for the solicitation of
Cabrera's contribution and the source of the money have come
to light in congressional investigators' interviews here with
Cabrera. The investigators, who are looking into possible abuses
of campaign fund-raising, are trying to determine whether
Cabrera "laundered" drug money when making his $20,000 "soft
money" contribution to the campaign.
lnvestigators had originally acted on a tip that an associate of
Cabrera had delivered $20,000, in $100 bills, to Ms.Marud's
office. But in recent weeks investigators learned that that did not
occur. lnstead, bank records show that $11,900 in cash, from
drug proceeds, was deposited into Cabrera's checking account
on Nov. 21, 1995, several officials familiar with the investigation
said.
The cash was specifically deposited to help cover the $20,000
campaign check, which Cabrera wrote that same day, the
officials said.
At that time, Cabrera, whose family fishing business is one of the
largest suppliers of lobsters and stone crabs to restaurants in
southern Florida, was a frequent visitor to Cuba.
Several congressional investigators said Cabrera described the
solicitation and contribution in interviews with investigators at
the North Dade Detention Center in March.
Much of his account was backed up by his lawyer here, Stephen
J. Bronis, and several former associates of Cabrera. But Bronis
declined to say whether his client had used drug money as a
campaign contribution.
ln an interview, Ms. Mannerud said she could not recall whether
she had asked Cabrera to contribute while in Cuba, although she
said his $20,000 check was "dropped off" at her office in Miami
several days before the dinner for Gore. She said a friend had
asked Cabrera for the money, but she refused to identify him.
But, she added, the friend spoke with investigators several
weeks ago.
Ms. Mannerud said her associates had reminded her that she
briefly met Cabrera at the Copacabana in Miramar, an exclusive
area of mansions and embassies in Havana, in late November
1995.

"l went to breakfast one morning at the Copa, but l don't
remember him very well," she said. "After the papers were full of
this guy's name and picture, l asked people, 'Did l eat with this
guy?' And people said that l saw him for about five minutes and
that was it. l can't imagine sitting at a table in Havana soliciting
money for the Democratic Party. Who has time for that?"
Ms. Mannerud, who herself contributed $80,850 to the
Democrats, was described by officials as a "fairly prominent and
successful fund-raiser."
According to Bronis, Ms. Mannerud sought out Cabrera at the
Copa to make a strong fund-raising pitch for the dinner, to be
held in a few weeks in Miami, in honor of Gore. Ms. Mannerud
and Cabrera found that they had something in common -- they
had both met Fidel Castro.
Ms. Mannerud told Cabrera that she needed to raise a certain
amount of money to "elevate her level of influence in the
Democratic Party," because she was hoping the United States
would normalize relations with Cuba, Bronis said.
"She believed it was in the best interests of Cuban-Americans of
her generation if the United States normalized relations with
Cuba," Bronis said.
Ms. Mannerud adamantly denied making such statements,
saying of Cabrera, "He is nuts."
lndeed, she said, her only strong memory of Cabrera is at the
fund-raising dinner on Dec. 3, in Coral Gables, Fla., at the home
of Jerome Berlin, a lawyer who was indicted in 1990, and later
acquitted, of federal conspiracy charges of bribing public
officials.
Ms. Mannerud said she spoke with Cabrera for about 10 minutes
and recalled two distinct facts about their conversation. "One is
that he was concerned about the environment because he was a
fisherman and he said the quality of the fish was very bad," she
said. "The other thing l remember is l had to fix his tie. He said it
was the first time he had worn a suit and tie."
At that dinner, investigators believe, Cabrera also spoke briefly
with Marvin S. Rosen, finance chairman of the Democratic
National Committee. ln an interview, Rosen said he was
introduced to Cabrera by a fund-raiser, who investigators say
was Ms. Mannerud.
Rosen said the fund-raiser asked him to pass along Cabrera's
name to a staff member of the Democratic committee in the hope
of having Cabrera invited to a White House reception.
Ms. Mannerud said she had no idea that Cabrera had two felony
convictions. lt was only later that she wondered what he was
doing in Havana, she said.
Ms. Mannerud said that she had a special license from the
Treasury Department to be in Cuba and that she was perplexed
that Cabrera would say that she had solicited a contribution from
him in Cuba.
"Let's suppose l did meet him in Cuba and asked him for money,
so what?" she asked. "What is that going to get him?"
lnvestigators say they were particularly surprised to learn that
any solicitation of campaign contributions would occur in Cuba
because of longstanding United States policy toward that
country.
The United States first imposed a ban on trade and commerce
with Cuba in 1963, allowing extremely few exceptions. The
embargo was strengthened in 1992 to prohibit subsidiaries of
U.S. companies from doing business in Cuba, and it was
tightened again last year to, among other points, punish foreign
companies that use property that the government confiscated
after the revolution.
The embargo does not prohibit travel to Cuba, but rather the
spending of dollars there without a special license from the
Treasury Department. People with relatives in Cuba, journalists
and a few others are allowed to go to the island, but only with the
license.
Until last year, those people could fly on direct charter flights
from Miami. But after Cuban fighter pilots shot down two
unarmed civilian planes that belonged to a Cuban-American
organization, Brothers to the Rescue, in February 1996, Clinton
suspended the charter flights. The president recently renewed
that suspension for an additional year.
People who obtain special licenses may travel to Cuba, but they
have to travel through a third country. Ms. Mannerud's charter
service flies through the Bahamas and Mexico.
A Cuban-born American, Cabrera was arrested two times on
serious drug charges in the 1980s. Both times he pleaded guilty
to nondrug felony charges. ln 1983, he pleaded guilty to
obstruction of justice for conspiring to bribe a grand jury witness
and served 42 months in prison. ln 1988, he pleaded guilty to
filing a false income-tax return and served one year in prison.
After his brief brush with presidential politics, Cabrera was
arrested in January 1996 inside a cigar warehouse near here in
Dade County, where more than 500 pounds of cocaine had been
hidden. He and several accomplices were charged with having
smuggled 3,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States
through the Keys.
When he was arrested, agents found a picture of Cabrera with
Castro. Cabrera tried to obtain a lighter sentence by contending
that the Cuban Government was involved in his drug trafficking.
Bronis said prosecutors began an inquiry into those assertions,
but dropped the investigation. "lt was pure politics, and it stinks,"
Bronis said.
He asked Attorney General Janet Reno for a special prosecutor
to investigate the case. She rejected that request.
Congressional investigators are planning to highlight the Havana
solicitation and the source of Cabrera's contribution at hearings
into campaign financing.
ln January, Cabrera received an invitation to Clinton's
inauguration.

First Lady Photo-OP with Convicted
Cocaine Dealer Inside White House Secured
Perimeter!
E\6WDII-RXUQDOLVWV7KH'DLO\5HSXEOLFDQ1HZVSDSHU
WASHlNGTON DESK - The Justice Department released on
Wednesday photographs showing a convicted Miami cocaine
trafficker who is seen standing next to and posing with vice
president Al Gore. The two were attending a party in Florida last
December.
Apparently, Cabrera was asked to make a large donation to
the Clinton-Gore campaign in exchange for perks like hob-
nobbing with Al Gore and the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Jorge Cabrera's cash contributions to the Clinton-Gore
campaign were so generous, that Cabrera was also invited to the
White House and gained entrance there without any FBl &
Secret Service security clearance.
CNN reported Wednesday that Cabrera's attorney, Stephen
Bronis, said $20,000(given to the Clinton-Gore campaign) was
not intended to buy protection for drug smuggling.
'He had a lobster and stone crab fishery in the Keys and felt
that contribution might promote that future course,' Bronis said.
The Clinton-Gore campaign only returned the $20,000 last
week after the full story had reached ABC News, and the Clinton
administration had been asked for comment by the media.
Cabrera was arrested in January during a Miami drug bust of
nearly three tons of cocaine. Cabrera was arrested and pleaded
guilty to one drug count. He was also imprisoned in the 1980s on
narcotics charges.
A report that the picture of Cabrera and Gore had been
impounded by the Justice Department prompted an angry
reaction from Republicans, including Bob Dole's presidential
campaign, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Bob
Livingston of Louisiana, chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee.
Republicans sent letters to Attorney General Janet Reno and
the directors of the FBl and the Secret Service seeking
information about Cabrera and the campaign contribution.
Livingston asked the federal agencies for a complete
accounting of the facts relating to the story within three days:
whether Cabrera had dined at the White House, details of his
relationship with Clinton and Gore and, if he did dine with them,
how he passed FBl & Secret Service scrutiny to gain access to
them.
The U.S. attorney's office in Miami was contacted by
reporters. Justice said it would not provide photographs of
Cabrera and Gore in Florida and at the White House when
reporters requested them on Monday. The Justice Department
attempted to claim that Cabrera's story is covered by the Privacy
Act law in turning down the media request for information on the
arrest for cocaine possession of tons of the illegal drug and
dealing.
Janet Reno put out information that the photo of Cabrera with
Gore and Clinton could not be released without the consent of
Cabrera. Later, the Justice Department did release the
photographs after Cabrera submitted written authorization.
The delay by the Justice Department appeared to be an effort
to distance itself from accusations that are mounting from the
American public that the Justice Department is receiving
guidance from the Clinton White House and the vice president's
office on the timing of Janet Reno's investigation.
Justice says it is looking into the breach of National Security
by Cabrera's ready access to secured areas of the White House
and its grounds when he entered as an invited quest of president
Clinton for dinner and photo-ops.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fd0b09779a.htm
"l am proud that my husband has stood up as President to confront the violence
and to protect American women . it is only when men - from the level of men of
the barrio to the level of men of the presidential palaces - join hands with us to
stand against violence against women that we will know our societies have truly
been transformed" HIIary CInIn I In /nIr-Amrcan OvIpmnI BanR,
CcIr 2U, J997
"We are working to stop trafficking of women and girls in this region and around
the world. No government and no citizen can rest until we stop this modern form of
slavery, protect its victims and prosecute those who are responsible."
HIIary CInIn, aI a cn/rnc n wmn an mcracy n RyR]avR,
/cIan.

"Slick's DemocRATS"
(To be sung to Bruce Springteen's "Pink Cadillac")
Left may think we're foolish...
Fer the righteous things we do.
Slick, you wonder why we loathe you...
Why you insult our values like you do.
Slick Willie, you are a SCUMBAG...
There ain't no secret 'bout that!!
So, come on over here and LlSTEN...
Willie, l'll spill the facts!
Slick Willie, it ain't yer Country...
Next month'll be proof of that!!
We loathe you fer yer Waco Attack...
Nukes to Chinese...
Rapin' Broaddrick...
Uzi'in' down the FRee...
Skankin' on young girls...
Bullyin' the Right...
Spendin' all our money on yer overseas flights!!
Willie, l just wonder...
Why Lib'rals still cut you slack...
With yer knife in their backs...
Slick's DemocRATS!!!!
Bill Clinton desecrates his Bible...
Bombs Nations justa show he's "strong"!!
There's always another temptress...
Prez'dent really oughtta know doin' interns is WRONG!!
Chi-Coms bought you, Bill, with Silver...
Slick, you sold our NUKES fer Gold!!
Tyrants BRlBE Ol' Slick with treasures...
National Security's been SOLD!!
Lewinsky tempted Clinton with her strap thong...
Slick said, "Lemme snort a li'l crack!!"
Just another of Slick's DemocRATS!!
Must RE-lMPEACH...
Senate SHALL CONVlCT!!
Then, lNDlCT the Creep!!
Prison's Slick's New World...
Prison's only right...
Savin' all his lovin' fer a cellmate named Dwight!!
Willie, l just wonder if you'll sleep well in yer rack...
Or will YOU simply crack?!
Now some folks say l'm too BOLD...
l should "show more class."
Some folks say l'm too cold...
Well, Left can kiss my a$$!!
This Country is bigger than Bill Clinton...
lt's bigger than the Med'yuh, too!!
Clinton, there's only one thing...
That l must say to you...
"Slick Willie...Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!"
FReepers, we must go on the attack...
And kick the butts of Ol' Slick's DemocRATS!!
Slick's DemocRATS...Slick's DemocRATS...Slick's DemocRATS...
(Fade to finish...)
Never let the Left live down the Rapist-in-Chief...MUD

SUNSTAR INTRODUCTION

How does our visual voyeurism run into politics and
religion? Well, obviously, all of these beautiful women
photographed in our pornographic photos and videos have to go
somewhere. Women who are used to indulging in pornographic
behavior with other women, usually want to continue those
feelings they experienced when they were releasing their
biological tensions with pleasurable experiences.
I suppose that part of the reason I dont like DEMOCRATS or
the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION has to do with this
very issue of supporting and being supported by the GAY AND
LESBIAN community.
Another reason is my Aunt Jan and Uncle Joel who are New
Age democrats that expressed hatred of my grandmothers
Savior Jesus and betrayed my parents for their worship of the
buck. I knew when I was younger that I wanted nothing to do
with my Aunt and Uncles philosophies about money or life, for
although they became successful at making money, something I
was never jealous or envious of, they ran away from their mother
and sister with FEAR because to truly take care of their mother
and sister would have required them to give up EVERYTHING.
They couldnt even give up a vacation for the love of their
mother and sister. Sure, after not seeing my cousin for over ten
years, I might applaud the fact he got married and had a baby
and might be a successful stock broker, but our relationship as
cousins was completely ruined by my mothers evil sister and any
closeness we might have shared for the past decade is time lost,
and I have the DEMOCRATIC party actually to thank for that.
But, why should I blame democrats for how wicked and stupid
my mothers sister turned out to be? It was Jans own free
choice that she chose to become a psychotic bitch that my
grandmother and grandfather were disappointed in during their
last days of a miserable life on earth.
Despite all that MONEY and CAREER pursuits she, and the
rest of the family couldnt earn the one thing they wanted the
most RESPECT from their parents. During their last days, both
of my grandparents experienced and saw for themselves how
MONEY had turned their sons and daughters into monsters and
Ill never forget the verbal condemnation they expressed of their
sons and daughters or the look of disappointment on their faces
when it came time for each one of them to SACRIFICE
EVERYTHING for the love of Jesus. Like the rich man who was
called by Jesus to give up everything to have treasure in Heaven,
they all walked away, one by one, away from my grandmother
and mother.
After many years of indulging in pornography, which my
uncles encouraged my cousins to look at as teens, they finally
got married, had babies, and have college and careers behind
them and these same relatives who betrayed my grandmother
and my parents are obviously VERY PROUD of everything they
accomplished to arrive at this point. To BE HONEST, although I
am happy that my cousins have found happiness, I just kind of
have to laugh after my sadness over time lost has subsided
LAUGHTER over the fact that they each have 20 years of hell to
go through! MONEY will be their primary focus and pursuit and
theyll have to RECYCLE the whole SAVE UP FOR COLLEGE
routine and the ignorance will just grow worse.
I demonstrate an attitude of contempt for my aunts, uncles,
and cousins, because of the attitude of dis-respect they showed
my grandmother and parents during their last days.
The family was too busy making money to care about my
grandmother or my parents or me.
I can honestly profess that COMMUNISTIC DEMOCRATIC
CAPITALISM murdered my aunts, uncles, and cousins
SPIRITUALLY and pitted them against us. LOVE OF MONEY
triumphed over love for a grandmother and love for my mother
and father. Sure, they made SACRIFICES for the LOVE OF
MONEY but never truly made SACRIFICES for Jesus Christ.
MONEY was their god and whenever I see Hillary Clinton, I
see the evil, ugly, angry face of my aunt Jan whose expressions
of hatred towards Bushs God and the Bush family parallels the
hatred my aunts and uncles demonstrated towards my
grandmothers God and the Sunstar family.
You might wonder why I would be so dumb as to VOTE FOR
REPUBLICANS who seemingly only create policies for the same
kinds of WEALTHY people who betrayed my parents and
grandmother?
Well, whenever I have met Republicans, they show class
and dignity and have a great value system (when obedient to the
Biblical principles). Whenever I have met democrats, I am just
disgusted and walk away with negative feelings.
Why?
At least Republicans, during their time of wealth,
acknowledge Jesus as being Lord, whereas democrats follow the
New Age, New World order which accepts contributions from the
gay, lesbian and porn community.
I remember hearing my Aunt Jan and Uncle Joel talk about
MONEY, and NEW AGE thought, and comparing those beliefs with
what my grandmother believed in and truly THERE WAS NO
COMPARISON. My grandmothers God won my soul, whereas my
Aunt Jan and Uncle Joels god lost mine.
There would be nothing in this world or in this life worth
holding onto, except Jesus Christ, the ONE TRUE GOD whom my
grandmother and mother both worshipped faithfully.
I was always against CAPITALISM since I was a teenager
and knew CAPITALISM WAS WRONG. This is one reason why I
never bought into what my aunts and uncles bought into for
themselves.
I understood the MOTIVE and REASONING for WHY
capitalism existed OIL and PETROLEUM which kept the slavery
of manufacturing and distribution corporate centers open, so I
could drive a car TO WORK and come back to an apartment
where my grandmothers money would faithfully go into her sons
pocket to pay rent for land and property that would never be
HERS!
I would return to land and property that wasnt MINE. I
would return to sick parents who couldnt get the hospital care
they needed; I wouldnt be able to afford college or university
education and NEVER BOUGHT WHAT THEY SOLD me that going
tens of thousands of dollars into debt was a solution to be
become SOMEBODY.
Although I support the WAR IN IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN
against Islamic fundamentalism to protect the nation of Israel
and keeping my parents alive, I still do not like or agree with
many CAPITALIST POLICIES which are belligerent to the kind of
freedom Earths Creator meant us to enjoy.
Just because millions of democrats are willing to be slaves
to the earth, doesnt make their ideas right EITHER.
So why am I choosing to be so set against Hillary Clinton
becoming president in 2008?
Well, its not just because her face reminds me of Aunt
Jans evil face, but it is the whole mindset that Hillary Clinton
holds that I reject and renounce. She is a sick, twisted, doped up
psychopath, just like Nancy Pelosi and I really dont APPROVE of
her becoming the first female President of the United States.
I am not interested in a man-hating, man-eating, lesbian
friendly woe unto man becoming President and with HILLARY
comes Bill and with Bill Clinton returns REPETITION of the 1990s.
NO THANK YOU!

Barney Frank: Clinton "Best Equipped" to Advance Gay Rights
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071114/cm_thenation/15251576
November 14, 2007

-- Both openly-gay members of Congress have now endorsed Hillary Clinton for
the Democratic presidential nomination.
The New York senator secured the support of Tammy Baldwin, the Wisconsin
congresswoman who is the only out lesbian in the House, months ago. And this
week Clinton gained the enthusiastic endorsement of House Financial Services
Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the only out gay man currently serving in the
chamber.
Frank specifically hailed Clinton's support for gay and lesbian rights in
announcing his decision to back the woman who current leads in national polling
on the Democratic race and who is the front-runner in most early caucus and
primary states.
The Massachusetts Democrat said that he is "convinced that Hillary Clinton is the
candidate best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity,
fairness and equality no matter who they are or who they love."
That comment came as part of a particularly warm embrace of Clinton by Frank,
who has traditionally been one of the party's most determined and effective
campaigners among liberals in Massachusetts and other states.
"I have from the beginning of this campaign believed that Hillary Clinton was the
candidate best qualified to serve as president," the congressman explained. "I
am convinced that once elected, the qualities she will bring to the job --
commitment, intellect and political skills -- will make her an extremely effective
leader in our effort to reverse the badly flawed course on which George Bush and
past Republican Congresses have set this country."
Frank's sister, veteran Democratic party leader Ann Lewis, is a senior adviser to
the Clinton campaign. He has been a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
When Baldwin endorsed Clinton last summer, she cited her longstanding
friendship with the senator as well as a shared commitment to health care
reform. In addition, the Wisconsinite described Clinton as "strong and vocal" in
her support of ending employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Baldwin acknowledged at the time, however, that she and Clinton do not see eye
to eye on the issue of same-sex marriage. The New York senator supports
domestic partnership initiatives and civil unions, but has opposed moves that
allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
"It's not my position," Baldwin said of Clinton's stance. "I support full marriage
equality. We will voice encouragement for (Clinton) to be open to changing her
opinion."
Clinton's chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Senator Barack
Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, share the front-
runners opposition to same-sex marriage.
In contrast, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a longtime colleague of Frank
and Baldwin in the House who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nod,
has been an outspoken backer of marriage equality for many years. Says
Kucinich, "This is really a question of whether you really believe in equality.
When you understand what real equality is, you understand that people who love
each other must have the opportunity to be able to express that in a way that's
meaningful."

Baldwin touts non-discrimination act
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, appeared Sunday on the C-SPAN
program "Newsmakers," touting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007,
which passed Wednesday in the House of Representatives. The bill prohibits
employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Baldwin offered, then withdrew, an amendment to the bill to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
C-SPAN's Peter Slen reminded Baldwin that the bill is not veto proof and that it
needs 280 votes to keep from being vetoed by the president. The Senate has not
yet brought up the bill. He asked her if the measure had a future.
"There absolutely is a future," Baldwin said. "We know with all civil rights
movements, that they aren't things that happen overnight. But you build a
foundation."
She said she does expect a counterpart Employment Non-Discrimination Act to
be introduced in the Senate in this session of Congress and said that she hopes
there will be discussion in the Senate.
"The White House has suggested a veto threat so it's something we are not likely
to see signed into law during the 110th Congress. But it's an important first step,
a milestone in a long journey," she said.
Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts was the measure's chief sponsor, and
Baldwin, along with fellow Democrats Steny Hoyer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi
were additional sponsors. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act is the latest
version of a bill that two former Democratic representatives from New York,
Edward Koch and Bella Abzug, first introduced in 1974.
Baldwin, who was pictured with Frank Thursday's New York Times in a story
about the bill's passage, said that there are complex issues at stake and that final
passage will take time.
"We would love to see civil rights expanded in one fell swoop in a very short
period of time," she said, adding that speed has not been a hallmark in the
history of civil rights movements.
"They've taken time, they have been complex undertakings. They involve
education and enhancing understanding in the American public and among
members of Congress. This will take time but I think ultimately we will be able to
pass, and have signed into law, an inclusive bill."
Baldwin noted that 35 Republicans voted for the bill. It shouldn't be a partisan
issue, she said.
Pelosi has cited statistics that 89 percent of the American public supports equal
treatment for gays and lesbians and that 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies
have nondiscrimination acts in their corporate charters, Slen noted.
"Why do you think that 159 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted against
something supported by the American people?" C-SPAN's Slen asked Baldwin.
Baldwin said that historically Congress has followed rather than led. Corporate
America, municipalities and the states have been much bolder, she said.
"I would love to say that great ideas, especially on civil rights issues, originate
under the Capitol dome. But frankly that's not been our history in this country,"
she said. "The civil rights movements have started at the very grass roots level
as people have been discriminated against and have given voice to that and
organized movements."
http://www.madison.com/tct/news//index.php?ntid=256413

HlLLARY'S GAY PARTNERSHlP
Human Events ^ | March 6, 2007 | Amanda B. Carpenter

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) casts herself as a moderate on gay marriage before
mainstream audiences, but in a Saturday address to a pro-gay lobby group she
promised that if elected President in 2008 she would secure a range of gay rights
victories, including adoption for same-sex couples.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and
trangender civil rights organization, hosted the event and posted a video of
Hillary's address online although Clinton's staff kept the stop off her public
schedule.
ln the past, Hillary has dodged explaining her position on gay marriage. ln June
2006 she voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but enacted
a personal policy of "don't tell" in talking about her vote.
ln her speech, she called the Federal Marriage Amendment that failed the
Senate last year to strictly define marriage as an act between a man and a
woman "wedge politics at its worst.
"lt [FMA] was mean-spirited, she told activists. "lt was against the entire forward
movement of American history.
Hillary vowed to promote what many consider to be the most radical component
of the gay agenda: adoption rights for same-sex couples.
"l have long supported civil unions," she said. "We're going to make sure that
nothing stands in the way of loving couples, gay or straight, to adopt children.
She also said she would work to secure employer benefits for same-sex couples.
"We're going to reach out and work with our allies in Congress both to change
laws and change hearts, she said. "We want to make sure that all Americans in
committed relationships have equal benefits from health insurance and life
insurance and Social Security and property rights and more."
"These are fundamental rights," she emphasized.
She said this would come through passage of the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act that would "criminalize discrimination in employment on the
basis of sexual orientation.
"lt is inconceivable to me that in the year 2007 people can still be fired because
of who they love. lt is unfair, it is un-American and we are going to put a stop to it
once and for all.
She also called for an end to the military's "failed policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell
that was created by her husband President Bill Clinton.
"This policy just doesn't hurt gays and lesbians. lt hurts all of our troops and this,
to me, is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it because we know
our nation is stronger when our nation's men and women are permitted to serve if
that is the choice they want to make.
Finally, Hillary pledged to expand federal hate crime legislation. She said, "Hate
crimes are an affront to the core values that bind us to one another and we
should marshal our best resources to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the
law.
Twice in her address, Hillary noted that she shared the same initials as the
Human Rights Campaign.
"Did you ever notice that? she joked. At the end of her speech she said coyly,
"We can accomplish these goals because we have the same determination, the
same can-do attitude and the same initials."
While introducing the senator, HRC President Joe Solmonese mentioned at least
three strategy meetings in which Clinton had convened with the Human Rights
Campaign on Capitol Hill to defeat FMA.
He said that he and Hillary had a "storied past that began when he was working
with Emily's List, the pro-abortion group that raises money for Democrat
candidates.
"lt was Senator Clinton who first summoned me to the Hill to talk about our
strategy for defeating the federal marriage amendment, he said.
He said she asked him: "How are we going to make sure the messaging is
united, the Senate is united, the community is united and we are going to kill it
[the federal marriage amendment] dead?
"She brought us the Senate to brief people on how to get this done, Solmonese
recalled. "She convened the meeting and she made sure everyone was in line.
Hillary thanked Solmonese for remembering these meetings and assured
listeners, "l want you to know this is exactly the kind of partnership we will have
when l am President."
Hillary moderates her position on gay marriage in front of conservative audiences
by saying that she is "personally opposed to gay marriage and speaking of her
support for the Defense of Marriage Act that her husband signed in 1996.
DOMA mandated that no state need recognize a same-sex marriage formed in
another state and that the federal government need not recognize same-sex
marriage for any purpose.
This isn't the first time Hillary has met with gay rights groups underneath the
radar of the national media. While campaigning through midterm elections,
Hillary secretly met with a coalition group of New York-based Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender leaders and said she believes in "full-benefits, nothing
left out" for same-sex couples.
The only media to cover the event was the New York-based Gay City News.
At that meeting activists told the media that Hillary said that she publicly
supported DOMA as a "strategic decision to put off passage of a constitutional
amendment, like FMA, to ban gay marriage outright.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1796031/posts

Six Democrats at Candidate Forum Wear Shades of Gray on Gay
Marriage
August 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/08/10/cq_3261.html
Six of the candidates seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential
nomination participated Thursday in a two-hour forum in Los
Angeles devoted to issues of concern to gays and lesbians. The event
moderated by journalist Margaret Carlson and sponsored by the
Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights activist group was broadcast
live by co-sponsor Logo, a lifestyle cable channel aimed at gay and
lesbian viewers.
Taking questions separately in a talk-show-like setting were front-
running candidates New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Illinois
Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
Also participating were New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Ohio Rep.
Dennis J. Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.
CQ Newsmaker Transcripts: Candidates Participate in Forum
Sponsored by Human Rights Campaign
Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd and Delaware Sen. Joseph R.
Biden Jr., did not attend, citing scheduling conflicts. Logo offered to
hold a second forum for Republican candidates, but the leading
candidates for the partys nomination declined to participate, Carlson
said.
Unlike several candidate debates held earlier this year, the Democrats
never appeared on stage together, but took questions at 15-minute
intervals from Carlson and a panel made up of Human Rights
Campaign President Joe Solmonese, singer Melissa Etheridge and
Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart. Candidates
were questioned in the order in which they agreed to commit to the
forum, with chief rivals Obama and Clinton book-ending the
discussion as first and last, respectively.
The questions covered a mix of topics, including same-sex marriage,
AIDS funding and employment rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender couples.

The following is a roundup of some of the forums key moments:

Most Discussed Issue: Debate about same-sex marriage
dominated the forum. With only two candidates, Kucinich and
Gravel, supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples most of
the scrutiny went to Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Clinton: All of
them proclaimed their support for civil unions that provide many
partnership rights to same-sex couples but do not constitute marriage
under the law.
The country isnt there yet, said Richardson of his opposition to gay
marriage. Civil unions with full marriage rights is achievable.
Clinton described her opposition as a personal position, adding that
marriage laws should be determined by state legislatures.
Obama, who served in the Illinois Senate for eight years prior to his
2004 election to the U.S. Senate, would not say if he would have
voted for a bill to legalize gay marriage. It depends on how the bill
wouldve come up, he said.
In one of the most direct moments of the night, Edwards backtracked
on recent comments that his personal faith influenced his opposition
to gay marriage.
I shouldnt have said that, Edwards said, adding, My position on
same-sex marriage has not changed. I believe strongly in civil
unions.
The discussion also focused heavily on the Defense of Marriage Act,
or DOMA, a 1996 statute that was crafted by a Republican-controlled
Congress and signed by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, who is
married to Hillary Clinton. The law prohibits the federal government
from recognizing same-sex marriage.
Edwards went the farthest in calling for an outright repeal of the law.
We desperately need to get rid of DOMA, Edwards said. Edwards
has said he would not have voted for the bill if he had been in the
Senate in 1996.
Richardson was a member of the U.S. House in 1996 and did vote for
the DOMA bill. But he said he backed it as part of an effort to block
conservatives from pushing through a more stringent measure, a
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Richardson
described DOMA as a cheap political way to decimate a bad
initiative.
Clinton, whose husband was heavily criticized by gay rights groups for
signing the law, gave a more defensive response, saying it helped
Democratic candidates in 2004 deflect Republican efforts to brand
them as pro-gay marriage.
DOMA provided great protection against the Republican strategy to
cynically use marriage as a political tool, she said. But she expressed
support for repealing the section of the law that defines marriage as
only between a man and a woman, leaving in place only the section
that gives states jurisdiction over marriage laws.
Most Uncomfortable Moment: Capehart grilled Richardson for
using the Spanish word for the anti-gay epithet faggot on the Don
Imus radio show in March 2006, then Etheridge asked Richardson
pointedly if he believes being gay is a personal choice or an inherent
biological trait.
Richardson voiced the most conservative view among the candidates.
It is a choice, he said quickly, looking down. Etheridge repeated her
question in a friendly tone, wondering aloud if Richardson did not
understand her the first time.

Im not a scientist, he answered. I dont see this as an issue of
science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people...I dont like to
answer definitions like that that are grounded in science or something
else that I dont understand.

Most Impassioned Moment: Kucinich, one of the most vocal
supporters of gay rights among the candidates, won high praise from
the panel for his support of full marriage rights for homosexuals.
Carlson joked that Kucinich is so evolved for a member of Congress
and asked how he got that way.
Kucinich said that, as mayor of Cleveland, he was attacked for hiring
a police chief who was sympathetic to gay rights.
To me, who cares? It really doesnt matter, he said, over cheers from
the crowd. Every one of us taking a stand has the potential to help
any one of us evolve. Thats the gift we give to each other.
Most Nuanced Response: For the candidates who dont fully
support legalizing same-sex marriage, the challenge at the forum was
to explain their positions on issues in a way that made them palatable
to the gay constituency, while not alienating the majority of voters
who are not gay.
All the candidates endorsed repealing the dont ask, dont tell ban on
gays in the military, but Clinton had a little more to prove. She was
first lady when the law was signed by President Clinton in 1993, and
said she only came out against the policy in 1999.
Clinton said that at the time the law was enacted, Dont ask, dont
tell was meant to be a defensive bill designed to prevent more
restrictive measures that moderates as well as conservatives might
have been tempted to endorse.
Best Line: Back then, mainstream media marginalized me. Oh, I
was a maverick. Oh, I was Kooky Gravel. Well, I tell you what, all you
gotta do is live long enough that they look back and say, My God, was
he a courageous leader. Gravel, who was initially not invited to
the debate, playfully acknowledging his role as an outsider candidate
in the race.
Top Point of Agreement: All the candidates agreed that federal
marriage benefits should be extended to all couples, regardless of
sexuality. The disagreements only b egan when candidates were asked
what they would call such a union and why. While candidates who
supported anything less than full marriage rights didnt impress the
moderators, they all agreed that homosexuals should be guaranteed
equality under the law.
2006 Congressional Quarterly
Hillary Clinton Faults Policy Of 'Don't Ask'
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EED71631F93AA35751C1A
96F958260
December 9, 1999

Hillary Rodham Clinton told a group of gay contributors this week
that the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy, intended to make it easier for
gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, had been a failure, her
aides said yesterday. Mrs. Clinton, a candidate for the United States
Senate, said that if elected she would work to overturn the policy, one
of the first put in place under President Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton, speaking at a fund-raiser in SoHo on Tuesday night,
said that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in
the military, according to participants. Acknowledging that it was
politically unrealistic to expect Congress to approve such legislation
now, she said the Pentagon should take steps to reduce the instances
of gays' being discharged from the military.
Mrs. Clinton's remarks, made at a private appearance organized by
gay supporters that raised about $100,000 for her campaign, were
related by people who attended and were confirmed by her office in a
written statement yesterday evening.
''Gays and lesbians already serve with distinction in our nation's
armed forces and should not face discrimination,'' Mrs. Clinton said
in the statement. ''Fitness to serve should be based on an individual's
conduct, not their sexual orientation.''
The statement puts Mrs. Clinton, once again, at odds with a policy
implemented by her husband's administration that her aides think
could cause her problems as a candidate in New York. But it puts her
in line with the views of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, her likely
Republican opponent. His aides say he also supports allowing gays to
serve in the military and has been critical of the ''don't ask, don't tell''
policy.
Mrs. Clinton's comments were the first time she had publicly
discussed her views about one of the more difficult episodes of Mr.
Clinton's first term in office, according to an organizer of the fund-
raiser, Jeff Soref, a co-chairman of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a
gay advocacy group.
The fight over Mr. Clinton's effort to end the military's longstanding
ban against openly gay personnel dominated his first months in
office. When he issued an executive order ending the ban, questions
about the new president's competence and ideology were raised
among both supporters and opponents of the ban.
Mr. Clinton eventually abandoned the executive order, instead
agreeing to legislation that permitted gay men and lesbians to serve in
the military providing they did not disclose or act upon their
sexuality, and prohibiting the military from initiating unfounded
inquiries about homosexuality. That approach angered many of the
people Mr. Clinton had set out to please in the first place.
Mrs. Clinton, responding to a question posed at the fund-raiser, held
at the studio of the artist Ross Bleckner, voiced her displeasure with
the policy in unequivocal terms, according to participants. There were
murmurs of approval and soft applause as she described ''don't ask,
don't tell'' as a failure, taking note of the fact that there has been an
increase in the number of gays expelled from the military since the
policy was put in force. Gay groups say that since the policy was put
into effect, the number of such discharges had doubled, to 312 last
year.
''I think, quite frankly, she expressed a view that is an emerging
consensus among people who are following this closely,'' said Richard
Socarides, the former White House liaison on gay issues, who
attended the fund-raiser. Mr. Socarides said she stated her views
''directly and forcefully,'' adding: ''I suspect that if you asked the
president directly, he would say that this is an area that requires a lot
of work also.''
The fact that both Mayor Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton have embraced
the same position on an issue that so deeply split Congress in 1993 --
and caused major political problems for the Democratic White House
-- reflects the extent to which both Mr. Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton view
gay men and lesbians in New York as a source of votes and
contributions. Indeed, Alfonse M. D'Amato, the Republican who was
unseated by Charles E. Schumer in last year's election for Senate, also
called for lifting the military ban on gays.
Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani have already gone to some lengths
to court support from gay voters, and Mrs. Clinton's advisers said
they were concerned that Mr. Giuliani might do well among a group
of voters that has historically been viewed as a reliable part of the
Democratic base.
Mr. Soref pointed to Election Day polls in 1997 that showed that Mr.
Giuliani had won about 40 percent of the gay vote against his
Democratic opponent, Ruth W. Messinger. ''There is a perception that
he has been an effective mayor,'' Mr. Soref said of gay voters.
''I think in this election, people are eager to hear from Hillary,'' Mr.
Soref said. ''I think she is a popular figure in the lesbian and gay
community, and people have not heard from her before and where
she stands on these issues.''
At the fund-raiser, Mrs. Clinton also voiced support for domestic-
partnership measures that would allow gay partners to receive the
same health and other financial benefits as married couples. At that,
her position is similar to the one taken by Mr. Giuliani, who
supported a domestic partnership law in 1997 that Mr. Soref
described as sweeping. The mayor frequently remarks that he, rather
than any of his Democratic predecessors, signed the city's first
domestic partnership law.
Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said that the first lady,
like her husband, supported legislation passed by Congress in 1996
that effectively banned gay marriages. Mr. Soref said that in Mrs.
Clinton's speech, ''She never used the phrase marriage, but she said
same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions
should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other
American gets.''
In a more typical election in New York, a Democratic candidate
coming out for an end to the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy would be
something short of remarkable. In this instance, though, it again
demonstrates the ways Mrs. Clinton has had to distance herself from
certain aspects of her husband's record to extend her political appeal
in New York.
She parted from Mr. Clinton when he sought to grant pardons to
members of a Puerto Rican separatist terrorist group, and when she
announced her support for establishing Jerusalem as the permanent
capital of Israel.
This instance is not quite so clear-cut. Mr. Clinton, while
campaigning before groups of gay men and lesbians in 1992, pledged
to sign an executive order lifting the ban, the same position now
supported by his wife.
Faced with fierce opposition in Congress, Mr. Clinton backed off his
executive order, and instead agreed to the ''don't ask, don't tell''
compromise. But under the compromise policy, the number of people
who were expelled from the military for being homosexual increased,
and last summer the Pentagon announced revisions in the policy
intended to make it harder for commanders to conduct what critics
have described as unjustified investigations of military personnel they
suspected of being gay.
Among the provisions was one requiring commanders to seek
approval from senior civilian officials before starting certain
investigations. Mrs. Clinton praised those efforts on Tuesday night,
and said she would support further regulations intended to make sure
that ''gays and lesbians can serve without harassment.''
Correction: December 10, 1999, Friday Because of an editing error,
the article about Mrs. Clinton's criticism of the policy also misstated
its legal basis. President Clinton agreed to legislation allowing
homosexuals to serve; he did not issue an executive order.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EED71631F93AA35751C1A
96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

ELECTION 2008
Hillary takes cash from terror suspects
Muslim donors targets of federal investigation
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTlCLE_lD=58449

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has taken
thousands of dollars in cash donations from Islamists under
federal investigation for terror-financing, money laundering and
tax fraud, WND has learned.
The Democrat senator over the past seven months has received
$1,000 from M. Yaqub Mirza and another $500 from M. Omar
Ashraf, federal campaign records show. Federal agents raided
the Virginia homes and offices of the Muslim donors after 9/11 for
ties to terrorism.
Others tied to the still-active probe also have contributed money
to Clinton, including one Muslim man who after 9/11 complained
the U.S. government should focus on changing its Mideast
policies instead of killing Osama bin Laden and other Islamic
terrorists.
Mirza, who also has given to other candidates, including
Republicans, is said to act on behalf of Saudi millionaire Yassin
al-Qadi, who the U.S. Treasury Department in October 2001
blacklisted as an al-Qaida financier.
More recently, Wachovia Bank closed the accounts of a shadowy
Muslim charity supported by Mirza after an entity controlled by
the Pakistani immigrant donated $150,000 to the charitable front,
known as FAITH. The bank in 2005 cited suspicious activity in its
accounts related to possible money laundering.
Mirza and Ashraf, who have not been charged with a crime in the
ongoing probe, control with several other Islamists some 40
Muslim businesses, charities and think tanks known collectively
by law enforcement as the Saudi-backed "Safa group." Their
offices are located primarily at 555 Grove St. in Herndon, Va., a
suburb of Washington. The Muslim World League, a Saudi-based
charity linked to al-Qaida, originally set up its U.S. branch at that
address with the help of Mirza.
Mirza in March contributed $1,000 to Clinton, listing his
occupation as an officer of the SAAR Foundation. The Saudi-
backed entity is listed on the federal affidavit for a search
warrant in the original counterterror raid.
Mirza also gave $2,300 to former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore
before the Republican left the race for president in July.
However, Clinton is the only active presidential candidate who
has received funds from Safa suspects in this election cycle.
Ashraf in August gave $500 to Clinton's campaign, listing his
occupation as vice president of Sterling Management Group,
another entity listed on the affidavit. His Herndon home also was
raided.
In addition, Federal Election Commission records reveal a June
payment of $500 to Clinton from Omar Barzinji, who works for a
telecommunications firm as well as Amana Limited, a Herndon-
based publisher of pro-jihad materials. Its offices, too, were
raided after 9/11.
In September 2001, as rescuers were still pulling bodies from the
wreckage at Ground Zero, Barzinji chided President Bush for
failing to spend more time addressing why the attacks occurred
and figuring out what had angered the Muslim hijackers.
It's fine and dandy to go out and get the people who did this,"
Barzinji told the Washington Post. "You can go out and kill all the
bin Ladens. But it won't change anything unless we change our
policies in the Middle East."
Barzinji is related to Jamal M. Barzinji, whose Herndon home
authorities also searched in their counterterror probe. The
federal court affidavit alleges Jamal Barzinji "is not only closely
associated with PIJ (Palestinian Islamic Jihad), but also with
Hamas" two known terrorist groups outlawed by the U.S.
According to a Sept. 11, 2004, Washington Post article, Jamal
Barzinji joined his associates with the Muslim Students
Association in 1971 in hosting the top leaders of the Egyptian
Brotherhood for two weeks of meetings in Indiana. The
Brotherhood leaders had just been released from 16 years in
prison.
Jamal Barzanji, the Post reported, said he and his colleagues
who now claim they abandoned links to the Brotherhood years
ago helped persuade the Egyptians to try participating in
Egyptian elections as an alternative to underground struggle.
Barzanji noted, "It was one of our main contributions to the
Ikhwan movement worldwide."
The Brotherhood or al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, as it is known in
Arabic follows the credo: "The Quran is our constitution, the
prophet is our guide; Death for the glory of Allah is our greatest
ambition." Bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, 9/11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and "blind sheik" Omar
Abdel-Rahman all belong to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Two of Jamal Barzinji's closest business associates
Abdurahman Alamoudi and Soliman Biheiri are known leaders in
the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Both men have been
convicted of terror-related charges since 9/11. The Treasury now
says Alamoudi was one of al-Qaida's top fundraisers in America.
During her 2000 Senate campaign, Clinton took $1,000 from
Alamoudi when he was head of the American Muslim Council.
She was forced to return the money when news got out that he
voiced support for Palestinian terrorists. (She listed his group as
the "American Museum Council" in her donor report to the FEC,
an attempt critics say to disguise Alamoudi as a curator rather
than a terrorist supporter. As first lady, Hillary had hosted
Alamoudi at the White House.)
Investigators say Jamal Barzinji also is close to Sami al-Arian
who pleaded guilty to aiding terrorists as evidenced by
documents seized in Tampa, Fla., reflecting direct
correspondence between the two.
The Clinton campaign says it thoroughly vets all its individual
donors for ties to terrorism and criminal activity. It's not clear if
Mirza and the other Safa-tied donors simply slipped the net or if
the campaign was aware of their backgrounds. Calls to her
campaign were not immediately returned.
But another Democrat Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia was forced
to return $3,950 in cash from Mirza in 2002 after the terror-
tainted donations were revealed in the press. That same year he
also refunded $3,750 to Jamal Barzinji.
Nancy Luque, a Washington-based lawyer for Jamal Barzinji and
other Safa directors under investigation, says her clients do not
support terrorism in any way, adding that the government is
conducting a witch hunt. Barzinji has not been charged with a
crime in the years-long probe.
Earlier this year, Clinton agreed to return some $50,000 in illegal
donations from a Pakistani businessman after news broke that
the FBI sought him for fraud. The donor, Abdul Rehman Jinnah,
recently surrendered to U.S. authorities after fleeing the country.
Clinton also has vowed to return $850,000 in dirty cash raised by
outlaw Chinese donor Norman Hsu.
During her 2000 Senate campaign, Clinton had to return a
$50,000 check from another Muslim leader Agha Saeed after it
was revealed he backed Palestinian suicide attacks on Israel.
She had received a plaque from him at a $500-a-ticket fundraiser
sponsored by his group, the American Muslim Alliance.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=584
49


WASHlNGTON, June 27 - The National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force, lnc., today released the first
comprehensive analysis of the top 19 candidates for
the 2008 presidency on lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) issues. Democrats discussed in
this report include Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and
Barack Obama. Republicans include Rudy Giuliani,
John McCain and Mitt Romney.
The report, Tn 2UU FrsnIaI CanaIs
FsIns n Lsan, Gay, BsxuaI an Transgnr
/ssus, and its accompanying chart are based on an
analysis of the voting records and public statements of
the candidates in eight key LGBT issue areas,
including sexual orientation and gender identity
nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws; HlV/AlDS
prevention and treatment; lifting the military's ban on
openly lesbian, gay and bisexual service members; and
partnership recognition for same-sex couples.
According to the report, all Democratic candidates are
supportive of the majority of LGBT issues, including
transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination and hate
crimes laws. Only two Democratic candidates support
marriage equality for same-sex couples, however, yet
all of them are in support of other partnership
recognition rights, such as civil unions. Across the
board, Republican candidates were in opposition to the
majority of LGBT issues, with most publicly opposing
lifting the military's ban on openly lesbian, gay and
bisexual service members. Ten of 11 Republican
candidates also oppose any partnership recognition for
same-sex couples, whether it be marriage equality, civil
unions or domestic partnerships.
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only 2008 presidential
candidate who has publicly supported all eight LGBT
issues. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the
only 2008 presidential candidate who has publicly
opposed all eight LGBT issues.
Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, lnc.
"The differences between the Democratic and
Republican fields of candidates on lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender issues are shockingly stark
and profoundly depressing. Over time, the majority of
Americans have moved to support basic fairness for
LGBT Americans, including nondiscrimination and hate
crimes laws, repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't' Tell,' and
protections for our families. Sadly, the Republican field
has gone in the opposite direction, still clearly
pandering to the venom of the so-called 'religious right.'
This only means that they will continue to use our lives
as cultural wedge fodder whenever it's deemed
politically expedient.
"The public statements and voting records of the
Democratic candidates show that they are clearly light
years ahead of the Republicans on almost every issue
important to the LGBT community. Nevertheless, the
lack of courage on marriage equality is disturbing on
both political and moral grounds. Politically, being for
civil unions but against marriage doesn't bring a single
voter over from the other side. Morally, it's hard to
understand how a Democratic candidate can say to
people they know individually and to one of the most
loyal and generous voting blocs the party has, 'Sorry, l
just can't go there - you understand, right?' Actually,
we don't.
Hillary Clinton on LGBT Issues:
Official Campaign Web site: http://www.hillaryclinton.com

Supports sexual orientation- and transgender-inclusive ENDA

Hillary has been an original cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act, which would finally end employment discrimination against gays,
lesbians, and transgender individuals. 27
Supports. Wholeheartedly supports the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act28.
Co-sponsored 2002 ENDA.29
2005-2006 year: Voted in support of ENDA in 109th session.30

Supports HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment

Supports: She sponsored legislation to increase Americas commitment to
fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis31
Introduced Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2005, supported the act in 2003.32
33 34
Unclear: Clinton was the sole vote against the Ryan White Act reauthorization
bill that passed the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions in May 2006.35

Supports lifting military ban
Supports:36 Calls Dont Ask/Dont Tell failed 37 Has supported repeal since
1999, says it is shameful and they should be allowed to come out of
the shadows. 38
Gays and lesbians already serve with distinction in our nations armed forces
and should not face discrimination. Fitness to serve should be based
on an individual's conduct, not their sexual orientation:39
(Dont ask/dont tell) was a transition policy and it was an effort to try to deal
with the reality that -- probably since the very beginning of our nation
weve had gays serving in our military with distinction and honor on behalf of our
country, as we do today. And yet I have watched how dont
ask/dont tell has been implemented. And Ive concluded that it is not the best
way for us as a nation to proceed. It has been in many instances
27 Fighting for the LGBT community. (2007). Hillary for president. Retrieved
June 1, 2007 from: http://www.sovo.com/2007/5-25/Clinton.pdf
28 Keen, Lisa. War is top issue for gays. Bay Windows. February 22, 2007.
Retrieved May 14, 2007 from:
http://baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18
614290016BE1303&nm=
Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7
027421841978F18BE895F87F791&AudID=0813BC739F2044E5A03DCF2DE3F
DF7C9&tier=4&id=E996261EB6A0497
99CCE0EB85F5D1004
29 S. 1284 co-sponsors. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN01284:@@@P
30 S. 1705 co-sponsors. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01705:@@@P
31 About Hillary: United States Senator. Hillary Clintons Official Campaign
Web site, Retrieved May 14, 2007: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/senator/
32 S. 874 co-sponsors. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00847:@@@P
33 Smith introduces HIV treatment bill. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator. February
8, 2005. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://www.senate.gov/~gsmith/press/2004/02-08-05.htm
34 S. 311 co-sponsors. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00311:@@@P
35 Birnbaum, Jeffery H. Sen. Clinton delays AIDS laws renewal, citing cut in
N.Y. funds. Washington Post, p. A01. August 23, 2006. Retrieved May 14, 2007
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201161.html
36 08 race could feature pro-gay moderates Southern Voice. November 24,
2006. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from: http://www.southernvoice.com/2006/11-
24/news/national/contest.cfm
37 Sen. Hilary Clinton at Human Rights Campaign board meeting. HRC Media.
Retrieved May 15, 2007 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F_DcqAySDI
38 Horowitz, Jason. Whats pink, green? Senator Clinton hauling gay cash. The
New York Observer. March 18, 2007. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://www.observer.com/node/36944
All in the family: Hillary Rodham Clinton supports Defense of Marriage Act. The
Advocate. February 15, 2000. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2000_Feb_15/ai_59410444
39 Nagourney, Adam. First lady criticizes policy of dont ask, dont tell.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. December 9, 1999. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19991209/ai_n10556803
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_cand
idates_positions.pdf

METHOLODOGY:
The information contained within these fact sheets and chart was retrieved from
a variety of news sources, the candidates official Web sites and campaign
materials and the candidates voting records. News sources ranged from CNN
interviews to statements in the New York Times and the lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) press. When possible, the most recent
statements a candidate made on an issue are usedthe majority of sources
cited
are from the past year.
The stances listed on a candidates Web site, combined with their record of
voting on, or co-sponsoring legislation and their public record statements led to
one of three options on every issue: Supports, Opposes or Unclear/Unknown.
The following explains the criterion for support of each LGBT issue:
Supports transgender-inclusive ENDA
Candidate supports including sexual orientation and gender identity in the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (if candidate supports only sexual
orientation inclusion, this is indicated)
Supports HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment
Candidate supports funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment through
funding initiatives such as the Ryan White Act and the Early Treatment for
HIV Act
Supports lifting military ban
Candidate supports doing away with Dont Ask/Dont Tell
Supports transgender-inclusive hate crimes laws
Candidate supports including sexual orientation and gender identity in hate
crime legislation, especially Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of
2005 (if candidate supports only sexual orientation inclusion, this is indicated)
Supports civil unions/domestic partnerships
Candidate supports same-sex civil unions and/or domestic partnerships
Supports same-sex marriage
Candidate supports same-sex marriage
Supports same-sex adoption
Candidate supports same-sex couples adopting children
Opposes Federal Marriage Amendment
Candidate opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage
as between a man and a woman only.

Joe Biden on LGBT Issues:
Official Campaign Web site: http://www.joebiden.com
Supports sexual-orientation- and transgender-inclusive ENDA
Co-sponsored 2002 ENDA.1
Voted in support of ENDA in 109th session (2005-2006)2 and voted in support
of it as early as 1996.3
Supports HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment
Co-sponsored legislation to send $600 million in aid to developing countries
over the next two years to fight HIV and AIDS in 2000.4
Supports lifting military ban
Indicated that he believes the privacy protections articulated in the 2003
Lawrence v. Texas ruling - which overturned that state's anti-gay sodomy
law - should be extended to those serving in the military.5
Bidens campaign sent an e-mail that referred to the Supreme Court's clear
and unmistakable view in Lawrence that the sex lives of consenting
adults are a private matter... [and that should] apply to every American, both
civilian and military." 6
Pace is flat wrong. Ive been to Afghanistan, Ive been to Iraq seven times, Ive
been in the Balkans, Ive been in these foxholes with these kids,
literally in bunkers with them. Let me tell you something: Nobody asked anybody
else whether they're gay in those holes, those foxholes, number
one. Number two, our allies, the British, the French, all our major allies, gays
openly serve. I dont know the last time an American soldier said to a
backup from a Brit, Hey, by the way, let me check, are you gay, you straight?
This is ridiculous. And by the way, we got a war on our hands were
trying to end. In the meantime, were breaking the military. Nine thousand of
these people have been kicked out. This is not a rational policy. 7
Supports sexual orientation- and transgender-inclusive hate crimes laws
Voted in support in 20008 and 2002.9
Supports civil unions/domestic partnerships
Did not co-sponsor Uniting Americans Families Act (giving partnership rights to
bi-national couples)10
Was asked: So New Hampshire coming out in favor of civil unions is OK by
you? Biden answered: Yes. Yes, it is. 11
Said: I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition
of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to
strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in
terms of their personal conduct. 12
1 S. 1284 co-sponsors. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN01284:@@@P
2 S. 1705 co-sponsors. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01705:@@@P
3 S. 2056. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.2056:
4 Bill to combat HIV/AIDS passes Senate. U.S. Senator Joseph Biden. July 26,
2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from:
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229781&&
5 Schindler, Paul. Clinton, Edwards dodge GI sodomy. Gay City News. April 12,
2007. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from:
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18202573&BRD=2729&PAG=461
&dept_id=568864&rfi=6
6 Schindler, Paul. Clinton, Edwards dodge GI sodomy. Gay City News. April 12,
2007. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from:
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18202573&BRD=2729&PAG=461
&dept_id=568864&rfi=6
7 New Hampshire Democratic presidential candidates debate transcript. CNN.
June 3, 2007. Retrieved June 4, 2007 from:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/se.01.html
8 S. 2549. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c10X:S.9999:
9 S. 625. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN00625
10 S. 1510 co-sponsors. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01510:@@@L&summ2=m&
11 Meet the press transcript. MSNBC. April 29, 2007. Retrieved May 16, 2007
from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/page/5/

Opposes same-sex marriage
Opposes13: Voted yes on DOMA in 1996.14
Asked in 2003 whether gay marriage is inevitable, said, "I'm not sure. I think
probably it is."15
Supports same-sex adoption
Supports. 16
Opposes Federal Marriage Amendment
Opposes: Voted against it, July 0417 and June 06.18

Sam Brownback on LGBT Issues:
Official Campaign Web site: http://www.brownback.com
Unknown stance on sexual orientation- and transgender-inclusive ENDA

Supports HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment
Brownback said he is pleased the Senate early this morning passed legislation
to combat HIV/AIDS globally the United States Leadership Against
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (H.R. 1298).19
This important piece of legislation will bring much needed relief to those who
are suffering from HIV. I am proud to stand with the president in
confronting the Global HIV crisis and look forward to working with him to
implement this legislation, Brownback said.20
Opposes lifting military ban
Backed Paces comments in a formal letter: We should not expect someone as
qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack
personal views on important moral issues, in fact, we should expect that anyone
entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral
views. 21
Opposes sexual orientation- and transgender-inclusive hate crimes laws
Voted no on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.22
Opposes civil unions/domestic partnerships
Senate floor: If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage
succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already-vulnerable
institution. It is possible to lose the institution of marriage in America. And that is
precisely the hidden agenda of many in this cultural battle: To do
away with the traditional definition of the family entirely.23
Opposes same-sex marriage
See Federal Marriage Amendment below
Unclear stance on same-sex adoption
Its a states issue24
Supports Federal Marriage Amendment
Voted for it, July 0425 and June 06.26
19 Senate passes bill to combat HIV/AIDS. Sam Brownback: U.S. Senator. May
16, 2003. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=203977
20 Senate passes bill to combat HIV/AIDS. Sam Brownback: U.S. Senator. May
16, 2003. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=203977
21 Brownback Sends Letter in Support of General Pace Commends Pace's
leadership, personal commitment to moral principles. Sam Brownback: U.S.
Senator. March 14, 2007. Retrieved May 17,
2007 from: http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=270654
22 S.625. Library of Congress. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN00625:
23 Brownback comments on Federal Marriage Amendment from Senate Floor.
Sam Brownback: U.S. Senator. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=223973
24 Eleveld, Kerry. Are presidential hopefuls in it for gays? New York Blade.
January 26, 2007. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from:
http://www.newyorkblade.com/2007/1-26/news/national/prezhope.cfm
25 Federal Marriage Amendment vote: S.J. Res. 40. GovTrackUS. Retrieved
May 15, 2007 from: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2004-155
26 Senate vote #163. GovTrackUS. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-163

'08 race could feature pro-gay moderates
Clinton, Giuliani top early polls as White House contest gets
underway

Could 2008 be the year of pro-gay moderates battling for the White House?
Some political observers are predicting just such a scenario, as Democratic and
Republican centrists surge in early presidential polls.
Leading contenders on both sides, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and
former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), support civil unions and expanding
other rights for gay Americans.
But none of the leading Democrats or Republicans expected to pursue the White
House support full marriage equality for gay couples. Same-sex marriage
supporter Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) announced this month that he would not
run for president, despite early expectations that he would run.
Samantha Smoot, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, said
presidential contenders should strongly endorse equality to exemplify "their
values, their character, whether they're fair minded, and support equal rights as a
bedrock principle.
Because such core values are defined early, activists said they're already
working with potential presidential candidates.
John Marble, spokesperson for the gay partisan group National Stonewall
Democrats, said his organization is working with "a number of leading
Democrats to increase understanding and support of gay issues.
"Democrats need to talk about gay issues in a different manner than they have in
the past, he said.
Activists said the candidates that most effectively court gay voters could reap
rewards in the primary and general elections.
"The electorate is so closely divided, said Patrick Sammon, executive vice
president of the gay partisan group Log Cabin Republicans. "Gay and lesbian
voters make up about 4 percent of the electorate. That can be the difference
between winning and losing.
Clinton leads Democrats
According to recent polls, Clinton holds a commanding lead over other potential
Democratic presidential nominees.
ln a poll released last week by the Pew Research Center, Clinton took nearly 40
percent, easily topping all other Democratic contenders, though she has not
announced her candidacy. Clinton was re-elected to the Senate from New York
this month in a landslide and even won convincingly in conservative upstate
areas.
Smoot said Clinton's campaign would warrant support from gay voters, even if
she doesn't support marriage equality.
"Her own position on that issue seems to be evolving, Smoot said. "l think that
she's been under pressure from GLBT leaders in New York on the marriage
equality issue. But the truth is, if you look at her record in its entirety, she has
done a lot to help GLBT Americans as a senator.
But as the wife of former President Bill Clinton - who signed the Defense of
Marriage Act in 1996 - Smoot said the senator could be handicapped.
"Like it or not, she's got that baggage, Smoot said, "some of it positive, some of
it not.
Marble said it's unrealistic, though, for voters to expect a flawless candidate.
"People shouldn't expect the Democratic nominee in 2008 to be perfect on LGBT
issues, he said.
But other potential Democratic nominees hold appeal for gay voters.
Sens. Barack Obama (D-lll.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), plus former Vice
President Al Gore, have HRC scores that equal or surpass Hillary Clinton's 89
rating. Kerry scored a perfect 100 during the 109th Congress, as did Gore when
he was last scored during the 102nd Congress.
Sammon said with such alternatives available, Democrats would do well to
consider Clinton.
"l think the bottom line is that Democrats need to make a decision about whether
Hillary Clinton could win a general election campaign, he said.
Republican race open
Unlike the Democratic race, polls do not show a clear Republican frontrunner.
Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) are polling evenly at about 25 percent,
according to the Pew Research Center. Both men recently formed exploratory
committees, and are expected to announce their candidacies early next year.
Sammon said both men have taken pro-gay stances. McCain bucked his party
and voted against amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage,
while Giuliani has backed civil unions.
"Obviously, Rudy Giuliani has a very, very strong record on issues of basic
fairness for gay and lesbian Americans, he said.
Giuliani famously moved in with a gay couple during his divorce from his second
wife.
But his pro-gay stances could be tempered, Marble said, as the politicians work
to secure the Republican nomination.
"There's no way that someone like Rudy Giuliani can win the nomination without
the support and blessing of the anti-gay activists, he said, "and that's something
he'll remember.
Marble also noted McCain was not supportive of gay issues in the 109th
Congress, receiving a 33 on the HRC scorecard.
"Sen. McCain is someone who has employed flowery words on our issues in the
past, he said, "but his voting record is often at odds with the public image he
tries to project.
Activists said other Republican contenders are no better on gay issues.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - who has explicitly denied any intention
to run but nonetheless polls well - has been criticized for barring gay groups
from allying with the United Nations.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has led a campaign against gay
marriage in his home state.
Sammon said Romney's venom likely will get him nowhere because Republicans
are more interested in appealing to moderate voters in 2008.
"Republican voters are going to be most interested in preventing Hillary from
becoming president, and will support the Republican most capable of doing that,
he said. "That's why McCain or Giuliani will be the choice.

2008 Presidential Contenders
Many leading presidential contenders have already stated their positions on key
gay issues, such as marriage equality and the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act. Here's a brief rundown of the top five Democratic and Republican
candidates, as determined by recent polls.
Candidate Poll Position Born HRC Score Gay Rights Positions

Ranks first
among Dems,
often polling
30 percent or
higher.
Oct. 26, 1947
in Chicago.
89 of 100
in 109th
Congress.
Supports civil unions, but not
marriage equality. Voted
against constitutional ban on
same-sex marriage. Wants to
repeal Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. Supports ENDA and
hate-crimes legislation.

Ranks second
in recent polls,
taking about
20 percent.
Aug. 4, 1961
in Honolulu.
89 of 100
in 109th
Congress.
Supports civil unions, but not
marriage equality. Voted
against constitutional ban on
same-sex marriage. Has not
voted on Dont Ask, Dont
Tell, ENDA or hate-crimes
legislation.

Once polled at
about 20
percent, but
recently falling
in popularity.
March 31,
1948 in D.C.
100 of 100
in 102nd
Congress.
Supports civil unions, but not
marriage equality. Opposes
constitutional ban on same-
sex marriage. Wants to repeal
Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
Supports ENDA. Has not
voted on hate-crimes
legislation.

Often trails Al
Gore, and polls
similar to John
Kerry.
June 10, 1953
in Seneca, S.C.
66 of 100
in 108th
Congress.
Has mixed views on civil
unions, and opposes same-sex
marriage. Skipped a vote to
constitutionally ban same-sex
marriage. Wants to repeal
Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
Supports ENDA and hate-
crimes legislation.

Polls similar to
John Edwards,
about
10 percent.
Dec. 11, 1943
in Aurora,
Colo.
100 of 100
in 109th
Congress.
Supports civil unions, but not
marriage equality. Voted
against constitutional ban on
same-sex marriage. Wants to
repeal Dont Ask, Dont
Tell. Supports ENDA and
hate-crimes legislation.

Polls near 25
percent.
May 28, 1944
in
New York.
Never
ranked.
Supports civil unions, but not
marriage equality. Opposes a
constitutional ban on same-
sex marriage. Wants to repeal
Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
Note: Lived with a gay couple
after his divorce.

Closely
follows
Giuliani in
polls.
Aug. 29, 1936
in Panama
Canal Zone.
33 of 100
in 109th
Congress.
Has mixed views on civil
unions, and opposes same-sex
marriage. Opposes a
constitutional ban on same-
sex marriage. Supports Dont
Ask, Dont Tell. Doesnt
support ENDA or hate-crimes
legislation.

This former
poll leader
now ranks
third.
Nov. 14, 1954
in
Birmingham,
Ala.
Never
ranked.
Her positions are largely
unknown, but gay groups have
criticized her work as
secretary of state. She has
asked that gay issues be
discussed with sensitivity.

Has grown
slightly in
popularity, to
poll at 10
percent.
June 17, 1943
in Dauphin,
Pa.
17 of 100
in 103rd
Congress.
Has mixed views on civil
unions, but opposes same-sex
marriage. Supports Dont
Ask, Dont Tell and U.S. ban
on HIV-positive immigrants.
Doesnt support ENDA. Note:
Has a lesbian sister.

Polls in single
digits.
March 12,
1947 in
Detroit.
Never
ranked.
Opposes civil unions and
same-sex marriage. Supports a
constitutional ban on same-
sex marriage. Supports Dont
Ask, Dont Tell. Supports
ENDA and hate-crimes
legislation.

http://www.southernvoice.com/2006/11-
24/news/national/contest.cfm

Hillary wins the Hollywood vote


Glitterati and literati line up behind Mrs Clinton in battle for New York senate seat
but her rival Giuliani has the big money backers
The US elections: special report

Michael Ellison in New York
Friday February 25, 2000
The Guardian
Hillary Clinton has already been accused of running a Mickey Mouse campaign
in her run for a New York senate seat this November - her latest blunder was to
fail to leave a tip after eating in a restaurant - but further evidence emerged
yesterday when it was revealed that her biggest cash backers were the
employees of Walt Disney.
Mrs Clinton raised at least $437,000 (272,500) from the entertainment industry
last year - $56,550 from Disneyland - second only to the number of contributions
from those in the law field.
Lawyers, a traditional Democrat constituency, gave $667,000. They have
particular reason to be grateful to the Clintons, who have so far paid $5.9m in
fees for their various legal battles and who still owe $4.3m.
The first lady and her opponent, Rudolph Giuliani, the mayor of New York, aim to
raise $25m each to finance their campaigns for the seat in the US senate,
making it the most expensive electoral race of its kind.
Mrs Clinton may have the big names, but Mr Giuliani has the big money. By the
end of last year Mrs Clinton had raised $8.07m but her rival easily topped that
with $11.78m. Both spent most of their money on mailshots asking for more
cash.
She says that he is taking money from extreme rightwingers around the country;
he has not yet formally announced that he will run. Bruce Teitelbaum, Mr
Giuliani's campaign spokesman, said: "Hillary's Hollywood pals are paying big
bucks to elect someone from Illinois and Arkansas to represent the people of
New York. Maybe she should run in California."
Howard Wolfson, spokesman for Mrs Clinton, said the volume of contributions
from the entertainment industry came because she was "a champion of the arts".
"She's running against a guy who tried to shut down a museum," he added.
This was a reference to Mr Giuliani's attempt to withdraw funds from the Brooklyn
Museum of Art because it hosted the Sensation exhibition of works by young
British artists. The mayor took particular exception to the work of Chris Ofili, the
Turner Prize-winning artist whose painting the Holy Virgin Mary was created
using elephant dung.
Styron's choice
Mrs Clinton's starrier list of contributors also included members of the literati,
such as William Styron, author of Sophie's Choice, and his wife Rose who gave
$3,000 between them. Jean Auel, who wrote Clan of the Cave Bear, gave $1,000
and even Gail Sheehy, whose biography of Mrs Clinton was none-too-friendly,
came up with $500.
Tina Brown, the British editor of Talk magazine, came through with $1,000 - a
month after publishing the interview with Mrs Clinton that helped to generate a
buzz for the first issue.
Not all the offerings were so unequivocally fragrant: Sean "Puffy" Combs - also
known as Puff Daddy - the rap music entrepreneur who gave $1,000, has just
been charged with bribery. He already faces firearms charges.
Mr Wolfson said that the Clinton camp had no intention of returning Puffy's
money. "We believe in the presumption of innocence," he said.
But Mr Giuliani's roll-call of the Republican establishment also accommodates
supporters in keeping with his combative personality. Among them are Mike
Ditka, one of the most widely disliked coaches in professional football, and
Charlton Heston who, in addition to his responsibilities to the cinema audience, is
president of the National Rifles Association. Paradoxically, the caustic Mr Giuliani
is in favour of tighter gun control.
Like Mrs Clinton, Mr Giuliani has supporters in the gay community: she has
Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Fund ($2,000) and
Virginia Apuzzo of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ($1,000); he has
members of the Log Cabin Republicans ($3,000).
The mayor has also received money from prominent restaurateurs in New York
City, including Warner LeRoy who reopened the Russian Tea Room recently,
and Sottha Khunn, the chef at Le Cirque 2000.
Each candidate has designer supporters but other kings and queens of the
catwalk hedged their bets. Oscar de la Renta, for instance, gave $1,000 to the
mayor and to Mrs Clinton. Nicole Miller found $2,000 for him and $1,000 for her.
However the contest is not being fought exclusively at the level of who can attract
the most famous followers. Mrs Clinton's camp has accused Mr Giuliani of allying
with the extreme right because his fund-raising letters were written with the
assistance of Richard Viguerie, whose record includes helping Jerry Falwell to
set up the rightwing group Moral Majority 21 years ago. "If these are Rudy
Giuliani's allies, what kind of senator would he be?" Mr Wolfson asked.
But Mr Teitelbaum said: "It sounds an awful lot like sour grapes. They fell way
short of their fund-rising goals and we broke records."
Celebrities for Clinton
Maximum donation $2,000
Andre Agassi, world No 1 tennis player, $1,000.
Candice Bergen, actor, $1,000
Tina Brown,Talk magazine editor,$1,000
Jimmy Buffett, singer, $670
Glenn Close, actor, $1,000
Judy Collins, singer, $2,000
Sean "Puffy" Combs, rap entrepreneur, $1,000
Tom Cruise, actor, $1,000
David Dinkins, former New York mayor, $1,000
Michael Douglas, actor, $1,000
Don Henley, Eagles singer, $1,000
Lauren Hutton, model, $1,000
Walter Kaye, businessman, $2,000
Harvey Keitel, actor, $1,000
Edward Kennedy, US senator, $2,000
Nicole Kidman, actor, $2,000
Calvin Klein, designer, $1,000
Ralph Lauren, designer, $1,000
Maya Lin, architect, $1,000
Walter Mondale, former vice-president, $2,000
Paul Newman , actor, $1,000
Rosie O'Donnell, talk show host, $1,000
Martin Scorsese, movie director, $2,000
Gail Sheehy, author, $500
Steven Spielberg, movie director, $2,000
Gloria Steinem, feminist, $1,000
Martha Stewart, lifestyle guru, $1,000
Barbra Streisand, entertainer, $1,000
Source: Federal Election Commission
And for Guiliani
Maximum donation $2,000
Bill Blass, designer, $2,000 Maximum donation $2,000
Bill Blass, designer, $2,000 William F Buckley, conservative writer, $500
Mike Ditka, former coach, New Orleans Saints, $1,000
Charlton Heston, actor, $1,000
Jeane Kirkpatrick, former UN ambassador, $250
Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, $1,000
Ron Perelman, Revlon magnate, $1,000
David Rockefeller, banker, $1,000
Richard Mellon Scaife, conservative activist, $1,000
Christie Whitman, New Jersey governor, $1,000
William F Buckley, conservative writer, $500
Mike Ditka, former coach, New Orleans Saints, $1,000
Charlton Heston, actor, $1,000
Jeane Kirkpatrick, former UN ambassador, $250
Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, $1,000
Ron Perelman, Revlon magnate, $1,000
David Rockefeller, banker, $1,000
Richard Mellon Scaife, conservative activist, $1,000
Christie Whitman, New Jersey governor, $1,000
Source: Federal Election Commission
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,193285,00.ht
ml

2003-2008 Fundraising:
Raised: $91,196,495
Spent: $51,231,780
Cash on Hand: $50,985,801
Debts: $2,347,486
Last report: September 30, 2007



2003-2008 Source of Funds

lndividual contributions $79,696,643 (87.4%)

PAC contributions $753,350 (0.8%)

Candidate self-financing $0


Other $10,746,502 (11.8%)

2003-2008 PAC Contribution Breakdown

Business $1,569,259 (65.0%)

Labor $365,735 (15.2%)

Business $1,569,259 (65.0%)

Labor $365,735 (15.2%)


ldeological/Single lssue $477,979 (19.8%)

How complete are this candidate's 2003-2008 campaign finance reports?

Full Disclosure $93,460,161 (90.4%)

lncomplete $2,232,400 (2.2%)

No Disclosure $7,679,026 (7.4%)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N0000
0019&cycle=2008

HlLLARY CLlNTON (D-NY)
Top Contributors
1 Goldman Sachs $543,620
2 Citigroup lnc $532,960
3 Morgan Stanley $445,610
4 DLA Piper $404,320
5 JP Morgan Chase & Co $286,575
6 Skadden, Arps et al $259,790
7 Kirkland & Ellis $247,350
8 Time Warner $240,130
9 National Amusements lnc $238,500
10 Corning lnc $230,250
11 Cablevision Systems $223,813
12 Credit Suisse Group $215,400
13 EMlLY's List $212,602
14 Ernst & Young $205,650
15 Greenberg Traurig LLP $199,550
16 Lehman Brothers $189,190
17 Merrill Lynch $179,810
18 Bear Stearns $168,335
19 Blank Rome LLP $166,400
20 Metropolitan Life $164,150

HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY)
Top Industries
The top industries supporting Hillary Clinton are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $13,448,043
2 Securities & Investment $6,995,419
3 Retired $6,265,491
4 Real Estate $5,791,861
5 Business Services $3,602,610
6 TV/Movies/Music $3,354,539
7 Misc Business $2,683,142
8 Health Professionals $2,415,686
9 Misc Finance $2,385,753
10 Education $2,326,248
11 Commercial Banks $1,373,953
12 Printing & Publishing $1,312,591
13 Women's Issues $1,196,581
14 Computers/Internet $1,179,032
15 Civil Servants/Public Officials $1,060,008
16 Insurance $937,238
17 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $927,065
18 Non-Profit Institutions $872,334
19 Lobbyists $869,024
20 Retail Sales $856,824
Hillary Clinton is a top Senate recipient from the following industries for the 2007-
2008 election cycle:
Accountants (#1)
Advertising & public relations services (#1)
Agricultural Svcs (#1)
Beer, Wine & Liquor (#1)
Business Assns (#1)
Business Services (#1)
Cable & satellite TV production & distribution (#1)
Candidate Cmtes (#1)
Civil Servants (#1)
Clothing & accessories (#1)
Commercial Banks (#1)
Commercial TV & radio stations (#1)
Construction Svcs (#1)
Credit Unions (#1)
Crop Production (#1)
Dentists (#1)
Food & Beverage (#1)
Food Process/Sales (#1)
Food stores (#1)
Foreign Policy (#1)
General Contractors (#1)
Health Professionals (#1)
Health Services (#1)
Hospitals/Nurs Homes (#1)
Human Rights (#1)
Lawyers/Law Firms (#1)
Lobbyists (#1)
Lodging/Tourism (#1)
Misc Mfg/Distrib (#1)
Misc Services (#1)
Mortgage bankers and brokers (#1)
Non-Profits (#1)
Nurses (#1)
Pharm/Health Prod (#1)
Private Equity & Investment Firms (#1)
Pro-Choice (#1)
Real Estate (#1)
Recreation (#1)
Restaurants & drinking establishments (#1)
Retail Sales (#1)
Securities/Invest (#1)
Subcontractors (#1)
Sugar cane & sugar beets (#1)
Teachers unions (#1)
Telecom Svcs/Equip (#1)
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut (#1)
Women's Issues (#1)
Air Transport (#2)
Architectural services (#2)
Bldg Trade Unions (#2)
Book, newspaper & periodical publishing (#2)
Chemicals (#2)
Clergy/Religious (#2)
Computer software (#2)
Computers/Internet (#2)
Democratic/Liberal (#2)
Education (#2)
Electric Utilities (#2)
Environment (#2)
Finance/Credit (#2)
Food and kindred products manufacturing (#2)
Medical supplies manufacturing & sales (#2)
Misc Defense (#2)
Misc Unions (#2)
Motion Picture production & distribution (#2)
Nutritional & dietary supplements (#2)
Oil & Gas (#2)
Pharmaceutical manufacturing (#2)
Professional sports, arenas & related equip & svcs (#2)
Publishing (#2)
Recorded Music & music production (#2)
Retired (#2)
Telephone Utilities (#2)
Textiles (#2)
TV production & distribution (#2)
TV/Movies/Music (#2)
Venture capital (#2)
Indian Gaming (#3)
Meat processing & products (#3)
Sea Transport (#3)
Defense Electronics (#4)
Tobacco (#4)
Gay & lesbian rights & issues (#5)
Auto manufacturers (#6)
Cruise ships & lines (#8)
Defense Aerospace (#8)
Transport Unions (#8)
Industrial Unions (#9)
Democratic leadership PAC (#10)
Coal mining (#11)
Pro-Israel (#14)
Public Sector Unions (#15)
Air transport unions (#36)

HlLLARY CLlNTON (D-NY)
Contributions by Sector



6HFWRU 7RWDO 3$&V ,QGLYV
Agribusiness $736,335 $6,300 $730,035
Communic/Electronics $6,671,572 $27,958 $6,643,614
Construction $1,929,621 $11,700 $1,917,921
Defense $192,023 $1,000 $191,023
Energy/Nat Resource $804,378 $22,300 $782,078
Finance/lnsur/RealEst $18,366,048 $43,050 $18,322,998
Health $3,955,019 $16,500 $3,938,519
Lawyers & Lobbyists $14,317,067 $125,100 $14,191,967
Transportation $519,287 $8,300 $510,987
Misc Business $10,633,613 $42,200 $10,591,413
Labor $119,410 $58,600 $60,810
ldeology/Single-lssue $2,854,236 $181,484 $2,672,752
Other $11,225,363 $3,000 $11,222,363
Percent of Contributions Coded

Coded $82,324,471 (74%)

Uncoded $29,026,965 (26.1%)

Total $111,351,436


HlLLARY CLlNTON (D-NY)
Contributions by Geography
ln-State vs. Out-of-State

ln-State $0 (0.0%)

Out-of-State $68,460,744 (100.0%)


No State $80,250 (0.0%)
Top Metro Areas:
NEW YORK $13,940,112
WASHlNGTON, DC-MD-VA-WV $7,756,787
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH $6,334,684
CHlCAGO $2,720,621
SAN FRANClSCO $2,533,599
Top Zip Codes:
10021 (New York, NY) $1,549,310
10022 (New York, NY) $1,036,206
10128 (New York, NY) $749,500
10023 (New York, NY) $704,233
20016 (Washington, DC) $684,998
10024 (New York, NY) $679,675
10028 (New York, NY) $653,533
20007 (Washington, DC) $616,635
90210 (Beverly Hills, CA) $565,525
10019 (New York, NY) $524,425

http://www.strikebackusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&t
ask=view&id=58&Itemid=2

The "Character" of Hillary Clinton Sunday, 15 July 2007

Character is defined as what we do when we think no one is looking. Lets look
at what the Clintons did and are likely to do if they fool enough people into
electing Hillary Clinton president.
At the risk of stating the obvious I will say that Hillary Clinton should absolutely,
positively, under no circumstances be elected President of the United States.
Whats more I dont believe she should now be in office as a senator. If not for
the most ethical administration of Slick Willy Clinton and some well timed
pardons of Puerto Rican terrorists Hillary Clinton would not be Senator.
If Hillary has to be in office somewhere I would endorse her if she decided to
serve say, the Islamic Republic of Iran. President Ahmadinejad and Hillary are
cut from the same cloth after all.
If Iran doesnt want her I would recommend her for some other repressive
regime. One that comes to mind is Kosovo. It was a favorite of hubby Bills. In
fact if you recall Bill Clinton withheld bombing of Muslim guerillas for the whole
month of Ramadan and elected to bomb the Christian Serbs on Easter Sunday.
The Serbs were U.S. Allies for both World Wars. During World War II the Serbs
repatriated some 800 U.S. pilots and kept several SS divisions busy while we
prosecuted the war in the West. There were Muslim SS Divisions fighting in
Yugoslavia in WW II: > Read More
From Aleksa Djilas, The Nation That Wasn't. Appears in The Black Book of
Bosnia, Nader Mousavizadeh, Ed., Basic Books, New York, 1996, p. 23. The
creation of a Bosnian Muslim S.S. division is a favorite theme of Serbian
propaganda, however. Indeed, there was such a unit. The Nazis asked the
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, el Husseini, to lend his support to the project. He
accepted, visited Bosnia, and convinced some important Muslim leaders that a
Muslim S.S. division would be in the interest of Islam. In spite of these and other
propaganda efforts, only half of the expected 20,000 to 25,000 Muslims
volunteered. The S.S. unit was nonetheless formed, named the "Handzar"
(scimitar) division, and was brutal in the "cleansing" of Serbian regions in eastern
Bosnia. But it never achieved the reputation of a good fighting unit, and failed to
sell the idea of a Muslim Bosnia under a Nazi protectorate.
Here is another example of the American Lefts totalitarian tendencies, the left
like Hitler embraces diversity so much for Hitler being a racist. Or is this another
example of a dictators willingness to compromise core values or beliefs to
accomplish the mission? Hillary and Hitler have a bit more in common than she
and her handlers would like to admit. Read on!
The Kosovo Liberation Army (K.L.A.) referred to as bin Ladins Army is to this
day instrumental in trafficking heroin into the U.S. and Western Europe. The
quagmire that is Kosovo/ Bosnia/ Croatia et al (the former Yugoslavia) has
escaped media scrutiny lo these many years. Can you say left wing media bias?
Our former Cold War adversary, you know the nuclear armed behemoth, the old
Soviet Union is less than pleased with U.S. policy that is squarely against their
cousins the Serbs in favor of Muslim terrorists that are closely aligned with
Chechnyan child murderers. The K.L.A. has large sums of money to buy and
distribute weapons to other terrorist groups like the Chechnyan child murderers
mentioned above. If you are not familiar with Chechnyan atrocities look up
Beslan Russia. By the way I hope the Russians hammer these people with
abandon, pull no punches if you will.
Hillary Clinton does have experience in running a totalitarian state. As with all
tyrants she has no problem consigning your freedoms away as long as she is in
charge. The problem with Hillary is that she is an unapologetic Marxist. She is
trying to fool voters with a half hearted attempt to move to the center,
unfortunately for her she has a long and sorry history to contend with. With cover
being provided by her willing accomplices in the mainstream media she will
succeed in fooling some. I say accomplices because it would be a crime against
humanity if she were to succeed in becoming president. I do not say this in jest.
Her long and sorry history indicates an insatiable, almost pathological lust for
power, thus the comparison to Ahmadinejad. Hillary like Ahmadinejadm in his
goal to unify Islam under the last Caliphate, is messianic in her belief that she will
be the first female president of the U.S. To a sociopath like Hillary the ends justify
the means.
Her political, indeed her personal, life thus far have been geared to one thing, the
presidency. It was not enough for her to be Bills co-president a term she
insisted upon. Her lust for power will only be satiated when she is the president.
Examples of this psychosis can be seen in her complete and utter surrender of
ideologies she claims to hold dear. What female, baby boomer, academic,
feminist could ever so readily compromise her beliefs and allow herself to be
publicly humiliated by a philandering husband. Mind you we are not talking of a
mere dalliance, a one time slip by a devoted husband. Nor are we talking of an
open marriage the Clintons never claimed to be swingers. The American people
would have never elected a couple who engaged in this type of lifestyle. Tolerate
it maybe but elect to high office those who engage in this behavior, never.
Another glaring compromise of her ideologies is evident regarding the Juanita
Broaddrick rape allegations. To be sure there are many other instances where
Bill Clinton crossed the line and Hillary was there to clean up his mess. For
common folk like you and me that is called being an accessory after the fact.
Hillary was once a champion of rape victims, a noble cause indeed. She started
Arkansas first rape counseling center. Then Hillary was forced to make a
decision, do whats right or continue her quest for power. Hillary Clinton like Hitler
compromised her core beliefs to pursue power. Hitler allowed Muslim SS units to
be formed all the while claiming the racial superiority of the the Aryans. Hillary
Clinton aided and abbetted an alleged rapist and abuser of women in an attempt
to achieve her goal of becoming president.
She betrayed all rape victims in favor of power. Instead of helping a woman that
her husband was accused of raping she went on the offensive and blamed the
victim. She now pretends not to know who Juanita Broaddrick is. Go to
nohillaryclinton.com and read Katherine Prudhommes post.
When these scandals erupted Hillary did not react as a true feminist would and
leave the dirt bag, she instead went on a search and destroy mission using every
trick in the book to slander and discredit the women involved. This is all old news
but it does speak to the character (or lack thereof) of Hillary Clinton. How many
other women have Hillary and her radical feminist mob counseled into leaving a
husband for far less grievous offenses? Women with no other means of financial
support, women with children who are now fatherless and have all the negative
socio-economic connotations there of? What a hollow faith these feminist leaders
follow!
Anyone who has been close to the Clintons says the same thing: Hillary is not
genuine. Her whole persona is contrived. Whether it is Dick Morris, Ed Klein, or
Carl Bernstein they all say the same thing: Hillary must be stopped.
The two paragraphs below come from an article on World Net Daily posted at this
link: worldnetdaily.com
On Feb. 11, 1998, Hillary Clinton told reporters that the Internet needed an
"editing" or "gatekeeping" function. The World Wide Web was out of control, she
said. It needed to be reined in.
Five years later, Hillary's dream is on the verge of being realized. "[M]ost people
are afraid of invoking the wrath of Hillary Clinton, and so they will talk about her
only on condition of anonymity ..." author Edward Klein recently told the National
Review. "Like Nixon, Hillary is paranoid and has an enemies list. Like Nixon,
Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies. Like Nixon, Hillary believes the
ends justify the means. Like Nixon, Hillary has a penchant for doing illegal
things."
Does this sound like a person genuinely interested in freedom? Hillary Rodham
Clinton is a cold and calculating individual. She would do well in a Stalinist
regime. Given the human rights record of her husbands administration within the
U.S. one could make the argument she has had experience working in one. If
you question the veracity of this statement I will remind you of the heavy handed
tactics employed by the Clintons in Ruby Ridge, Waco, Florida (Elian Gozales)
and some other lesser known incidents. The Travelgate scandal and the Filegate
scandal are two more criminal acts the Clintons skated on. The scandal involving
the loss (sale of) of our most advanced nuclear missile technology to China is
another that the left wing media's bias and the ignorance of the American people
played a role. This caused irreparable damage to national security.
There are many instances that the I.R.S. was used to intimidate and silence
those that the Clinton regime deemed a threat. The I.R.S. Commissioner, during
the Clinton years, Margaret Milner Richardson another thrice named Stalinist and
friend of Hillary was forced to resign but astonishingly faced no criminal or civil
charges for her blatant harassment of U.S. citizens exercising their God given
Constitutional Rights. The redistribution of wealth under Clinton was like no other
in U.S. history. Taxes were raised higher than any other time in world history.
See www.strikebackusa.com for more documentation on this and many other
issues.
Before you say that was Bill and not Hill I will remind you that they were co-
presidents although no one in the U.S. ever voted her into office. Bill handed
over to her the health care system of the U.S. and she made a mess of it. We are
still dealing with problems caused by this unelected hack interfering with our
healthcare system. The risky scheme attempted by Billary would have socialized
the medical system in the U.S. and made it as stagnant as Canadas. The
Canadians with need, money and the option to come to the U.S. for lifesaving
medical procedures are legion. The smartest woman in the world outright failed
her bar exam in D.C. after attending Yale. She passed the exam in Arkansas
where her husband was already influential as a law professor. Go
www.strikebackusa.com and read "The Louse That Roared" for more on Bill
Clinton.
The Whitewater land scheme was a complete debacle. It seems to me she has
been an abject failure at everything she has tried to do on her own. Her election
to the Senate would have never been possible if not for Bill. Left to her own
devices she is far from effective, you might say she has been consistently lacking
in individual achievement. Hell she can't even write her own memoirs! We should
take comfort in that but like an alky she has her enablers! She is trying to
emulate the master of deception that is Bill Clinton, fortunately for us she does
not have his charisma, or his feminine wiles.
Vince Foster was a friend of Hills and we all know what happened to him! As if
we needed a reason to not vote for her. Love of ones country comes to mind.
The Psychobiography of Hillary Rodham Clinton
by Paul Lowinger
http://www.zpub.com/un/hillc.html
Hillary's Psychohistory
The psychohistory of Hillary Rodham Clinton is a challenge since the sources are
limited. The biographies of Hillary lack information about her early development
although they offer some childhood particulars. We have no maternal
autobiography like /HDGLQJ:LWK0\+HDUW by Virginia Kelley, Bill Clinton's
mother. On the other hand, Hillary has written a book which is sometimes
personal and even intimate as it offers a potpourri of child rearing, child
psychology and public policy about children. ,W7DNHVD9LOODJH and 2WKHU
/HVVRQV&KLOGUHQ7HDFK8V is about Hillary's beliefs and experiences so it
qualifies as a psychological script to be deciphered. A brief public controversy
about this book revealed that Hillary's own role in its writing was primary. Hillary's
biographies and the books about both Hillary and Bill also contribute to my study.
The question persists. Why study Hillary? The primary goal is to understand the
Clinton presidency and Bill Clinton himself which can't be understood without a
Hillary analysis. Her own influence on the culture of the nineties is also significant
so as she becomes more real we illuminate ourselves and our times.
Hillary's Oedipus
Hillary was Daddy Hugh's girl but what does this mean?
She was Hugh Rodham's victim who wanted his
love and approval even as she tried to escape his
stinginess, irascibility and perfectionism. The victim
survived and was marked by an identification with
the aggressor. Like Hugh the adult Hillary became
irritable, demanding and the family breadwinner but
that's getting ahead of her story. When she brought
home a report card with all A's, Daddy replied that
it must be an awfully easy school. We're not told
what Dorothy Rodham said when she saw the grades maybe because this wasn't
important or perhaps Mother Dorothy was also hard to please. lt was Dorothy
who said there was no room in the house for cowards when little Hillary ran home
after an attack by an "obnoxious girl." Forced to confront her attacker, she won
the battle and now had the respect of the neighborhood players, says biographer
David Brock.
A curmudgeon was the way one Hillary biographer, Norman King described
Hugh while another, Roger Morris finds him guilty of the "psychological abuse of
his children. Chief Petty Officer Hugh Rodham was a drill instructor who trained
recruits in the Navy during World War ll. Afterward he became a successful
businessman in Chicago who moved his family to Park Ridge, an upper middle
class suburb from a city apartment three years after Hillary was born. He was a
regal presence in this family; Hillary says it was like the television sitcom, Father
Know Best. But the humor was lacking according to Dorothy who said of Hillary,
"She had to put up with him." Of course, Dorothy did too.
The current picture of Hugh as a genial task master is a sanitized version of his
behavior thirty years earlier. After his death, he was characterized as
"confrontational" by Hillary's brother Tony. Family symbols were Hugh's new
Cadillac every year and the elegant Georgian suburban home on the corner
which was ice cold each winter morning because Hugh turned off the heat at


Hillary with family
night. Was this a family purification or atonement ritual led by Hugh, the high
priest who wanted to turn off the libidinal night dreams?
Hillary's Adult Oedipal theater in Little Rock is a drama of the new Queen, the law
partner and First Lady of Arkansas, earning the family income while Bill governs
and philanders. Enter daughter Chelsea who was needed to stabilize the
governing family who would otherwise divorce. Or so we are told by Governor
Clinton who was tearful at a press conference announcing his withdrawal from
the Presidential race in 1987 to spend more time with his daughter. Hillary wiped
away a tear too. Did the Clintons stay together to become the Presidential
family? This was a time when the Clinton candidacy was fearful of a womanizing
disclosure story in the local newspaper which didn't appear. lt is reported that Bill
had to disclose this threat to Hillary and their marriage to justify his remaining in
Little Rock till the l992 Presidential race.
Hillary's Oedipus Meets Feminist Theory
lt is convenient to begin the description of Hillary's development with the Oedipus
complex because this is a crucial event. Also, an examination of the Oedipus
complex is often the most direct route to hidden conflicts and the sources of
anxiety. The fateful and incestuous union between the mother Jocasta and the
son Oedipus was a symbol for the desire of the daughter for the father and the
death of King Laios at the hand of Oedipus represented the daughter's jealousy
of the mother. The use of a male centered myth for understanding women's
development emphasizes the sexist bias of Freudian psychology.
Freud and his followers debated among themselves for decades about how
Oedipal events form the female personality although the explanation of the male
Oedipus complex achieved a prompt consensus among Freudians. More recently
women analysts and feminist psychologists amended Freudian theory removing
penis envy, vaginal orgasm, girls' castration fears, feminine passivity and the
weakness of the female superego from the Freudian stage. The gender-free
constructs of id, ego, superego, the unconscious, ego defenses, instincts,
bisexuality and psychosexual stages remain unchanged. The result is a
compromise, a new psychology with the centrality of the mother in human
development (for both girls and boys) permitting a mix with the older gender-
biased Freudian ideas. The pre-Oedipal mother before the age of three has a
greater influence of on both sexes and the effect on girls is more important and
more prolonged then on boys.
Feminist psychologist Nancy Chodorow explains, "... the earlier criticisms of
Freud's bigotry and phallocentric theories could still stand without ... being
obliged to discard psychoanalytic theory in its entirety." She concludes that both
the traditional ideas and the new theories can be used to understand the female
(and male) Oedipus complex. l will use this feminist psychoanalytic theory with
some asides to older concepts like penis envy.
The investigation of Hillary begins with the questions about her image, character
and behavior which puzzle us. We immediately recognize her energy,
intelligence, organizational and leadership abilities, political and professional
ambition, charisma, social and religious motivations and family commitment. This
needs to be balanced with her chronic anger and impatience, temper outbursts,
her anxiety as a "worrier," a victim of a philandering husband, her role the family
breadwinner who cut some ethical corners and as the icy "Sister Frigidaire," a
label from her high school newspaper. These are the complexities and polarities
that we explore with Hillary's psychohistory.
How do the explanations of Hillary's problems fit in with the old Freudian and the
new feminist Oedipal models? First, the Freudian Hillary. She was fixated in her
love for her father according to the Freudian explanation of this universal and
fateful event after her Oedipal disappointment when she discovers at four or five
years of age that she doesn't have a penis. So penis envy moves the Freudian
Hillary from the mother-love of the pre-Oedipal years to a father-love which is
never really resolved.
Penis envy, a Freudian universal means that her
mother is held responsible by Hillary for the loss or
absence of the treasured organ and the daughter
will replace it with the father's penis and by having
his baby. This wish is repressed and held in the
unconscious where it mobilizes jealousy and death
wishes for the mother and so threaten a loss of the
mother's love. The process by which this is
resolved is the development of the conscience or
superego, which in the classical Freudian tradition
is incomplete in the girl so her newly formed superego is weak because she fears
the loss of the mother's love. According to this theory, Hillary's connection to
Dorothy is intact; she remains ambivalent about boys because of her tie to Hugh
and so she is uninterested in dating and make-up.
Then at eleven the view of Hillary as "teacher's pet" emerges from biographer
Donnie Radcliffe. This was when her sixth grade teacher, Elisabeth King
transferred so she could continue to teach Hillary for two more years at
intermediate school. ln the class picture Elisabeth has her hand on Hillary's
shoulder. A school girl "crush" on a teacher and vice versa points to homosexual
feelings which may become conscious and sometimes overt at puberty.
All the early phases of development, oral, anal and Oedipal involve bisexual
feelings and these remain mostly unconscious. This is a look at Hillary's
childhood and adolescent feelings not an attempt to uncover a historical
infatuation. Maybe these emotions were repressed and forgotten or perhaps her
unconscious presented them in disguised dreams or even in daytime questions
like, "Do l love Elisabeth? Does Elisabeth love me? What if Elisabeth was my
mother?" The homosexual impulse often reflects the negative Oedipus complex
beginning about age five when a rejection by the girl's father is accompanied by
death wishes against him and a revival of the earlier love for the mother. Again
this an explanation of maturation, not a theory about female homosexuality. Here

"lf someone has a female boss
for the first time, maybe they
can't take out their hostility on
her, so they take it out on me."
Ibid.
"Hillary can separate personal
emotions from the goal and task
ahead in a way few women
can." Betsy Wright in "Hillary the Pol," by
Connie Bruck, 7KH1HZ<RUNHU, May 30,
1994

it seems to be a vehicle for Hillary's escape from her frustration in the unresolved
Oedipal link to Hugh before her next important pubescent event, the appearance
of Don Jones.
Don Jones was the new 30 year-old youth minister
of Hillary's Methodist Church who arrived when she
was thirteen. Don drove a fire-engine-red lmpala
convertible, played Dylan on the guitar and offered
the modern theology of Niehbur. But most
important, Don Jones was a different kind of father
because he was not a father-aggressor.
Don's emotional impact on Hillary's libido was to
sublimate her teenage eroticism into art, theology
and social concerns. But maybe she told her diary
that she was in love with Don or pondered the
question? The teacher's pet, compliant Hillary was to give way to the new
argumentative Hillary. Soon she had "...a temper you would not believe"
according to the New Yorker profile by Connie Bruck who tells us that Hillary's
staff is "terrified of her." Roger Morris describes how Hillary "ate him (Bill) for
breakfast." She was elected to high school and college class offices and by the
late eighties she was mentioned as a candidate for governor of Arkansas to
succeed Bill. But it was the thirteen year old Hillary who completed the transition
from conformity to a controversial leader.
How does the feminist Oedipal Hillary differ from the Freudian Hillary? Hillary's
basic gender identity is a response to her early pre-Oedipal mother and the
relative security in this relationship was fertile for the transition to the Oedipal
attachment to Hugh. Again Chodorow clarifies, "...women experience themselves
as part of a relationship triangle in which their father and men are emotionally
secondary, or at most only equal in importance to their mother and women." The
relationship to father Hugh was not a threat to the relationship to mother Dorothy
or a murderous rivalry; it was a part of family development.

"My strong feelings about
divorce and its effects on
children have caused me to bite
my tongue more then a few
times during my own marriage
and to think about what l could
do to be a better wife and
partner. " Ibid.
"l'm a Rorschach test." Hillary
Clinton in 7KH8QLTXH9RLFHRI+LOODU\
5RGKDP&OLQWRQ edited by Claire G.
Osborne, Avon Books, 1997


The homosexual attraction to the teacher Elisabeth gives the pre-Oedipal mother
a new identity without Dorothy's flaws, her passivity in the face of Hugh's sadism
and her own aggression when she sent Hillary back to the Park Ridge streets to
face the belligerent playmate.
Don's arrival added to Hillary's experience of love for men and so Don amplified
the Oedipal-Hugh attachment. Don, the new youth minister at the Church
showed Hillary and other suburban teens the hidden emotional world of art,
politics and religion by reading e e cummings and T. S. Eliot, going to Chicago to
hear Martin Luther King , seeing Picasso's Guernica mural about the Spanish
Civil War and meeting black and Hispanic youth from Chicago's inner city. These
experiences of good and evil, words, images, passion and hell and heaven
revived the repressed, primal and unconscious forces of Oedipal conflict.
Hillary's intellectual and religious stimulation in the long private sessions in
Jones' office were a metaphor for and a reactivation of the sexuality of the
Oedipal relationship. Were these new erotic feelings unconscious, conscious or
even overt? Maybe all three.
The Oedipal era with expressions like "l want to marry daddy," is typically is
resolved at six and is followed by a latency period which lasts until the onset of
puberty. Don Jones was the marker for earlier sexual events in the Oedipal
period that Hillary may not recall or understand. Such events are as ordinary as
mutual manipulation while playing doctor with a younger brother or a sexual
overture by an uncle or a cousin or even just hearing a story about this
happening to a girlfriend.
The relationship with Jones was the visible admission of her earlier Oedipal love
for Hugh which was not extinguished. The feminist psychoanalytic theory of
Chodorow explains the female drama: the quality of a girl's sexuality is
determined by her relationship with her mother. The mother's unconscious as
well as her behavior are a major factors in the development of heterosexuality in
girls. This cultural motivation stands in contrast to Freud's instinct-determined
and biologically controlled Oedipus complex. ln the feminist psychoanalytic story,
the gradual resolution of the female Oedipus complex doesn't involve the
daughter's hatred of the mother and her superego is just as strong as that of the
male. But as a women, her superego is different, more concerned with affectional
relationships and less with male abstracts and absolutes. This theory of
personality growth doesn't exclude instinct nor does it require it. Penis envy isn't
needed to explain the process of development but it isn't banished.
Hillary's Sadism and Masochism
Does Hillary's identification with Hugh's aggression lead to sadism? The
expression of aggression is derived from the life or survival instincts, the psychic
energy devoted to satisfying the nonsexual needs for food, shelter, work and
identity. Not all aggression is sadism which refers to cruelty or destructiveness as
pleasurable. ln the usual course of events, the life instincts including aggression
become sexualized while the sexual instincts are tinged with aggression. The
instincts don't have free play, their expression is controlled by the ego
representing parental rules and reality and the critique of the conscience or
superego where guilt is generated.
Hillary learned to play the victim role for Hugh's punishment followed by her
rescue and solace when he took her to Chicago's skid row and the dark and
dangerous Pennsylvania coal mines where he had worked. Hugh's implicit or
explicit threat to leave her there predetermined that he would rescue her, a
frightening moral lesson from "Mr. Reality Check." Hugh's aggressiveness toward
Hillary can be called sadism, a mixture of Hugh's sexual and aggressive instincts
producing more pleasure then pain for Hugh. Hillary's identification with Hugh
made this behavior her own so she became a sadist. Bill refers to her as the
"dragon
Hillary's sadistic impulses produce guilt and so they are turned against herself as
masochism, self-inflicted punishment and pain that is experienced as
pleasurable. The two are joined together as sadomasochism. Hillary's
sadomasochism like Hugh's is also derived from aggression and is expressed as
both masochism and sadism. Hugh's sadism as a curmudgeon is a family legend
but his masochism is only briefly visible in Hillary's account of his youth when he
suffered broken legs falling off a truck on which he was stealing a ride. This
prank called delinquency by Hillary was Hugh's masochistic fate.
Hillary attacks her adversaries while she suffers as a victim of womanizing Bill ,
the sniping media and a hostile Congress. The emotional energy for Hillary's
aggression and sadism comes from the identification with Hugh as aggressor
and sadist. Are Hillary's frustrations with Bill, the media, the Congress, her critics
and Hugh justified? Of course, but the psychological question is really how and
why do aggression and sadomasochism play such a prominent role in her
responses?
Hillary's Oral and Anal Development
Orality, the first of the Freudian stages of development is described by
Psychoanalyst Erik Erikson as producing a person's Basic Trust while an
impairment during this phase leads to Basic Mistrust. The first year is
characterized by an early passive incorporation or sucking followed by a later
active incorporation or biting. Despite many changes after this stage, Hillary still
exemplifies this lack of trust. There is a catalog of oral pessimism from the words
of her Village book: bone disease, bombing, sexism, misgogyny, suicide, a
distraught baby, powerlessness, skid row, death, math anxiety, hurry, a
frightened grandmother, delinquency, accidents, desperation, difficult children,
suffering, divorce, shortcomings, sexual abuse, a sharp tongue. parental
indifference, a cold house, cowardice, teen drinking and smoking and drug
abuse, teen pregnancy, murder, violence, fainting and the list goes on. The list of
positives is much shorter and less graphic: sports, work, opportunities, support,
discipline, guidance, love, prayer, parenthood and village. The question isn't what
Hillary thinks or says about children but how she says it. Yes, this is a crude and
involuntary Rorschach.
The anal stage Erikson calls Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt when he
discusses the emotional consequences of bowel and bladder training and the
increased muscular coordination and activity. Conflicts about elimination and
self-control in two and three year-olds may lead to anal fixation resulting in a
person who is stingy, stubborn, compulsive and acquisitive. The list of words
from Hillary's book illustrate the conflicts about this phase as well. Most of the
words are in the category of Shame and Doubt while only a few reflect
Autonomy.
Hillary's Frigidity
The Sister Frigidaire image opens a door on Hillary's frigid character. The
formation of character is specially influenced by the forces of sexual and
aggressive unconscious instincts which press the ego for gratification. Hillary's
aggressive and sexual drives were unacceptable according to her external reality
and her conscience. The reaction is frigidity but this is more then just a defense
because the character itself is altered in the interest of harmony. The solution
was the type of frigid character with a loss of flexibility described in textbooks like
Otto Fenichel's 7KH3V\FKRDQDO\WLF7KHRU\RI1HXURVLV. Hillary's frigid image
alternates with her charisma and her rational appeal both during high school
when the icy nun image was generated and today.
l watched Hillary's television biography and the
l992 lnauguration video which show her facade of
smiles alternating with visible coldness especially
when her affect is contrasted to Tipper Gore or
Barbara Bush. lt's like contrasting the affect or
emotional tone of Al Gore, usually rigid and distant
to that of Bill Clinton, predominately cuddly and
warm. Novelist Erica Jong, a Hillary admirer writing
in the Nation explains her as "...cold and too
controlled...she gives off an aura of discipline and
ferocious tenacity..."
Hillary's Psychopolitical Choices
Are there public policy consequences for Hillary's unique mental life? How do
Hillary's creative tensions mirror her politics in the culture of the nineties? This

"l'm proud of my marriage. l
have women friends who
choose not to marry, or who
married and choose not to have
children, or who married and
then divorced, or who had
children on their own. That's
okay, that's their choice. This is
my choice. This is how l define
my personhood-it's Bill and
Chelsea. Ibid.

dialogue has been opened by David Brock in 7KH6HGXFWLRQRI+LOODU\5RGKDP
who says Hillary was the naive victim of Bill's "Ozark mob" referring to Hillary's
involvement in seamy Arkansas politics, Whitewater and commodities trading.
Brock is not a disinterested observer but a right wing muckraker and the author
of 7KH5HDO$QLWD+LOO, an anti-feminist book about the woman who received an
American Bar Association award from Hillary in 1992.
Hillary's governmental policy commitments follow rather closely her earlier social
activism: children's needs, the social safety net for the poor, education and
health. As Arkansas' First Lady she spearheaded a major reform of the state's
educational system which required an additional sales tax. She held hearings on
the reform throughout the state and eventually it passed with the addition of a
teacher competency test which was the price for voter approval. The teacher's
union and the civil rights leadership opposed the testing of teachers as
demeaning and racially biased against black teachers. The increased teacher
salaries, smaller class size and the new educational programs such as foreign
language and advanced math in the high schools were an advance for the
poorest educational system in the nation. Hillary's child welfare agenda was
expressed by a new nursery school program based on an lsraeli model using
parents as educators. Health was added to Hillary's agenda in the White House
where she headed the task force that wrote the legislation for Bill's major
campaign issue after the economy.
Not all the people want child welfare, education and health because their price
tag means new taxes and also because they have come to represent Big
Government, the opposite of the traditional family role in the care of children, the
local control of education and the customary fee for service medicine. This is
often the ideology of the Republican Party and particularly the Radical Right. On
the other hand, no one favors their opposites, ignorance and illiteracy, child
neglect and death and disease. Or do they? Yet, they are there in the sibling
envy and murderous rage of the voter' unconscious. This sadism may be
expressed in political behavior as they receive pleasure from their aggression
against children, education and health care. Of course, the voters also feel guilt
but that's a kind of pleasure too, masochism.
Hillary's activism stirs the psychological depths as well as political complexities
which exceed the recent interests of First Ladies like Barbara Bush's campaign
on literacy, Nancy Reagan's Just Say No to Drugs and Rosalynn Carter's mental
health concerns. The similarity to Eleanor Roosevelt is compelling but her
husband's policies were often different from Eleanor's and FDR had not
campaigned saying, "Buy one, get one free."
Does Hillary as a victim affect Hillary as the aggressive policy leader? Was the
1993 attempt at a new national health policy affected by the balance between
Hillary who was a cold sadomasochistic aggressor and the Hillary who was
charismatic, compassionate and innovative? Was Hillary selected to lead the
campaign for managed care because it was risky and might fail? lf it succeeded,
Bill would get the credit for helping people and fulfilling his major campaign
promise on health care. lf it failed in Congress which happened, the blame would
be Hillary's and Bill would move on to meet his goal with lesser initiatives like
making private health insurance portable between jobs and including preexisting
conditions in coverage.
Why didn't Hillary make the more radical and
comprehensive single payer Canadian plan her
legislative goal? The general understanding was
that Hillary preferred this plan but she rejected it as
politically unfeasible. So the perception of a
congressional rejection of the more rational single payer solution obliged Hillary
to masochistically give up her reasoned and emotional preference for an
expediency that turned out to be futile. Was this a repeat for Hillary who lead the
successful struggle for education reform in Arkansas which required an increase
in the state sales tax. The use of the teacher competency test to sell the package
was also a sadomasochistic maneuver, politically clever in its covert racist appeal
to white voters. Hillary sacrificed some civil rights credentials to get the white



"Like most mothers, I am the
designated worrier in our
family." -It Takes A Village by Hillary
Clinton, Simon & Schuster, 1996

votes for a higher tax and better schools while Bill retained his popularity with the
black voters and became the education governor The unconscious was operating
in synch with the political world. The health crisis in Arkansas about Medicaid
funding worsened while Bill was Governor but Hillary stayed out of the fight that
time. Sometimes there is a choice.
Hillary's Burden
What are the consequences of this evaluation? First, that Hillary isn't in full
control when she is angry, cold and isolated. Her anger and her withdrawal,
justified or not are determined by her Basic Mistrust and the Shame and Doubt
and a frigid character. Or maybe her control is excessive and she lacks flexibility
.
Second, we need to know more about how these trends developed. Neither she
nor her mother have written their stories but we know from Hillary's book that her
mother Dorothy was eight when her parents separated and she was sent to live
with her grandparents. Dorothy's mother was fifteen and her father seventeen
when she was born and they were immature and neglectful parents. Dorothy
traveled at eight alone by train from Chicago to Los Angeles with her three year
old sister. The grandparents mistreated Dorothy so she left them at fourteen
doing child care for room and board so she could finish high school. Sometimes
such events are reflected in the next generation. Hillary is a conscientious mom
but still Chelsea is quoted as saying to the school nurse, "Call my dad, my mom
is too busy."
Finally, Hillary's periodic image makeovers from a successful professional career
woman using her own name to a cookie-baking tea-serving hostess using Bill's
name reflects more then just political expediency. Hillary is an energetic and
magnetic leader who offers a policy for children but despite these qualities her
anger, pessimism and coldness are not lovable. ls this reasonable or fair? Of
course not but it's better to confront the spectacle of the public's unconscious
communicating with Hillary's unconscious then to pretend it's all politics,
misogyny or anti-feminist bias. They are there but that's not all.
ln the White House, Hillary seeks self-understanding and inspiration from New
Age feminists, therapists and theologians like Rabbi Michael Lerner, psychologist
Jean Houston and anthropologist Mary Catherine Bateson. But a prescient note
from Hillary's law school experience is that one of her teachers at the Yale Child
Study Center was Anna Freud.
Bibliography
References (excluding quotes)
Brock, David The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, Simon and Schuster, 1996
Carpozi, George Clinton Confidential, Emery Dalton Books, 1995
Chodorow, Nancy Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory, Yale University Press, 1989
Jong, Erica "Hillary's Husband Re-elected!" The Nation, Nov. 25, 1996
King. Norman Hillary, Birch Lane Press, 1993
Radcliffe, 'RQQLH+LOODU\5RGKDP&OLQWRQ, Times Warner, 1993

http://www.zpub.com/un/hillc.html


PHOTO OF HlLLARY CLlNTON'S LESBlAN LOVER

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/blog_images/huma_hillary.jpg

WITH HILLARY CLINTON COMES BILL CLINTON!

Proclamation on Gay and Lesbian Pride Month


THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Berlin, Germany)

For Immediate Release June 2, 2000
GAY AND LESBIAN PRIDE MONTH, 2000

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Gay and lesbian Americans have made important and lasting contributions to our
Nation in every field of endeavor. Too often, however, gays and lesbians face
prejudice and discrimination; too many have had to hide or deny their sexual
orientation in order to keep their jobs or to live safely in their communities.
In recent years, we have made some progress righting these wrongs. Since the
Stonewall uprising in New York City more than 30 years ago, the gay and lesbian
rights movement has united gays and lesbians, their families and friends, and all
those committed to justice and equality in a crusade to outlaw discriminatory laws
and practices and to protect gays and lesbians from prejudice and persecution.
I am proud of the part that my Administration has played to achieve these goals.
Today, more openly gay and lesbian individuals serve in senior posts throughout
the Federal Government than during any other Administration. To build on our
progress, in 1998 I issued an Executive Order to prohibit discrimination in the
Federal civilian workforce based on sexual orientation, and my Administration
continues to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would
outlaw discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation.

Yet many challenges still lie before us. As we have learned from recent
tragedies, prejudice against gays and lesbians can still erupt into acts of hatred
and violence. I continue to call upon the Congress to pass meaningful hate
crimes legislation to strengthen the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute
hate crimes committed due to the victim's sexual orientation.

With each passing year the American people become more receptive to diversity
and more open to those who are different from themselves. Our Nation is at last
realizing that gays and lesbians must no longer be "strangers among friends," as
the civil rights pioneer David Mixner once noted. Rather, we must finally
recognize these Americans for what they are: our colleagues and neighbors,
daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, friends and partners.

This June, recognizing the joys and sorrows that the gay and lesbian movement
has witnessed and the work that remains to be done, we observe Gay and
Lesbian Pride Month and celebrate the progress we have made in creating a
society more inclusive and accepting of gays and lesbians. I hope that in this new
millennium we will continue to break down the walls of fear and prejudice and
work to build a bridge to understanding and tolerance, until gays and lesbians are
afforded the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2000 as Gay and Lesbian Pride
Month. I encourage all Americans to observe this month with appropriate
programs, ceremonies, and activities that celebrate our diversity and recognize
the gay and lesbian Americans whose many and varied contributions have
enriched our national life.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of June,
in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United
States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/060200-proclamation-on-
gay-and-lesbian-pride-month.htm

Hillary defends Bill Clinton's gay rights
record August 10, 2007

Lesbian singer hits Clinton record

By Christina Bellantoni
The Washington Times

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her husband's record on homosexual rights last
night in an emotional exchange with singer Melissa Etheridge during a broad forum hosted by the Human
Rights Campaign.
Miss Etheridge told the New York Democrat she felt betrayed in the years after
she came out as a lesbian during the week of President Bill Clinton's
inauguration in 1993.
"Our hearts were broken, we were thrown under the bus, we were pushed aside,
all those great promises that were made to us were broken," Miss Etheridge said,
alluding to Mr. Clinton's going back on his promise to repeal the ban on open
homosexuals in the military and his signing the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Are we going to be left behind the way we were before?" she asked.
Mrs. Clinton lauded her husband's achievements on appointing homosexuals to
administration positions but also said she would scrap her husband's "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" policy and allow active homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
"l don't see it the way you describe," she told Miss Etheridge. "We certainly didn't
get as much done as l would have liked but l believed there was a lot of honest
effort going on."
Mrs. Clinton was the final 2008 presidential candidate to speak during the two-
hour Visible Vote '08 forum, hosted in Los Angeles by the Human Rights
Campaign (HRC), streamed online and televised nationally only by the Logo
cable channel.
The former first lady pledged to work "to change attitudes and persuade people
that they should be more open, more respectful, more understanding" and said
the "mean-spirited" era of targeting homosexuals is no more.
"That will end, that is over," she said.
Sen. Barack Obama noted his experience "at times being discriminated against,"
and said there are similarities between fighting for homosexual rights and the civil
rights movement of the 1950s and '60s.
"When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on
the outside," the lllinois Democrat said, calling himself a leader on homosexual
rights issues and said inequality inspired him to enter politics.
An Obama administration would ensure "the rights that are provided by the
federal, and the state and the local governments are the ones that are provided
to everybody," he said. "That's a standard l think l can meet, and l don't make
promises l can't keep."
He was later praised on a Logo forum for his answer about religious opposition to
homosexuality among blacks.
"There are people who recognize that if we're going to talk about justice and civil
rights and fairness, that should apply to all people, not just some," he said.
"There are some folks who, coming out of the church, have, you know, elevated
one line in Romans above the Sermon in the Mount."
The candidates made their appeals to homosexual voters, promising expansion
of rights and treading a careful line on the "marriage" issue. The forum was
designed to highlight homosexual issues in a way not seen in previous elections.
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said public school students "need
to understand why same-sex couples are the parents of some of the children."
When pressed, he said he hadn't thought about what age would be appropriate
to educate children about homosexuality.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former congressman, said he regretted
voting for the Defense of Marriage Act during the Clinton administration but said
he prefers civil unions and fighting for "what is achievable."
"The country isn't there yet," he said.
He also talked about his expansion of anti-discrimination laws to include sexual
orientation in New Mexico, and noted he gave same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships state health insurance.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio received a lion's share of the audience's praise
last night, saying he agrees with everything HRC wants.
"There is no power on this earth greater than human love. Real equality people
who love each other must have a way to express that in a way that is
meaningful," he said.
Former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska was the only other candidate on stage last
night to have such a sentiment, and he called the others "weak" for saying they
won't push any changes to federal marriage laws.
Asked "what is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage," Mrs.
Clinton smiled and said: "l prefer to think of it as being very positive about same-
sex unions," adding her opposition is "personal."
Mr. Obama said the word "marriage" should be "disentangled" from the debate,
and that his administration would allow same-sex couples to have a civil union
"that provides all the benefits that are available for legally sanctioned marriage."
Mr. Edwards said as president he would extend "exactly the same" rights to
same-sex and straight couples.
The panelists asked Mr. Edwards about a comment in a debate last month about
how his Southern Baptist religion shapes his views on marriage, and the former
senator backed down: "l shouldn't have said that."
"l do not support same-sex marriage," Mr. Edwards said, adding, "We're past the
time for political doublespeak on this" and noting his position "has not changed."
His wife Elizabeth Edwards and his daughter disagree, prompting Edwards
supporter Eric Stern to say he wasn't worried because "we would have a first
lady in Elizabeth who would be our personal lobbyist on the issue."
Mr. Edwards started the day rolling out endorsements from Mr. Stern and
Stephen Handwerks, two homosexual men who said they feel included in the
political process for the first time because Democrats have ignored their
concerns for years.
"lt's incredibly encouraging that not only are we asked to join in the conversation,
we are actually playing a large role in the shaping of the future," said Mr.
Handwerks, adding that during the Bush administration, homosexuals have been
"on the attack end" even though they are the "second most loyal voting bloc" for
Democrats.
Moderator Margaret Carlson said homosexuals "were once invisible both in our
communities and on the political landscape" but are now "visible and valued" and
"a force at the ballot box."
Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut
did not participate due to scheduling conflicts.
Mr. Dodd said in a statement he was sorry he could not attend and called
homosexuals "a very important voice in our national discourse."
"Addressing equal rights and responsibilities for the GLBT community is
fundamental to fulfilling America's promise," he said.
The HRC invited the Republican candidates, but none accepted.
Audience members said on Logo after the forum they rated Mrs. Clinton highest,
followed by Mr. Obama. They were overall irritated with Mr. Richardson's
performance and one man said Mr. Edwards seemed disingenuous.
http://wpherald.com/articles/5639/2/Hillary-defends-Bill-
Clintons-gay-rights-record/Democratic-candidates-
promise-expansion-of-gay-rights.html

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3026

Hillary Clinton Reveals Her Gay Strategy For Presidential Run
March 8, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) recently appeared before the
Human Rights Campaign to present a keynote speech on her support of the
homosexual/bisexual/transgender agenda and her efforts to defeat any attempts
by Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex
marriage.

HRC President Joe Solomese introduced Clinton and revealed their long-term
relationship in fighting against the pro-family movement. Solomese describes
numerous meetings with Clinton as they strategized together about how to defeat
any constitutional amendment on marriage.

According to Clinton, I am proud to stand by your side.

Clinton also noted that with Democrats in control of the both the House and
Senate with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid in power positions, groups like
HRC have less to worry about having a constitutional amendment passed that
will ban homosexual marriage.

Clinton told her homosexual activist audience that they will have a close
partnership when I am President.

Watch her video comments on YouTube and distribute this video to all of your
friends and co-workers.

Clinton must feel very confident of victory to be so open about her support of
homosexuality and against the traditional family, said TVC Executive Director
Andrea Lafferty. These comments clearly expose her previous phony comments
about the importance of faith in her life. What faith does she have? Faith in
sodomy as a lifestyle?

Hillary Clinton Reveals Her 'Gay' Strategy For Presidential Run
(YouTube Video Also
Traditional Values Coalition ^ | 3/8/07 | Staff
Posted on 11/12/2007 6:20:02 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) recently appeared before the Human Rights
Campaign to present a keynote speech on her support of the
homosexual/bisexual/transgender agenda and her efforts to defeat any attempts
by Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex
marriage.
HRC President Joe Solomese introduced Clinton and revealed their long-term
relationship in fighting against the pro-family movement. Solomese describes
numerous meetings with Clinton as they strategized togethor about how to defeat
any constitutional amendment on marriage...
... Clinton told her homosexual activist audience that they will have a close
"partnership ... when l am President."
Watch her comments on YouTube and distribute this video to all of your friends
and co-workers.
"Clinton must feel very confident of victory to be so open about her support of
homosexuality and against the traditional family," said TVC Executive Director
Andrea Lafferty. "These comments clearly expose her previous phony comments
about the importance of 'faith' in her life. What faith does she have? Faith in
sodomy as a lifestyle?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924846/posts

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-
bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=10&num=11986


Clinton Is Greeted Warmly as He Speaks to Gay Group
November 9, 1997
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EFD81239F9
3AA35752C1A961958260

It is rare that a politician can draw an ovation with such a stock line
as ''I'm delighted to be here.''
But, in becoming the first President to address a gay and lesbian
organization with a speech here tonight, Bill Clinton was rewarded
with thunderous applause for that simple statement.
And as he deftly turned aside occasional hecklers with enthusiastic
assists from the crowd of 1,500, Mr. Clinton was also thunderously
applauded upon restating his support for a law to protect
homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace, and upon issuing
a peppery defense of Bill Lann Lee, his contested nominee to be
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Speaking at a sold-out dinner held by the Human Rights Campaign,
Mr. Clinton said that Mr. Lee ''is being discriminated against,'' not
because of his qualifications but ''because some members of the
Senate disagree with his views on affirmative action.''
''Now,'' Mr. Clinton continued, ''if I have to appoint a head of the
office of civil rights who is against affirmative action, it's going to be
vacant a long time.''
The White House had played down Mr. Clinton's speech in advance,
comparing his appearance at this dinner to his routine stops on the
rubber-chicken interest-group circuit. But Mr. Clinton did not make a
routine speech tonight, instead calling for a redefinition ''of the
immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning'' to include
acceptance of gays and lesbians.
Mr. Clinton has had deep differences with gays and lesbians,
disappointing many at the beginning of his first term by backing
down in efforts to fully integrate homosexuals into the military, and
disappointing them again at the end of that term by signing
legislation intended to prevent single-sex marriage.
But gays and lesbians overwhelmingly supported Mr. Clinton for re-
election last year, and audience members tonight repeatedly called
out ''We love you, Bill.''
Elizabeth Birch, the executive director of the Human Rights
Campaign, said in introducing the President tonight: ''Because our
needs were almost as great as our expectations, it was inevitable that
we -- you and this community -- would experience both shared
disappointment and some disagreement. But Mr. President, you have
played a brave and powerful and indispensable role in the march
toward justice for us.''
She called Mr. Clinton ''the first President in history to stand up for
our civil rights.''
Other speakers hailed Mr. Clinton's presence here as a milestone in
acceptance of gays and lesbians. ''Tonight, because of the President's
address, we will be visible across America,'' declared Bob Baublitz,
one of the organizers of the dinner.
But, in his speech, the President was cautious.
Mr. Clinton did not express an opinion about the fact that the
television comedy series ''Ellen'' recently portrayed its lead character
as coming out the closet, even though Ellen DeGeneres, the actress
who portrays Ellen, was in the audience to receive an award tonight.
Vice President Al Gore recently came under fire from conservatives
for praising ''Ellen'' in a Hollywood speech.
Mr. Clinton did not appear publicly at the dinner with Ms.
DeGeneres, who, like her character, has come out of the closet. The
President left before Ms. DeGeneres accepted her award. He did pose
backstage for a photograph with her and her girlfriend, Anne Heche,
but White House officials were quick to point out that the photograph
also included numerous officials from the Human Rights Campaign.
The photograph will not be released publicly, the White House said.
In his speech, Mr. Clinton did not address the group's continuing
complaints that gays are harassed in the military, or its objection to
the legislation opposing gay marriage. Instead, he focused on his
support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is the
top legislative goal of the Human Rights Campaign. Polling has
shown broad support for the notion of equal protection for
homosexuals under the law.
Mr. Clinton said that ''Being gay, the last time I had thought about it,
seemed to have nothing to do with'' the ability to ''fix a broken bone
or change a spark plug.'' The crowd gave him a standing ovation for
that line, as well as for his subsequent statement that discrimination
in the workplace ''is wrong, and it should be illegal.''
Mr. Clinton faced at least three hecklers. The first, a man, cried out
''People with AIDS are dying!'' The crowd shushed him, but Mr.
Clinton chuckled. ''I'd have been disappointed if you hadn't been here
tonight,'' he said.
He added, ''People with AIDS are dying, but since I became President
we're spending ten times as much'' combating the disease. Mr.
Clinton's words were drowned by applause that quickly turned into
yet another standing ovation.


http://www.outfordemocracy.org/hillary.htm

October 29, 2007
Hillary Clinton Endorses 08 Stop AIDS
Platform
Forbes Magazine reports that Hillary Clinton has signed the 08 Stop AlDS
platform, committing to support $50 billion dollars by 2013 to fight the global
HlV/AlDS epidemic.
Clinton joins John Edwards & Bill Richardson in supporting $50 billion over five
years to fight HlV/AlDS globally. Edwards released his plan to fight HlV/AlDS in
September which included the $50 billion goal and other 08 Stop AlDS goals,
though he has not formally endorsed the platform. Bill Richardson endorsed the
platform earlier this year.
While Obama released his plan to fight HlV/AlDS in October, it did not include
the $50 billion commitment. AlDS activists who have talked to him on the
campaign trail report he has been unwilling to commit to a specific amount.
Unlike Obama & Edwards, the Clinton campaign has not yet released their own
HlV/AlDS agenda. Activists had planned to target Clinton at a protest at the
October 30th Presidential Debate. With news of the Clinton endorsement of 08
Stop AlDS, the demonstration will focus more broadly on raising awareness of
HlV/AlDS in the 2008 campaign.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
October 17, 2007
Hillary Clinton Statement on National Latino AIDS Awareness
Day
IURPWKH+LOODU\&OLQWRQ:HEVLWH
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hispanics in the
United States are disproportionately affected by HlV/AlDS. Although Hispanics
comprised 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, they accounted for 19
percent of new HlV/AlDS diagnoses. Hispanic women are especially vulnerable.
The CDC reports that their infection rate was more than five times higher than
that of white women in 2005. Hillary Clinton issued the following statement to
mark National Latino AlDS Awareness Day, observed on October 15th:
"Latinos account for the second highest rate of AlDS cases in the United States,
by race or ethnicity. The epidemic has disproportionately affected Latinas and
young adults. And while there has been progress in addressing the spread of the
disease, the Latino community still faces tremendous challenges -including
cultural and language barriers-- in the fight for the rights and needs of people
living with HlV/ AlDS. During National Latino Aids Awareness Day, groups and
individuals across the country gather to promote and sponsor information and
prevention activities in the Hispanic community.
"l have long fought to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act to improve access to
treatment and support for those living with this tragic disease. l also wrote the
Early Treatment for HlV Act, which expands access to vital treatment options for
low-income individuals living with HlV. As President, l will continue taking bold
steps to confront and eradicate AlDS and to support those living with the
disease. The American Health Choices Plan that l have proposed also includes
provisions that will eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care, and
increase diversity and cultural and linguistic competency in the health care
system.
"On National Latino AlDS Awareness Day, let us commemorate the lives lost to
this epidemic, and recommit to continue our fight against the spread of the
disease, through dialogue, advocacy and community awareness."

To learn more about National Latino AlDS Awareness Day, visit www.nlaad.org.
To see pictures from National Latino AlDS Awareness Day events in
Washington, DC: click here.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
October 12, 2007
Clinton Statement On National Coming Out Day
5HSULQWHGIURPWKHRIILFLDOZHEVLWH
The simple act of declaring who you are has often
been a moment of courage for many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
(LGBT) Americans. National Coming Out Day honors the brave journey many
have taken out of the closet. But even now, after so much progress has been
made in the fight for equality and acceptance, many in the LGBT community
continue to face discrimination and harassment.

As President, l will end the divisive politics of this administration and work to
renew the promise of fairness for all Americans. This means supporting equal
rights for gay and lesbian couples, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell and allowing
patriotic Americans to serve their country, and finally signing into law the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation.

So on this day, twenty years after the Second March on Washington for Lesbian
and Gay Rights, let us rededicate ourselves to the ideal that all Americans should
be treated equally, no matter who you are or who you love.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
October 10, 2007
Ask Hillary Clinton About HIV/AIDS: Online Health Care Forum
On Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. ET, a discussion with Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) will be webcast live during the next "Health Care
2008: Presidential Candidate Forum.
John Edwards was among the first candidates to be part of these web forums.
He used his appearance as an opportunity to launch a detailed and
comprehensive plan to fight HlV/AlDS at home and abroad.
Let's make sure Hillary Clinton answers our questions about her plans to fight
HlV/AlDS. Viewers are welcome to submit questions for the presidential
candidates. Questions will be presented to the panel of journalists for
consideration. Click here to submit a question about HlV/AlDS to Hillary
Clinton for the live forum.
The "Health Care 2008: Presidential Candidate Forums will allow each
Presidential candidate to discuss in detail his or her vision about health reform
and the uninsured with a panel of leading health journalists from "The NewsHour
With Jim Lehrer, ABC News, National Public Radio, and The Wall Street
Journal. The Forums are being organized by Families USA and the Federation of
American Hospitals, produced by MacNeil-Lehrer Productions and hosted by the
Kaiser Family Foundation in its Barbara Jordan Conference Center. The
Foundation's health news and information site, kaisernetwork.org, will provide a
live webcast of each forum. Shortly after the live webcast, an archived webcast,
transcript and podcast will be available.
For a list of upcoming forums and to watch archived webcasts of previous
forums, visit presidentialforums.health08.org.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
October 09, 2007
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act Of 2007
Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton issued the following statement
on Senate approval of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense
Authorization bill:

"A crime motivated by hate on the basis of a victim's race, ethnic background,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity is not just a
crime against the individual - it is a crime against a community. lt sends a
message to an entire group of people that they are unwelcome and that they
should be afraid. Hate crimes are an affront to the core values that bind us to one
another, and we should dedicate the resources needed to prosecute these
crimes to the fullest extent of the law.

The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
condemns the abhorrent practice of victimizing people because of their race,
ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender
identity. lt authorizes the Justice Department to help state and local governments
investigate and prosecute hate crimes and provides grants to help state and local
governments prosecute these appalling offenses. With today's vote, the Senate
is proclaiming loudly that the American people will not tolerate crimes motivated
by bigotry and hatred. l am proud to cosponsor this important legislation and will
continue to work hard to provide our law enforcement and prosecutors with the
resources they need to fight these appalling crimes."
UHSULQWHGIURP&OLQWRQ6HQDWHZHEVLWH
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
September 25, 2007
Hillary Clinton to Hold Hearing on Women & HIV
The same week that Presidential Candidate John Edwards released a widely
praised HlV/AlDS Policy Agenda, Hillary Clinton announced that she will be
holding a briefing on HlV and Women on the Hill. The briefing will take place
Monday, October 22 from 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM in the Russell Senate Office
Building, room 385.
Over the last 25 years of the AlDS epidemic in the United States, women have
come to represent a growing proportion of new HlV/AlDS cases, more than
tripling from 8% of new cases in 1985 to 27% of new cases in 2005. Women of
color have been especially hard hit and represent the majority of new HlV and
AlDS cases among women, and the majority of women living with HlV/AlDS.
Clinton has been criticized by AlDS advocates because her recently released
health care plan offers no specific recommendations around HlV/AlDS. Clinton
supports the Early Treatment for HlV ACT (ETHA), but has frustrated advocates
by remaining undecided on federal funding for science-based HlV prevention
through needle exchange. Clinton also has yet to
respond to the 08 Stop AlDS call for $50 million over
five years to fight the global AlDS epidemic, or to the call for a National AlDS
Strategy.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
September 24, 2007
Hillary Clinton Interviewed in the Advocate
Hillary Clinton is interviewed in the Advocate this month. Sean Kennedy writes:
"lndeed, that Clinton is a woman cannot be underestimated in her appeal to gay
people, and vice versa. Bill Clinton often spoke of a 'politics of compassion,' but
Hillary is the one who has lived the struggle for respect and equality just as gays
have." The full text of the interview is available on the Advocate website.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
September 17, 2007
Tammy Baldwin on Hillary Clinton
Out Congress Member Tammy Baldwin endorsed Hillary Clinton's presidential
campaign last month. Hillary Clinton campaigned for Baldwin when she first ran
for Congress. Baldwin tells The Advocate: "Long-standing friendship is a very
influential factor when you're making a significant choice like endorsing a
presidential candidate, but l think l would've reached the same conclusion and
made the endorsement regardless."
For more on the endorsement, read this article in the Southern Voice
August 21, 2007
On the Record: Hillary Clinton at the HRC/Logo Debate
CARLSON:
Last and not least, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was the first lady of
Arkansas and later first lady of the United States. She was elected to her first
term as a senator from New York in 2000 and re-elected last year. Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
Senator Clinton, welcome.
CLlNTON:
Thank you.
CARLSON:
l don't know if Senator Edwards is still here, but from the last debate, let me go
on the record. l like the coral jacket.
CLlNTON:
Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON:
Joe is our first questioner for you, Senator.
Joe?
SOLMONESE:
Senator, thank you for being here tonight. You've said in past settings like this
and all across the country that you would like to repeal "Don't ask; don't tell."
Now, since 2003 you've sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the
committee that would decide this issue. Why haven't you introduced legislation to
repeal this policy?
SOLMONESE:
Well, Joe, first, thanks for doing this and thanks for everybody being here and
having this forum.
l think the very simple answer is we didn't have a chance with the Republican
Congress and George Bush as president. And l want to get it done when l'm
president. l want to do it and have it be successful. l don't want to try in a
Republican Congress with a very negative president and have it defeated.
We're talking now that we have a Democratic Congress about what steps we can
take to sort of lay the groundwork so that when we do have a change in the
White House, which can't happen too soon to suit me...
(APPLAUSE)
... we will be able to move on that.
But l just want to put it into a broader context, because it's one of my highest
priorities. l came out against "Don't ask; don't tell" in 1999. lt was a
transitional action that was taken back at the beginning of my husband's
administration, because at the time there was such a witch hunt going on.
And we've got some veterans over here. l saw Staff Sergeant Eric Alba, who l
have met before at HRC, and l was so glad to see him when l walked in.
(APPLAUSE)
And for people who don't know Staff Sergeant Alba's history, he was the first
Marine wounded in lraq, recipient of a Purple Heart, and 15 years ago he
could have both been refused the opportunity to serve, but if he had gotten into
the military under the rules that existed at the time and the attitudes that were
prevalent, he could have been court-martialed or even accused and threatened
with criminal action if he didn't reveal names of those with whom he might have
had relationships who were serving in the military.
l think we have moved a long way on this and other issues, but l think it's
important to recall how much of an advance "Don't ask; don't tell" was at the time.
However, it was not implemented appropriately. lt was still used to discharge a
lot of patriotic men and women who were serving our country, often at great cost
in the middle of a war where people were being told, "We don't need your
services anymore," including linguists and translators and other specialty
services.
But in 1999, it just struck me that it wasn't working and that what we needed to
do was to try to move us toward using the Code of Military Justice and judge
people on conduct, not status, no matter whether you're gay or straight. That's
the way it should be. lt should be even-handed across the entire services.
We're beginning to see some changes. l remember very well the intense debates
about this back in '93, and honestly, it was so emotional in the military and
in the Congress that the Congress did pass a law. But we have to get the law
repealed.
But now it's beginning to change. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General
Shalikashvili has just come out in favor of a change. l've noticed General
Powell, who was adamantly against my husband's efforts back in '93, has begun
to say, "You know, maybe we should rethink this."
So l think we will lay the groundwork, but then when l'm president, we'll get it
done. And l'm looking forward to doing that.
(APPLAUSE)
SOLMONESE:
Changing tracks, talk to us about what is at the heart of your opposition to same
sex marriage?
CLlNTON:
Well, Joe, l prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions.
(LAUGHTER)
lt's a personal position, and you and l have talked about it. l've talked about it
with a number of my friends here and across the country.
And for me, we have made it very clear in our country that we believe in equality.
How we get to full equality is the debate we're having. And l am
absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality, full equality of benefits, rights
and privileges.
And l've also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their
jurisdiction over marriage. And l believe that was a right decision for a lot of
reasons, because it's easy, again, to forget that just 2.5 years ago, we were
facing all of these referenda that were enshrining discrimination in state
constitutions.
And a lot of people tried very hard to fight against them and prevent them from
being passed, but unfortunately, they were.
Now, 2.5 years later we're beginning to see other states take different
approaches. And what we were able to do -- and l really give HRC a lot of credit
for
your leadership on this -- in stopping the federal marriage amendment gave the
states the breathing room to make different decisions.
So l want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits. l want to repeal Section 3
of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in
committed same sex relationships, and l will be very strongly in favor of doing
that as president.
SOLMONESE:
l wonder, Senator, if you can sympathize with the frustration of this argument that
it's a states' rights issue. ln the civil rights struggle, this argument that it
was a states' rights issue was something that was typically used against people
working against us as sort of a red herring. And so can you see where this
argument of marriage as a states' right issue would resonate the same way in our
community?
CLlNTON:
Absolutely. And Joe, not only that, l really respect the advocacy that the
community is waging on behalf of marriage. l think you're doing exactly what you
need to do and should do, and l really am very much impressed by the intensity
and the persistence of that advocacy. But this has not been a long-term struggle
yet.
And l think it's really clear that people in the states are moving much more rapidly
to deal with the inequality than you would find at the federal level.
When you and l were plotting strategy to beat the federal marriage amendment,
the reason we were plotting strategy is we were worried it was going to pass.
And, again, this was a terrifying prospect that we would have enshrined in the
Constitution for the first time ever discrimination.
And we were very clear about what we needed to do to get the vote in order to
prevent this mean-spirited, divisive effort led by Karl Rove to politicize the
hopes and dreams of so many of our fellow Americans.
And we were able to defeat it, but l don't know that we could have defeated it if
we had not had DOMA. That, if anything, has provided a great protection
against what was clearly the Republican strategy blessed by George Bush, led
by the congressional Republicans, to just cynically use marriage as a political
tool.
CARLSON:
Do you think that's going to come up this time when the Republicans are
running?
CLlNTON:
No.
CARLSON:
ls it dead as an issue?
CLlNTON:
You know, Margaret, l'm very optimistic, because l think that...
CARLSON:
l haven't heard it yet.
CLlNTON:
l don't hear it either, and -- don't tell anybody, but l'm running for president...
(LAUGHTER)
... and so l'm traveling around the country a lot.
CARLSON:
"Don't ask; don't tell."
CLlNTON:
Yes, that's right. And l don't hear it. l don't feel it. l don't see it. Even with the
Republicans, with their various forums, you don't get the sense. Why?
Because a lot of people who were in favor of that constitutional amendment knew
better. That was a strictly cynical, political ploy on their part, and they were
successful, unfortunately, in a lot of states.
But l think that now people are starting to say, "Well, maybe we don't want to do
that," and because a Democratic Congress won't bring up the amendment,
there's really nothing for them to be rallying around.
CARLSON:
Thank you, Senator.
Melissa?
ETHERlDGE:
Senator, l have a personal issue here. l remember when your husband was
elected president, l actually came out publicly during his inaugural week. lt was a
very hopeful time for the gay community. For the first time we were being
recognized as American citizens. lt was wonderful. We were very, very hopeful.
And in the years that followed, our hearts were broken. We were thrown under
the bus. We were pushed aside. All those great promises that were made to us
were broken. And l understand politics. l understand how hard things are to bring
about change.
But it is many years later now, and what are you going to do to be different than
that? l know you're sitting here now. lt's a year out -- more than a year. A
year from now are we going to be left behind like we were before?
CLlNTON:
Well, obviously, Melissa, l don't see it quite the way that you describe, but l
respect your feeling about it.
From the moment that Bob Hathaway spoke at the Democratic convention
through the appointments that were made, both to positions in Cabinet agencies
as
well as in the White House, to the ongoing struggle against Gingrich and the
Republican majority, l think that we certainly didn't get as much done as l would
have liked, but l believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the
president, the vice president and the rest of us who were trying to keep the
momentum going.
l remember when l was running for the Senate as first lady, marching in the gay
pride parade in New York City. And to a lot of people that was just an
unbelievable act.
ETHERlDGE:
Why not be the leader now?
CLlNTON:
Well, l think l am a leader now. And l think that we are doing a lot to not only talk
about laws, as important as they are, but to really try to change attitudes
and persuade people that they should be more open, more respectful, more
accepting.
lf l were sitting where you're sitting with all you have gone through in the last 14
years, l'm sure l would feel exactly the same way, because not only did
you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And
so time can't go by slowly. You want things to move as quickly as possible, which
l understand and wish could happen as well.
But as president, l think l have an opportunity both to reverse the concerted
assault on people. lt wasn't just on people's rights; it was on people. lt was
pointing fingers. lt was demeaning. lt was degrading. lt was mean-spirited. And
that will end. That is over. And when we began to...
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
We're almost out of time, believe it or not. Time flies when you're having a good
time.
CLlNTON:
Oh, l can't believe it.
CARLSON:
But Jonathan?
CLlNTON:
To be continued, Melissa.
CARLSON:
Jonathan?
CAPEHART:
Senator, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace called homosexuality immoral.
And when you were first asked about it, you said, quote, "l'm going to
leave that to others to conclude." The next day, after much criticism, you finally
said you did not think that homosexuality was immoral. Why didn't you say that
the first time?
CLlNTON:
Well, it was a mistake, Jonathan, because what l went on to say after what you
quoted was to launch an attack on "Don't ask; don't tell," because my view
was that as a chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he had absolutely no right to say what
he said.
l disagreed with him profoundly, but what was really offensive is that he was in a
position of responsibility that had a direct impact on the lives of hundreds
of thousands of these young people in the military. So l went right at him on
"Don't ask; don't tell."
And you know you say these things. Somebody sticks a microphone in front of
you and you say, "Well, that's pretty good." And my friends started calling
me and saying, "Well, that wasn't very good." l said, "Oh, you're probably right."
So l immediately got the first opportunity l could to say the whole thing.
So l just was focused on one aspect of what l thought was really over the line.
You know, Joe Blow, Joe Schmo walking down the street can say, "Here's
what l believe." You say, "Who cares?" The chairman of the Joint Chiefs says it --
that has a direct impact on policy, and that's what l went after. But l should
have put it in a broader context.
CAPEHART:
Senator, would you...?
CARLSON:
Well, we are just about out of time, Jonathan. l'm really sorry.
CAPEHART:
... who's anti-gay?
CLlNTON:
l'm sorry. What, Jonathan?
CAPEHART:
Would you put someone on the bench who is known to be anti-gay?
CLlNTON:
No. And that's why we shouldn't.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
Senator...
CLlNTON:
That's one of the reasons why l'm against Southwick for...
CARLSON:
Senator, you told the AFL-ClO on Tuesday night, "l'm your girl." Do you want to
express those same sentiments here?
CLlNTON:
l am your girl. Absolutely.
CARLSON:
And you do get a closing statement, short though it may be.
CLlNTON:
Well, l want to be a president who really does move forward the agenda of
progress and equality in our country. That is what l have tried to do my entire life
for 35 years.
This country, with all of its flaws which we can see manifest -- it doesn't move
fast enough; it doesn't do what we want it to do -- has demonstrated
extraordinary resilience and a lot of movement forward. And l think we will see
that as the years unfold, and l want to be a part of that.
But l come to these issues not as a senator or as a lawyer or as a presidential
candidate, but as a friend of a lot of members of the LGBT community who are
my age who have suffered through a long period of coming out, of having to face
families and having to deal with all of the issues that we know occur.
And l want to be a president who can clearly say to the American people, "These
are our friends, our children, our parents. These are people we want to
support as they live the best lives they can."
So it's very personal for me. And we are not going to agree on everything, but l
will be a president who will fight for you, who will work to end
discrimination in the employment area and "Don't ask; don't tell," finally get hate
crimes through, do a lot of what we need to do on HlV AlDS and so much
more. And l really hope we can be partners in trying to make our country a little
bit better and a little more progressive for all of us. Thank you.
CARLSON:
Senator, wish we had more time. Thank you.
CLlNTON:
l do, too.
CARLSON:
That concludes our forum, but the campaign is only heating up. From now
through Election Day 2008, stay informed, follow the campaign and join with
LGBT Americans across the nation to debate the issues of visiblevote08.com
and at hrc.org.
On behalf of LOGO and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, thank you to
your panelists, Jonathan Capehart, Melissa Etheridge and Joe Solmonese.
August 06, 2007
Stephen Herbits to Lead Clinton LGBT Outreach
From Haaretz.com: Outgoing World Jewish Congress secretary-general and
prominent gay rights activist Stephen Herbits will lead Hillary Clinton's campaign
within the gay and lesbian community, as she seeks to win the Democrat
presidential nomination.
Herbits has in the past held several positions related to the gay and lesbian
community in the United States.
ln his last post, Herbits served as the personal assistant to Donald Rumsfeld
during his term as secretary of defense. He was then appointed secretary-
general of the WJC.
After cosmetics heir Ron Lauder was elected to the WJC presidency in June,
replacing Canadian billionaire Edgar Bronfman, Herbits announced he would
resign from his post as the organization's secretary-general. He has not yet
stepped down.
The WJC was established in the 1930s and represents Jewish communities from
80 countries. ln the 1990s, the organization played a key role in restoring
property that was stolen in the Holocaust to its Jewish owners, but has recently
found it difficult to focus on a major goal
This article is by Amiram Barkat and was posted on www.haaretz.com
June 17, 2007
Mayor David Cicilline Endorses Hillary Clinton
The Clinton Campaign today announced the endorsement of Providence Mayor
David Cicilline and named him a Co-Chair of Hillary's Rhode lsland campaign.
Cicilline, an openly gay man, was endorsed by the Victory Fund.

"Hillary Clinton understands the challenges facing our cities, and she has the
experience and vision needed to lead this country from her first day in office,"
Cicilline said.

Cicilline has made a name for himself as reform-minded mayor intent on
modernizing city government and improving neighborhood schools. Under his
leadership, Providence's crime rate has dropped to its lowest level in 30 years
due to an innovative community policing program, and fiscal integrity has been
restored as evidenced by straight-A bond ratings.

Prior to his election as Mayor, Cicilline served four terms as a state
representative, championing ethics reform and gun safety. His dedication to
transparency and accountability in government earned him Common Cause's #1
ranking.

"Mayor Cicilline is an exciting young leader who has turned Providence around
and restored faith in city government again," Clinton said. "l'm honored to have
his support as we take our message of change across Rhode lsland."
Cicilline distinguishes Providence as the largest U.S. city with an openly gay
Mayor.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
June 06, 2007
Hillary Clinton Answers HRC Questionare
Hillary Clinton has responded to a presidential
candidate survey from the Human Rights Campaign.
click here to see Hillary Clinton's responses (pdf file)
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
June 04, 2007
Statement from Senator Clinton on LGBT Pride Month
"As we celebrate Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, l want to commend the LGBT
community on a historic year that brought our country closer to equality and
closer to ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
Americans. Just a year ago, l worked with my Democratic colleagues in the
Senate as well as with LGBT leaders to defeat the divisive and discriminatory
Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Since then, we not only defeated FMA, but
we have been able to make real progress in achieving fairness for all Americans.
ln fact, since June 2006, New Jersey and New Hampshire became the third and
fourth states to adopt civil unions and Washington and lowa were added to the
list of states that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or
gender identity. A similar bill in Colorado is expected to be signed into law soon.
And in Congress, we are finally on the verge of passing the Matthew Shepherd
Act, which would expand hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and
gender identity. What a difference a year makes.
"The start of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month is a great time to celebrate these
recent victories but also to reflect on all the work that still needs to be done.
Unfortunately, while this is the first time in years that hate crimes legislation has a
strong chance of passing both houses of Congress, President Bush has already
signaled that he would veto this landmark bill. The truth is we will see little
progress for the LGBT community at the national level until we have a new
Democratic president. For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen
the families that matter to them. lt's been a government of the few, by the few,
and for the few. And no community has been more invisible to this administration
than the LGBT community.
"l'm running for president to replace the divisive leadership of the past six years -
- leadership that views no issue and no family above the reach of politics.
America deserves a president who appeals to the best in each of us, not the
worst; a president who values and respects all Americans, gay and straight; a
president who treats all Americans equally no matter who they are or who they
love.
"l'm proud of my record standing up for the LGBT community during my years as
First Lady and as a U.S. Senator. But when l take office in January 2009, we'll
finally be able to define success by more than the bigotry we stopped and the
bad decisions we prevented. America will finally have a president who moves this
country forward. When l am president, we will work together to make sure that all
Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits and that nothing
stands in the way of loving couples who want to adopt children in need. We're
going to finally expand our federal hate crimes legislation and pass the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act. lt is just plain wrong that in the year 2007,
people who work hard and do a good job every day can still be fired because of
who they love. And finally, we will put an end to the failed policy of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell. Courage, honor, patriotism and sacrifice -- the traits that define our
men and women in uniform -- have nothing to do with sexual orientation.
"l am honored to have the support of so many people in the LGBT community
and look forward to working with the community closely throughout the
campaign. Together, we can continue the journey America has been on from the
very beginning -- to form a more perfect union and realize the goals and values
we believe in. That's the promise of America -- and that's why l'm running for
president."
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
May 03, 2007
Hillary Clinton's LGBT Supporters
Hillary Clinton has released her list of LGBT Supporters. The list includes at
least two folks who were actively involved in the Howard Dean campaign,
Ethan Geto and Mirian Saez. Not suprisingly, there are also several folks here
from the so called 'HRC Massachusetts Gay Mafia', as described by the Blade
including Mary Breslauer and Hillary Rosen. Hillary Clinton received a warm
reception at a recent HRC event.
Here is the complete list:
Christopher Barley, New York City physician
Mary Breslauer, HRC's XM radio show The Agenda
llene Chaiken, creator and executive producer of The L Word
Bruce Cohen, film and television producer
Tom Duane, New York state senator
Steve Elmendorf, president of Elmendorf Strategies
Ethan Geto, publicist and political consultant
Emily Giske, Democratic National Committe
Deborah Glick, New York state Assembly
Chad Griffin, political consultant
Rebecca Haag, executive director of AlDS Action
Fred Hochberg, former Bill Clinton cabinet appointee and dean at The New
School
Roberta Kaplan, attorney
Billie Jean King, sports legend and activist
Neel Lattimore, Hillary's former press secretary as First Lady, currently
communications director at Children's Defense Fund
Rachel Lavine, New York state committee member
Danny O'Donnell, New York state Assembly
Christine Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council
Hilary Rosen, recording industry executive, HRC board member
Peter Rosenstein, gay rights activist
Mirian Saez, Democratic National Committee
Jeff Soref, former chair of the Democratic National Committee LGBT caucus
Jill Stauffer, HRC board member
Sally Susman, executive vice president for global communications at Estee
Lauder Companies
Matthew Titone, New York state Assembly
David Wilson, HRC board member
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
May 01, 2007
The Race for LGBT Dollars
Lisa Keen has a great article in PrideSource looking at which Democratic
Presidential Candidates are getting LGBT dollars. She writes:
"ln ten zip code areas with well-known heavily gay neighborhoods in seven cities,
Clinton took in 51 percent of contributions made to the top three Democrats, as
reported in the April quarterly report made available by the Federal Elections
Commission this week. Obama raked in 39 percent, and John Edwards 10
percent. ln Ann Arbor's zip code of 48104, Clinton took 68 percent of the money
given to the top three Democrats, followed by Obama with 20 percent, and
Edwards with 12."
lt's always hard to tell just how much LGBT money goes to Democratic causes.
Obviously we don't just live in those zip codes, we are everywhere. But unless
you make it clear that your donation is from an LGBT Democrat, who's going to
know?
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=24850

Democratic Presidential candidates have sights on
gay dollars
By Lisa Keen
Originally printed 04/26/2007

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination has an unusual feature
this time around: A battle of the gay lists. And early campaign finance reports
this week suggest another battle is brewing for gay dollars.
In the battle for dollars inside heavily gay neighborhoods, Hillary Clinton
appears to be faring best - especially in Ann Arbor, Boston, Los Angeles, New
York, and South Beach. But Barack Obama commands a strong second, leading
in heavily gay neighborhoods in San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
In ten zip code areas with well-known heavily gay neighborhoods in seven
cities, Clinton took in 51 percent of contributions made to the top three
Democrats, as reported in the April quarterly report made available by the
Federal Elections Commission this week. Obama raked in 39 percent, and
John Edwards 10 percent. In Ann Arbor's zip code of 48104, Clinton took 68
percent of the money given to the top three Democrats, followed by Obama
with 20 percent, and Edwards with 12.
This initial examination looked at the records of only the top three polling
candidates in each party. Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani led with 56
percent, followed by Mitt Romney with 26 percent and John McCain with 18
percent.
Of course, contribution reports this early in the campaign provide only a very
sketchy picture of gay support, for many reasons. First, the reports do not
specify what contributions came from gay donors, only how many dollars were
contributed within a specific zip code. Second, while the zip code areas
chosen encompass heavily gay sections of the cities, they also contain areas
which are not known to include large numbers of gays. And though political
pundits are predicting the primary winner will be chosen by the conclusion of
the Feb. 5 primary - when more than a dozen states will be going to the polls
- many more contributions will be reported as the primary voting draws
nearer.
But the shifting forward of so many primaries, coupled with a Democratic
presidential primary race that is polling as closely as this one, is increasing
the importance of every vote and every constituency. The latest Gallup Poll,
taken April 17 to 18, showed Clinton with 41 percent of Democratic leaning
voters, compared to Obama's 20 and Edwards' 12 percent.
"The gay vote is hugely important in the primary," said lesbian Democratic
activist Hilary Rosen.
"In past election years, we didn't have front-loaded primaries," said well-
known Democratic fundraiser David Mixner. "It'll all be over in about 10
months, and I'll be very surprised if we do not know who the nominee is then."
That's, no doubt, part of the motivation behind a decision by the Edwards
campaign last week to go after the gay vote more aggressively. The campaign
issued a press release April 10 listing "prominent LGBT leaders" who are
endorsing Edwards for president. Mixner was among them.
"It demonstrates that John Edwards wants to put into action his words - he
wants a partnership with the community, he wants gays to be part of his
campaign," said Mixner. "This is a very visible way of showing how aggressively
the campaign will pursue the community."
Six days after the Edwards camp released its list, the Clinton campaign had
one. Jin Chon, a spokesperson for the campaign, said the campaign had not
put out a formal list, but rather was "providing a sample of LGBT leaders
across the country who support the Senator." He said the campaign would be
doing "a formal rollout in the future."
Contacted by a reporter this week, a spokesperson for Obama, Jen Psaki, said
that campaign "is operating a little differently" than the other campaigns and
has "not been releasing the names of supporters." However, she forwarded a
list of 18 prominent LGBT supporters from the senator's home state of Illinois.
Edwards' list included 25 people, including Mixner, and Eric Stern, a former
LGBT Outreach Director for the Democratic National Committee and former
executive director of the national gay Democratic group Stonewall
Federation.
The Clinton campaign's list totaled 26 names, including prominent lesbian
Democratic activist Hilary Rosen and well-known gay Democratic fundraisers
Jeff Soref and Fred Hochberg.
Most names on the Clinton list are quite familiar to many gays - elected
officials, such as New York State Senator Tom Duane, tennis legend Billie Jean
King, The L Word creator Ilene Chaiken, and former deputy Kerry campaign
director Steve Elmendorf.
Fewer of the names on the Edwards list are familiar, but they have
connections that are widely known. Skip Paul co-founded Sega GameWorks
with movie mogul Steven Spielberg, Darren Star helped create such popular
television series as Sex and the City, Beverly Hills 90210, and Melrose Place;
and Dennis Erdman was a director on television's Mad About You.
"I think it was smart of Edwards to release names, but I think that is more of
an effort to establish credibility as the third place candidate than a reflection
on Clinton or Obama," said Rosen. "All of these candidates are good people
and will have great gay supporters. I just think Hillary has more gravitas,
combined with the compassion and knowledge about the issues to be a great
President."
Pam Spaulding, an online gay political blogger, says the Edwards campaign
strategy of releasing a list of gay supporters this early says "the Edwards
campaign is serious about courting the gay vote." And, she said, it signals that
"there's clear dissent within establishment circles about where gay support,
and gay dollars will go."
That dissent, she explained, is revealed in the presence of Human Rights
Campaign leaders on the list.
Although Clinton's recent appearance before an HRC board event clearly
illustrated she has strong support within the organization, Edwards' list
included more HRC board members, including Scott Wiener of San Francisco.
Wiener, past chair of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, said his
support for Edwards is based primarily on the anti-poverty activist's
commitment to standing up for "economic fairness."
"I know that there are leaders in the LGBT community supporting other
candidates," said Wiener. "I think it's great to have people in each of the
campaigns to ensure that LGBT people are always at the table."


Another LGBT News Item Absent from Clinton Website
Hillary Clinton's campaign sent out this press release last week in which she
commens Governor Lynch and the New Hampshire legislature for leadership on
civil unions.
Clinton states: "New Hampshire has a long history of protecting its citizens from
discrimination, and l would like to commend Governor Lynch and the New
Hampshire legislature for their commitment and support for the civil rights of gays
and lesbians."
Great quote, right? Still, l can't help but notice that much like Hillary's recently
announced list of LGBT supporters, this press release is conspicuously absent
from the list of recent press releases on the official Hillary Clinton website. Why is
it that of all the twenty-plus press releases sent out his month, this is the one that
doesn't make it on the website? Why is it, for that matter, that the word 'gay'
cannot be found anywhere on the Hillary Clinton website?
Hillary Clinton is saying the right things to LGBT press, and to LGBT audiences.
lt's what she's NOT willing to say about us to mainstream audiences that's got
me worried.
April 19, 2007
Contact: Kathleen Strand, (603) 479-7475
kstrand@hillaryclinton.com
SENATOR CLINTON COMMENDS GOVERNOR LYNCH,
NH
LEGISLATURE FOR LEADERSHIP ON CIVIL UNIONS
New Hampshire Soon to Become Fourth State to Adopt
Civil Unions
MANCHESTER, NH Senator Hillary Clinton today made the following statement
regarding the upcoming passage of legislation that will make New Hampshire the fourth
state in the nation to adopt Civil Unions.
New Hampshire has a long history of protecting its citizens from discrimination, and I
would like to commend Governor Lynch and the New Hampshire legislature for their
commitment and support for the civil rights of gays and lesbians, said Senator Clinton.

Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee
http://www.outfordemocracy.org/docs/clintonNH.pdf

April 24, 2007
Hillary Clinton: Allow Gay Soldiers To Serve Openly
Hillary Clinton is quoted in the Des Moines Register today stating clearly that gay
troops should be able to serve in the U.S. Military.
Hillary Clinton states: "Right now, we are discharging soldiers - at a time when
we don't have enough people to do the missions we need around the world -
because they're gay. Not because they've done anything, but just because
they're gay."
March 16, 2007
Clinton and Obama Clarify Positions on Morality
Stonewall Democrats Press Release
Washington, DC - Today, the National Stonewall Democrats recognized
statements issued on Thursday by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack
Obama (D-lL) which clearly stated that sexual orientation is not linked to morality.
The organization also urged all Democratic candidates to speak positively on
issues that impact lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans
within their campaigns and before the American public.
"We appreciate the strong statements from Senators Clinton and Obama
following the aggressive campaign undertaken by our members, donors and staff
over the last several days," said Jo Wyrick, Executive Director. "Most Democrats
understand that morality isn't derived from sexual orientation or gender identity.
Democrats should also understand that our families must no longer be seen as a
liability on the campaign trail, but as positive partners within the American
community. Our members aggressively communicated that message to both
campaigns this past week. We now look forward to helping all of our Democratic
candidates further engage our community and better vocalize their support for all
Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
This week, Senators Clinton and Obama were each asked by reporters whether
homosexuality was immoral following comments by Marine General Peter Pace,
Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff, which indicated that. At the time, both
Senators declined to answer the question.
National Stonewall Democrats, in response, initiated an internal effort to mobilize
leaders and donors close to both Senators to lobby the campaigns on this issue.
Stonewall also directly contacted each campaign and initiated a media effort this
week with appearances on national television, radio and in print publications in
an effort to talk about morality and Democratic values and to persuade both
Senators to clarify their positions.
Yesterday, Senators Clinton and Obama each issued statements which strongly
declared their beliefs regarding sexual orientation and individual morality.
"l've heard from a number of my friends, and l've certainly clarified with them any
misunderstanding that anyone had, because l disagree with General Pace
completely. l do not think homosexuality is immoral." - Statement of Senator
Hillary Clinton
"l do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts
to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the
past six years." - Statement of Senator Barack Obama
Both Senators also reaffirmed their opposition to the current "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, Don't Pursue" policy employed by the military.
Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA) has recently introduced the Military
Readiness Enhancement Act that would revoke the current policy on gay
personnel. The removal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy is
supported by leading Democrats and is the official position of the Democratic
Party as espoused in the 2004 platform of the Democratic National Convention.
Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (0)
March 14, 2007
Hillary Clinton wins Dolphin Dems Straw Poll
New York Senator Hillary Clinton topped the field in the Dolphin Democrats straw
poll of 2008 presidential contenders, winning 57.6 percent of the vote.
lllinois Senator Barack Obama was a distant second with 13.2 percent of the
vote, and former senator John Edwards and former vice president Al Gore tied
for third place, each winning 11.9 percent of the vote.
The unscientific straw poll was conducted Saturday and Sunday at PrideFest by
the Dolphin Democrats, Broward's GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgender)Democratic club. The Dolphin Democrats are chartered by the
Florida GLBT Democratic Caucus, an arm of the Florida Democratic Party.
The Dolphin Democrats are one of the largest Democratic clubs in the state.
History tells us that whoever wins Florida in November 2008 will be elected
president. And with more than a million gay and lesbian voters in Florida, more
than 70 percent of them Democrats, the GLBT community has an important role
to play, Dolphin Democrats president Amy Shoosmith said.
Browards GLBT community is a cross-section of the Democratic
constituency across the state. While our poll is an unscientific assessment, it
is a solid snapshot of where the 2008 presidential contest is right now.
Full results of the poll follow:
Candidate Votes Percentage
Hillary Clinton 140 57.6%
Barack Obama 32 13.2%
John Edwards 29 11.9%
Al Gore 29 11.9%
Bill Richardson 5 2.1%
Wesley Clark 3 1.2%
Joe Biden 2 0.8%
Others 2 0.8%
Dennis Kucinich 1 0.4%

February 16, 2007
Hillary Clinton on Gay and Lesbian Issues
KaIny BIg /rm AuI.cm nas psI In /IIwng rvw / BaracR Cama
n Gay an Lsan /ssus.
Hillary Clinton as New York's Senator: Hillary Clinton sits on the following
committees: Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pension and Senate Special Committee on Aging. She has been criticized
by liberals for her support of the lraq war, but praised for her support of abortion
rights, education support and health care.
Hillary Clinton and the United States Senate: Every two years the Human Rights
Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard
for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues
of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Hillary Clinton scored 89 out of 100%
in the 2006 scorecard. Here's how HRC rated Hillary Clinton:
Federal Marriage Amendment: Hillary Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage
Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) which would have defined marriage as between a man
and a woman and included language which could have prevented recognition of
civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The amendment failed by a vote
of 49-48.
Confirmation of Judge William Pryor : HRC opposed the confirmation of Judge
William Pryor to Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals because of his opposition to
equal rights for gays and lesbians. Hillary Clinton voted against Pryor's
nomination, but Pryor was nominated in June 2005.
Judge Samuel Alito Confirmation : HRC opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito
to the United States Supreme Court and so did Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was
part of an attempted filibuster to keep the Alito vote from taking place. Despite
Hillary's no vote, Samuel Alito was confirmed for the Supreme Court.
Co-Sponoring Legislation: Hillary Clinton, in line with HRC, co-sponsored
legislation to bring Medicaid coverage to low-income, HlV-positive Americans
and the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act which would expand federal
jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or
disability of the victim. She did not co-sponsor Uniting American Families Act that
would amend the lmmigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners
of U.S. citizens the same immigration benefits legal spouses of U.S. residents
enjoy.
Hillary Clinton and Gay Marriage: Some gay and lesbian voters don't feel like
Hillary Clinton has done enough to support gay and lesbian rights, while others
believe she is the best candidate for gay and lesbian issues. Clinton opposes gay
marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex.
During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act,
a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the
beginning of time, and l think a marriage is as a marriage always has been,
between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages,
quoted in The New York Daily News.
However, in October 2006 Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying,"l
believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a
greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic
partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."

Posted by David Mariner: Permalink | Comments (1)
February 08, 2007
Clark Williams on Hillary Clinton
CIarR psI In /IIwng n In CuI /r HIIary Oscussn 1Grup. CIarR s n
/ In mraIrs / Ins grup.
While l wish that the Clinton administration would have rejected DOMA, l believe
that Hillary Clinton remains committed to equal rights for all LGBT Americans.
As a LGBT political leader in Silicon Valley - and as a parent - l am proud to
support her presidential campaign because of her long record of support for a
range of progressive causes. On several key policy matters important to the
nation's LGBT community, Senator Clinton has been a strong advocate including:
* HlV/AlDS: a strong supporter of the Ryan White CARE Act, supports extending
Medicaid eligibility to more Americans disabled by the disease, supports greater
funding for HlV prevention programs;
* LGBT military service: opposes 'don't ask: don't tell', supports LGBT military
service;
* Equal marriage rights: Opposes federal marriage amendment, supports equal
marriage rights on state level, supports civil unions and domestic partnerships;
* Employment discrimination and hate crimes: Supports ENDA and supports
adding sexual orientation and gender identity to hate crimes legislation;
* Women's rights: Promotes women's rights as human rights, supports abortion
rights;
* Adoption and parenting: Supports making adoption and foster parenting easier
for all Americans.
* Human Rights Campaign Scorecard: 89 (2006), 88 (2004), 100 (2002); and
* Focus on the Family Scorecard: 0 (2006).
l would hope that the LGBT community would examine Hillary Clinton's entire
record of support for a range of issues important to our community. Not only has
she been a supporter of these issues but she has been a trusted leader that we
can count on.
Clark Williams
San Jose, CA
http://www.outfordemocracy.org/hillary.htm

Hillary Clinton is a Lesbian?

Former NY Times writer Edward Klein, author of the new book "The
Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far
She'll Go to Become President" says it's true.
According to an article on PageOne Q's website, Klein's new book has
'explosive' claims about the former First Lady, current Senator, and
potential future candidate for President.
Klein claims such things as:
the culture of lesbianism has influenced Hillary's political goals and
personal life since she was a student at Wellesley, an elite college near
Boston
she 'embraced' revolutionary lesbianism when she was young and
tolerated her husband's philandering because their marriage was a
largely sexless political convenience
She said she was passionately in love with her husband, but many of
her closest friends and aides were lesbians. Everything was ambiguous
Chelsea Clinton was conceived as a ploy to cover up Hillary's sexuality
that drug paraphernalia and sex toys were put on the White House
Christmas tree.


Hillary as Lesbian?
Pages 62-63: A college classmate of Hillary's tells Klein: "The notion of
a woman being a lesbian was fascinating to Hillary. ... But she was
much more interested in lesbianism as a political statement than a
sexual practice. ... Hillary talked about it a lot, read lesbian literature,
and embraced it as a revolutionary concept."

http://slate.com/id/2121218/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_About_Hillary

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/klein200506200754.
asp
The Truth About Hillary
An author tells his story.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez
The Clintons will always make headlines - for both their larger-than-life
aspects and the simple facts of presidential history (and future presidential
history?). The prospect of the former First Lady and current junior-but-star
senator Hillary Clinton running for and (sit down) possibly becoming president
has in part meant a little bit of a publishing bonanza of Hillary books. Among the
most talked about - if not In most talked about - is one coming out this
Tuesday: Tn TruIn AuI HIIary: naI Sn Knw, nn Sn Knw /I, an Hw
Far SnII G I Bcm FrsnI by Edward Klein, published by Penguin's
conservative imprint, Sentinel.
About "the most fascinating woman in America" as Klein puts it in an interview
with National Review Online, Tn TruIn AuI HIIary CInIn has already been in
the news with lurid headlines. ls it sex, lies and footnotes, this time without the
necessity factor - details uncovered about Bill Clinton's sexual behavior as it
related to abuse of power during a federal criminal investigation?
NRO editor Kathryn Lopez asked Edward Klein - former Aw 1rR Tms
Magazn editor-in-chief - about this and more. ln an exclusive interview - the
first of Tn TruIn AuI HIIary CInIn, Klein explains and defends his book, and
gives his read on where Hillary Clinton has been and where she is going.
NATlONAL REVlEW ONLlNE: ln a sentence, what is "the truth about Hillary"?
EDWARD KLElN:Hillary is not a victim (not of sexism, not of her husband, and
certainly not of this book); she's not a moderate (despite her effort to re-brand
herself in the Senate). Even my sources on the left admit she's positioning
herself as a victim and moderate in order to win the White House.
NRO: Matt Drudge has highlighted the "rape" claim in your book. Which, to be
upfront here, l thought was a terrible story to be highlighting, about a child and
her parents. Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book? -
that looks to be flimsily sourced at that. But even if it wasn't - why tell it?
KLElN: Let's set the record straight here. Actually, l don't make that claim in the
book. l included the story about their 1979 trip to Bermuda because Hillary
herself brings it up and spins it in her own book as an example of their
supposedly romantic marriage. The point of the story is that my source, who was
with the Clintons in Bermuda and quoted Bill's boastful remarks to me, was
stunned when Bill phoned him a few months later and told him he just learned of
Hillary's pregnancy by reading about it in the newspaper! Those who read the
book will see this is hardly a "rape story - rather it's yet another example of a
bizarre political union where a pregnancy is leaked to the largest newspaper in
the state and treated as political gain rather than shared privately as a couple.
NRO: You do relay Bill Clinton claiming he was going off to rape his wife, however
- and then a morning-after report that suggests that might, in fact, have
happened. Surely you see how that would become the "rape chapter" of the book
- and maybe the most obvious headline from the book? Might it have been
more trouble than it was worth simply to relay that the Clintons have a "bizarre"
relationship? Surely there are more polite examples.
KLElN: Here's why it's not a rape claim: l don't imply the source was in the room
with the Clintons, for all my source knows they could have had a massive fight
and then reconciled. My source doesn't speculate, l don't speculate. This whole
story, "the rape story" as it's being called by others, speaks more to how the
Clintons communicate, their bizarre relationship. And, of course, the whole point
of the story is how she leaked her pregnancy to the press - didn't talk about it
with her husband first.
NRO: Do you think more is being made out of some of the "dirt" - the more
salacious gossipy stuff in your book - than should be?
KLElN: Tn TruIn AuI HIIary is a comprehensive biography, encompassing both
her personal and political life. 1anIy Far chose to excerpt a part of the book
about political life, while other news sources have chosen to focus on the
personal. My book is much broader than any representation that has appeared in
the media so far.
NRO: How many times do you use the word "lesbian" in your book? Why point out
she had friends who were lesbians? Do we need to go there?
KLElN: Hillary's politics were shaped by the culture of radical feminism and
lesbianism at Wellesley College in the 1960s. This is paramount in exploring the
political life of Hillary Clinton.
How could someone write a comprehensive biography of Hillary Clinton without
investigating the rumors that have long circulated about her? l've gone further
than any other journalist in exploring the question of her sexuality, which is often
the first thing people wonder about her: ls she misrepresenting herself as a
doting wife to Bill Clinton? How can she stand his chronic infidelity?
As for the number of times the word appears in the book, l don't know. But l'm
sure there are some in the Clinton campaign counting right now.
NRO: One more sex thing. You write: "Hillary Clinton only had herself to blame for
the talk about her sex life." Can there ever really be a good reason for this, never
mind in her case?
KLElN: The Clintons themselves made sex an integral part of our national political
discourse at the turn of the century. There's no way of getting around sex when it
comes to the Clintons.
NRO: Are you nervous putting out a product that seems to be based on a lot of
anonymous sources?
KLElN: Were Woodward and Bernstein?
Look, no reporter likes to use anonymous sources. But most people are afraid of
invoking the wrath of Hillary Clinton, and so they will talk about her only on
condition of anonymity.
l interviewed nearly 100 people who know Hillary, including classmates from high
school, college, and law school; Democratic activists and party officials; White
House support staff, speechwriters, and military aides; Cabinet officers, senators
and congressmen; and other intimates of the Clintons.
l have had more than 40 years of experience as a serious journalist dealing with
sources, both Left and Right, on and off the record. And while writing Tn TruIn
AuI HIIary, l scrupulously checked all my sources for fairness and accuracy.
NRO: You've got good liberal credentials. ls this book the end of that?
KLElN: l have never had an ideological ax to grind. l'm a registered independent -
a reporter who goes where the truth leads me. And l intend to stay that way and
let the chips fall where they may.
NRO: Do you believe, as Hillary expressed around impeachment time, that there
was a "vast-right-wing conspiracy" out to do her husband in?
KLElN: The only conspiracy that existed during impeachment time was Bill and
Hillary's attempt to hide the truth.
NRO: Are you now part of some "Republican scream machine"? What was your
intention in writing the book?
KLElN: l'm a journalist who writes about fascinating people. l spent many years
writing about the Kennedys. But the Clintons have eclipsed them in national
interest. Right now, Hillary is the most fascinating woman in America.
l don't know if all Republicans will like this book, but l call them as l see them.
NRO: Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

KLElN: No.
NRO: You're a New Yorker. Did you vote for Hillary for senator? Would you vote
for Hillary for president?
KLElN: No and no.
l think Elizabeth Moynihan, Senator Moynihan's wife, had it right when she told
me that Hillary is "duplicitous. Hillary acts as though she is chosen by God, and
that gives her the right to use any means to justify her ends.
lf she becomes president, it's going to be deja Clinton all over again. And as far
as l'm concerned, we've already had the Clinton presidency for its full
constitutional eight years.
NRO: ls Sidney Blumenthal still "Hillary's brain"?
KLElN: l don't know, but he's still her pit bull attack dog. Blumenthal was the first
person to attack my book as soon as 1anIy Far's excerpt appeared.
NRO: A Sentinel spokesman said recently that Tn TruIn auI HIIary could be
Hillary's Swift Boat Vets. Do you intend that or expect that?
KLElN: l intended my book to take a good hard look at Hillary's true character, and
if the book is being compared to the Swift Boat Vets' book on that account, then l
am proud of the comparison.
NRO: Was the health-care disaster really "the most humiliating defeat of her life"?
The impeachment saga wasn't?
KLElN: The health-care disaster knocked Hillary out of the box and out of a
position of day-to-day power in the White House for nearly four years. lt was the
biggest defeat in her history.
The impeachment saga was manipulated by Hillary to turn herself into a
sympathetic victim, and led directly to her Senate victory. ln that sense, the
impeachment saga was actually a plus for Hillary.
NRO: Hillary wanted to be an astronaut, you report, but her mother encouraged
her to set a more reasonable goal: a seat on the Supreme Court. Could that still
be a reasonable goal? Student of Bob Bork - how ironic that would be. And
painful for some of us!
KLElN: Hillary has bigger fish to fry. She wants eight more years in the White
House.
Should she fail in that ambitious effort, she might "settle for a seat on the
Supreme Court - as long as it was the seat of chief justice.
NRO: Hillary has tried to position herself as a moderate. ls she? How much of the
"radical" Wellesley girl is still in her?
KLElN: Hillary has been a woman of the ultra-Left ever since she entered
Wellesley College 40 years ago this year. She's been consistently anti-military
(despite her recent votes), pro-nationalized health care, and pro-abortion without
parental consent.
You can take the girl out of Wellesley, but you can't take Wellesley out of the girl.
NRO: Hillary's story about how she and Bill met is "blatantly untrue"? How do you
know?
KLElN: Because like so many of Hillary's stories, her version (that she walked
across the Yale Law School Library and introduced herself to Bill), this story is an
example of Hillary making herself more important than she actually is.
One of Bill Clinton's law-school classmates told me that it was Bill who made the
first move. Bill arranged to meet Hillary, not the other way around.
NRO: Pat Moynihan's family says your legendary-senator-hated-Hillary story is
bogus. What say you?
KLElN: l have known Elizabeth Moynihan for 30 years; we first met in New Delhi
when Pat Moynihan was ambassador to lndia.
l spoke with Liz Moynihan and told her l was writing a book about Hillary. Liz
agreed to be interviewed by me on the record regarding the Moynihans' meetings
and relationship with Hillary.
l have a record of this interview.
NRO: Why should anyone trust or believe your portrait of Hillary Clinton?
KLElN: Because it is written by a journalist with impeccable credentials
(AwswR, the Aw 1rR Tms, 1anIy Far, Fara), who has no political
agenda.
My previous book, Tn Knny Curs, was also the object of disparagement
and vilification - and it has since become clear that everything l wrote was true.
You may not be able to judge a book by its cover, but you sure can judge a book
by the author's track record, and my record is impeccable.
NRO: Why should a fair-minded voter read your book before 2008?
KLElN: Because Hillary's 2006 campaign for reelection to the Senate is a dry run
for her 2008 campaign for the White House, and the time has come for her
opponents to size her up and devise a strategy to stop her.
NRO: ls there any chance she won't run for president, knowing what you know (or
claim to know) about her?
KLElN: Barring an act of God, Hillary will seek her party's nomination in 2008 for
the presidency.
NRO: lf she runs, will she have a "woman problem" like she did when she ran for
Senate?
KLElN: She already has a woman problem. Many women don't like Hillary. They
don't think she has earned her place in the sun.
Hillary will try to counter that problem two ways: First, by showing how hard she
has worked as a senator, and second, by portraying herself as a victim of
sexism.
She will try to keep Bill Clinton in the background.
But don't let her fool you. A vote for Hillary will be a vote for Bill Clinton. As far as
the Clintons are concerned, it's still two for the price of one.
NRO: Could she have beaten Rudy for senator? Could she beat him for president?
KLElN: Rudy could have beaten Hillary for senator, and he could trounce her for
president.
NRO: How is HRC like Nixon?
KLElN: Like Nixon, Hillary is paranoid and has an enemies list.
Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBl files against her enemies.
Like Nixon, Hillary believes that the ends justify the means.
Like Nixon, Hillary has a penchant for doing illegal things.
NRO: Would Hillary have had a political future if Kerry won?
KLElN: Maybe on the Supreme Court.
NRO: What's the most interesting thing you learned about Hillary while working on
your book? The most disturbing?
KLElN: That even today, Hillary is aware that Bill Clinton is carrying on sexual
affairs with other women, and she doesn't do anything about it.
NRO: ls Tn TruIn AuI HIIary on bookshelves or under brown paper, behind the
cash register?
KLElN: Tn TruIn AuI HIIary will be prominently displayed up front in every
major bookstore in America, with its cover proudly facing forward.
CHAPTER 2
RUDY GUILIANI CROSS DRESSING WAS A JOKE NOT TO BE
TAKEN SERIOUSLY
Most men do not think in terms of politics or religion when
it comes to visual indulgences of the female anatomy. But most
men do like to joke around. Lets take Rudy Guilianis jesting
when he cross dressed:




RUDY GUlLlANl AND DONALD TRUMP


Rudy Guiliani has professed he is not gay and has only done this for sport
and laughter. All the men of Saturday night live cross-dressed to joke and clown
around and that was and is Guiliani's motive. And so what if Rudy actually
enjoyed it! Wearing women's clothes is a lot of fun, so long as it isn't taken
seriously.
However, could such JOKlNG around lead to SERlOUS POLlTlCS, after
all, Guiliani tends to be liberal when it comes to GAY and LESBlAN RlGHTS. lt
could be possible that Guiliani has a secret porn fetish of some sort, but to
publicly humiliate himself like this must be taken in the same context as Will
Farrell doing BLADES OF GLORY. lt's for SPORT and LAUGHTER!
Kind of like in the military when Drill lnstructors and Sergeants call their
Platoons ladies when they are working out or coming out to formation. lt's just a
joke to show man's ultimate perverted self when men don't have good women.
Men, when they don't have women, often cross dress and gauk at pornography
because they lack having females in their lives. l don't think that Guiliani was
aiming at making fun of transvestides, although men who seriously want to
become women are really sick individuals!
lf you were to ask Hillary Clinton if she believed that a woman wearing
men's ties and men's clothes is okay, she would probably say yes, and therefore,
approve of Guiliani dressing up in women's clothes.
PERVERSlON ls a serious issue, that, when taken in a funny context,
often makes light of a serious epidemic.


lS THAT DONALD TRUMP lN GUlLlANl'S BREASTS? YES. Was Guiliani
going for a Marylyn Monroe look?
Looks like Guiliani was having a whole lot of fun.

Do you remember a sitcom back in the 1980s called: BOSOM BUDDlES?

lt wasn't something taken seriously, but as something funny to make
people laugh.
Most men like to make sport of their perversions, as oftentimes, issues of
perversions can lead to shame and guilt which can be overwhelming when men
are embarrassed by the reality of not being able to score good women.
Well, some men really are sick and perverted enough to take cross
dressing to the level of wanting to get a sex change and actually become a
woman. That's scary.
lt is quite normal and natural for men deprived of beautiful women to want
to feel, touch, and wear women's clothes for a better ejaculation while
masturbating to some pornographic pictures of women, however, such
perversions can lead to other perversions, and sometimes don't and men know
better than to not cross a certain line.
Every person needs a biological release and sometimes it is humorous to
make sport of this embarrassing issue that faces a lot of deprived men who have
to work and play with man-eating, man-hating dykes who take their lesbianism
seriously!
But Rudy Guiliani was never a desperate man. Only a man secure within
himself enough to humiliate himself in public like that could do something so
outrageous as to dress in women's clothes and have fun with it.
Remember Mel Gibson's film: WHAT WOMEN WANT? He tries to get
inside the female mind by wearing panty hose and putting on make up. That
made us all laugh because he was one of the most macho chick magnets in
Hollywood. He got paid well to have fun with cross dressing!

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Dt 22:5.

Dt 22:5
A woman must not wear mens clothing, nor a man wear womens clothing,
for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

ANYONE WHO DOES THIS IS DETESTABLE TO THE LORD!
It is quite un-natural for a man to wear a bra, panties,
pantyhose, a dress, and fashions designed for women. It is more
natural to enjoy a womans clothes on a womans body. Wearing
womens clothes can also lead a man to a variety of mental and
spiritual perversions such as lust, thinking of a naked woman,
having a pornographic fantasy, etc.
Cross-dressing may cause a man to not be content with
being a man and cause him to want to get a sex change. If men
start enjoying cross dressing well, thats a concern!
Gods LAW forbids cross dressing as a detestable act, just
as much as homosexuality, however, due to the insurgency of
pornography preying upon the weaknesses of mans biological
flesh, a simple photograph of a naked woman, may not be
sufficient for some men seeking a better biological release.
Therefore, to get a better biological release from voyeuring
pornographic pictures of super model women, men tend to want
to feel, touch, or wear some article of female clothing to get a
heightened sense of pleasure during ejaculation.
This does not make men gay or a transvestide. This simply
means that men want to feel ANYTHING FEMALE on their bodies
while whacking off to images of female nudity.
Since many men are desperate and lonely, as a lot of
women are dyking out these days, ON A SERIOUS NOTE, men will
buy womens lingerie or find some womens lingerie to wear as
the sensation of feeling womens bodies while visualizing naked
women tends to be a better release.
Mans desperate attempt at feeling SOMETHING FEMALE
while gazing at porn often leads to cross dressing, not because
the straight man is gay or wants to be gay, but because he likes
and loves women, and likes and loves how women dress up in
lingerie.
Of course, cross dressing does not ever make a good
substitute for the REAL THING, as it would be nice if men got to
enjoy a woman dressing up in lingerie, rather than he having to
do it himself while voyeuring beautiful women, who would
otherwise ignore him in reality.
CHAPTER 3
THE DEMOCRATIC GAY AND FEMINIST AGENDA

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=list_page
s_categories&cid=16

Gay marriage 'rights'
Thomas Sowell
December 31, 2004

ln all the states where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, the voters voted
against it -- as they should have.

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it
is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the
government. lt is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they
want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their
worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can
make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. lf my wife buys an automobile with her own money,
under California marriage laws l automatically own half of it, whether or not my
name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation
of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just
one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience.
Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of
opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts
its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the
same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more
sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when
they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever
kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social
approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

lf you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to
their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do
in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are
bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts
of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as
well. lt has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more
government money for AlDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to
special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on
which to do so as anything else.

lncidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage,
even though gay activists are pushing it.

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a
means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of
AlDS.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools,
where so-called "AlDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that
promote homosexuality. ln some cases, gay activists actually come to the
schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the
addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.

There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our
schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in
other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from
society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the
taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of
the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that
cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the
structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses
seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.
nIIp:www.IwnnaII.cmcIumnsIsInmasswIIIs2UU4J2J.snImI
The psychological strategy of the homosexual lobby
BY DR Leahcim Semaj
Sunday, January 02, 2005
I take issue with the recent discussion describing Jamaican
people who see homosexuality as dysfunctional or deviant as
being sick people. This is what is done when one subscribes to
the concept of "homophobia".

Once persons refuse to accept the agenda that homosexuality is
normal and healthy behaviour, they are labelled as sick, they have a
phobia. How did we get into this mess?
Psychosexual Disorders can be grouped into two main categories: The
first is sexual dysfunction: when physiologically normal functions fail,
eg inability to respond to erotic stimulation with arousal, erection or
orgasm, or when interest in sex is diminished or absent.
The second is sexual deviance: when a sexual behaviour violates the
laws, or social norms of a social group or society.
Prior to 1973, Psychosexual Disorders were defined in the following
categories:
. Homosexuality,
. Paedophilia (children),
. Incest,
. Voyeurism,
. Zoophilia (animals),
. Frotteurism (rubbing on strangers),
. Necrophilia,
. Transvestism (cross-dressing),
. Urophilia (urine),
. Mysophilia (filthy surroundings),
. Coprophilia (filth, brown shower),
. Klismaphilia (enema),
. Troilism (sharing your partner and watching),
. Masochism,
. Sadism, and
. Various fetishes.


Most of these have been retained in the psychological literature, but in
1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality
from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders.
Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a
resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both
associations have urged all mental health and other professionals to
help dispel the stigma of mental illness that many people still associate
with homosexual orientation.
Yet all the other psychosexual disorders and perversions have been
retained. Why?
Since 1976, the APA has divided homosexuality into two categories,
Egosystonic and Egodystonic. This distinction proposes that people
who are sexually attracted to their own gender and happy with that
situation are normal, while those who are unhappy need help. Why
this one disorder? Why not any of the others?
In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association, in its Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual IV, removed paedophilia as a sexual perversion. This
event was followed in 1999 when the American Psychological
Association released an APA Bulletin report, A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using
College Samples.
In this report, Bruce Rind, et al, claimed child sexual abuse could be
harmless and beneficial. This led to a situation in which Illinois State
Representative Bob Biggins introduced House Resolution 325 damning
the APA Rind study.
Later that year, the US Family Research Council held a press
conference in Washington, DC. Here a coalition of members of
Congress, child protection advocates, child abuse victims and public
policy groups charged the APA to renounce the Rind study. This
conference was largely ignored by mainstream media in the USA.
Concern is being expressed that the American psychological and
psychiatric establishment are now setting us up to engineer a cultural
endorsement of incest in the same way that the endorsement of
homosexuality was orchestrated.
On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association finally
showed its hand and announced its support for legalisation of same-
sex civil marriages and opposition of discrimination against
homosexual parents.
They concluded that denying same-sex couples legal access to civil
marriage is discriminatory and can adversely affect the psychological,
physical, social and economic well-being of homosexual individuals.
The report stated that prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples
is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and
other members of their families the legal, financial and social
advantages of civil marriage.
We now understand the full agenda: It begins with tolerance, then
acceptance, then endorsement, then finally that we recognise same-
sex marriages. This is inconsistent with my understanding of the order
of the universe.
Years ago, Suzanne Dodd proposed that: "The Western World is
quickly adopting the concept that homosexuality is a viable alternative
lifestyle. If your son decides to marry another man, you are supposed
to smile and say, 'That's nice'.
Be aware that soon enough we will be expected to see two men get
married, and unless we smile and say, 'That's nice' we might lose all
our foreign aid." (Money Index #366; page 46) Are we now there?

Alice in Wonderland approach to sexual behaviour
The use of the word "gay" is an attempt to remove the negative
connotation inherent in the concept of homosexuality. The word
"homophobia" implies that anyone who does not endorse and 'big-up'
homosexual acts is sick.
The objective is for us to be on the defensive. Why is it a "phobia" to
not love homosexual acts and other perversions and to resist the
pressures to give private perversions the status of public acceptance?
If we accept homosexuality as "normal" behaviour, why not accept all
the other perversions and dysfunctions also? If we believe that
persons with the other perversions and dysfunctions are in need of
help, why are not the homosexuals?
The poet Haki Madhubuti reminds us
.That which is normal for us
Will never be normal for us
As long as the abnormal defines what normality is
Are there historical precedent and consequences for these actions? I
believe that it is time for Jamaican psychologists to be straight with
the people of Jamaica as to what our position is.
Are we following the dictates of the American Psychological
Association? Or do our experiences, history, culture and heritage tell
us otherwise? Mine do. I do not accept that homosexuality or any of
the other perversions or psychosexual dysfunctions be endorsed as
being part of what we identify as normal and healthy behaviours.
Leahcim Semaj is a consulting psychologist
lsemaj@hotmail.com
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20050101T200000-
0500_72415_OBS_THE_PSYCHOLOGICAL_STRATEGY_OF_THE_HOMO
SEXUAL_LOBBY.asp
The "Gay Agenda" is all about FASClSM! And it is all supported by the U.S.
Democrat Party.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'Philadelphia Four' drawing nat'l attention

FACE TRlAL FOR DlSRUPTlNG GAY EVENT
Fri, Jan. 07, 2005

NOW HERE'S a fine kettle of fishes and loaves.

The plight of Christian fundamentalists charged with disrupting "Outfest," last
October's gay block party, has become a national caus cIr.

The "Philadelphia Four" are a hot topic on Christian radio, on the lnternet and on
conservative talk shows.

The national Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" debated the case on Monday.

Sources say the office of District Attorney Lynne Abraham, which is prosecuting
the group, has been hit with obscene and anti-Semitic phone calls.

At the heart of the dispute is Michael Marcavage, 25, of Lansdowne, who heads
a group called "Repent America."

Marcavage and 10 others, for the second year in a row, shouted protests and
waved signs at "Outfest." Placards quoted a biblical verse from Leviticus they
interpret as describing the homosexual act as an "abomination."

Marcavage was charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors, including
conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, incitement to riot and possession of an instrument
of crime (a bullhorn.)

"lt was a just blatant attack on our civil liberties," Marcavage told us.

"At first they said we could go anywhere we wanted. Then they told us we had to
leave the event, even though it was on a public street. l said we're not going to
leave. That's when they arrested us."

Municipal Judge William A. Meehan dismissed charges against six of the
protesters, leaving four adults and one juvenile still charged. But he inflamed
fundamentalists by referring to the passage from Leviticus as "fighting words."

"We can differ about the message, but what we can't differ about is that there has
been a profound abuse of power here," said Brian Fahling, a lawyer for the
American Family Association, which has filed a federal suit to stop the
prosecution.

As a requirement of bail, Meehan ruled that the group may not be within 100 feet
of "a homosexual event." Presumably this means Marcavage cannot have a beer
at Woody's.

"From a First Amendment perspective, it does appear to be overreaching," said
the ACLU's Larry Frankel. His group has not been asked to intervene, he said.

The police report filed by Chief lnspector James Tiano and Capt. William
Fishersays the protesters blocked pedestrians from vendors and ignored orders
by police attempting to ensure their safety when a crowd of 500 gathered around
them.

A video of the protest shot by an independent filmmaker (which you can see at
www.afa.net/clp/philly4.asp) appears to show conflicting police orders. lt also
shows a group of "Pink Angels" counter-protesters attempting to peacefully
cordon off Marcavage's group and drown out their message.

One would think the experience of police action against protesters at the 2000
Republican National Convention (in which most charges were dismissed and the
city eventually was forced to settle civil suits) might give the D.A. pause.

"As far as the convention is concerned, we believe those people were properly
arrested and charged," said D.A. spokeswoman Cathie Abookire. "Every case is
unique; every case has its own set of facts."

Abookire added, "We don't see [the "Outfest" case] as a freedom-of-speech issue
at all."

We do. lt seems to us the D.A. must prove that the actions of the Christian
protesters, no matter how repulsive, were, in the words of the U.S. Supreme
Court, "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil
that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."

"There is," Justice William O. Douglas wrote in that 1949 case, "no room under
our Constitution for a more restrictive view."

The Philadelphia Four's next court date is Wednesday.

nIIp:www.pnIIy.cmmIaIynwsnwsIcaIJUoo94J.nIm?Jc
Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools Marches Forward
Heterophobes attempting to destroy any parent that stands in their way!



http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/education/nac/a0029442.cfm

Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools Marches Forward
December 17, 2003

by Marc A. Fey

GLSEN has achieved stunning progress over the past six years in our public
schools by shifting the debate away from parent authority to sexual orientation,
student safety, equal access, and anti-discrimination.

HAbout the time Hurricane lsabel reached landfall on Thursday, September 18,
2003, a group of activists, educators, and junior high and senior high school
students gathered in Washington, D.C. for the annual GLSEN (Gay Lesbian
Straight Education Network) National Conference. Like the havoc that lsabel
wrought on communities in North Carolina, GLSEN threatens to produce far
greater devastation.

What l witnessed during these brief 72 hours left me with the conviction that
GLSEN is a cultural hurricane that's hitting our schools with the kind of force and
devastation that may take years to fully assess. Let me try to paint the picture.
GLSEN is a self-styled pro-gay education network targeting our kids in public
schools. The danger is in how they seek to accomplish this mission. ln effect,
GLSEN's objective is to cut out parents and adult leaders in the child?s life who
don't agree with the LGBT agenda. Every speaker at the national conference
made this message very clear.

On Friday night founder and co-director Kevin Jennings defiantly declared,
"Neither rain, nor wind, not even a hurricane will stop us from bringing justice to
our schools!" A clinic earlier that day was entitled "Strategies for Responding to
Homophobic Bigotry: Everybody's Business!" The title accurately set forth this
point in their agenda-- to make the GLBT agenda everyone's agenda, yours and
mine included. And the strategy is to get to our kids.

lt's not just that they are generously funded, though they certainly are. Revenues
for 2001 were $3.35 million, and this year's conference was liberally supported
by Kodak, Levi Strauss, Microsoft, and lBM whose logos were emblazoned on
banners, brochures, and conference freebies. For the close to 500 people in
attendance, including about 100 junior high and senior high students, the
companies hoped to capture this powerful purchasing sector "gays and youth"
arguably two of the most powerful buying sectors in America today.

ln effect, GLSEN's objective is to cut out parents and adult leaders in the child's
life who don't agree with the LGBT agenda. Every speaker at the national
conference made this message very clear.

No, GLSEN's success comes from a carefully planned message that
homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender identity issues represent the next
human rights and civil rights battle, on par with Martin Luther King, Jr and other
reformers' great work of the last 200 years. Again, this message is targeted at
our kids. Today, GLSEN sponsors about 1700 campus student clubs, called
GSA's (Gay Straight Alliances) promoting LGBT issues.

The opening plenary included Washington, D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes.
"Homophobia," announced Holmes-Norton, "is alive and well in the House of
Representatives." She ranted on, "They are a group of fools who should know
better. What you [the GLSEN crowd] are doing has more to do with 'leaving no
child behind' than what Congress is doing." Speaking for a moment directly to the
students in the audience, she summed up her philosophy this way, "l believe that
every one of you should be left alone to be who you are." The comment
embodied the conference message: do whatever you want with your sexuality.
lt's a message our kids are hearing on many public school campuses across the
nation.

Candace Gingrich, famous gay activist sister of former Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich, led the workshop entitled "Everyday Heroes: How Openly GLBT
Faculty, Administration, Students, and their Allies Help to Facilitate Safety,
Support, and Respect in Our Schools." As the manager of the Human Rights
Campaign's National Coming Out Project, she used the 90 minutes as a bully
pulpit to rouse the forty or so of us in attendance to "work to include anti-
discrimination language in your school district policies and support GLBT staff to
come out." At one point, suddenly aware of the steep political pitch of her
comments, she said, "Forgive me if l'm being too political." Never mind she was
supposed to be addressing a group of public school educators.

Most importantly, you need to know that there is, coming to a school near you on
April 21, 2004, GLSEN's "Day of Silence." This is their latest plan to impact high
school and junior high students. The promotion is intended to impose a campus-
wide silence in observance of LGBT issues. ln 1999 300 high schools sponsored
the Day of Silence. ln 2001, over 1900 schools and 100,000 students
participated in the event. ln the words of their web site, "The possibilities are
endless." Their giddy confidence that the sky's the limit is understandable when
you consider that they've seen over 300% growth in participation in just four short
years.

The hurricane that GLSEN represents is hitting our schools. Unlike lsabel, this
hurricane doesn't threaten homes, businesses, and lands. lnstead, this force
threatens our most precious resources, our kids.



As education policy at Focus on the Family, Marc Fey brings ten years of
teaching in California public schools to his writing and commentary.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=147

Gays ATTACK Straights in UNC Criminal Justice course
UNC promoting Heterophobia and -Straight Hate-



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040716.shtml
Queers under siege
Mike S. Adams
July 16, 2004 |

Dear Bryan:
l?m sorry to hear about your recent experience in criminal justice class. l don?t
know why so many criminal justice classes include chapters on ?queer theory?
these days. l was especially sorry to hear that one of your gay classmates got
up in front of the class and read the following:
/ wanI Inr I a mraIrum n sIragnI marrag, n as, n puIc
spIays / a//cIn amng In ppsI sx an ma mags InaI prmI
nIrsxuaIIy. UnII / can n]y In sam /rm / mvmnI an sxuaIIy
as sIragnIs Inr prvIg musI sIp an I musI gvn vr I m an my
qur ssIrs an rInrs. SIragnI ppI wII nI Ins vIunIarIy an s Iny
musI /rc nI I. SIragnIs musI /rgnIn nI I. Trrrz nI I. Far
s In msI pwr/uI mIvaIn. A n wII gv us wnaI w srv. RgnIs ar
nI gvn Iny ar IaRn, y /rc / ncssary. /I s asr I /gnI wnn yu Rnw
wn yur nmy s. SIragnI ppI ar yur nmy?
?/ naI Jss HIms s mucn /? r]c / n rpp wn a. // smn
RII nm /? cnsr I ns wn /auII. / naI RnaI Ragan, I, caus n
mass-murr my ppI /r gnI yars. BuI I nnsI, / naI nm vn
mr /r uIgzng Ryan nI wInuI /rsI amIIng ns guII, wInuI ggng
/rgvnss /r Ryan?s aIn an /r In aIns / Ins / Inusans / Inr
FA?s-msI / Inm qur. / naI nm /r maRng a mcRry / ur gr/. / naI
In /Rng Fp, an / naI Jnn /Rng CarnaI /Rng C?Cnnr, an / naI
In wnI /Rng CaInIc Cnurcn. Tn sam gs /r In MIIary an spcaIIy
/r AmrRa?s Law En/rcmnI C//caIs-In cps-sIaI sancIn sasIs wn
ruIaIz sIrI IransvsIIs, prsIIuIs an qur prsnrs?
l was also shocked by the final statement of the diatribe concerning ?Rules of
Conduct for Straight People.? l understand that it was read out loud as follows:
?O nI /IaunI yur nIrsxuaIIy. B scrI. RsR ng msIaRn /r a Iz
r a nm. // yu /I Ins ruIs ar un/ar, g /gnI nmpna n sIragnI
cIus, r GC FK 1CURSELF/
Well Bryan, l know that you are disappointed by the quality of education you are
getting here in the UNC system. Your belief that UNC is a national
embarrassment is shared by many students, taxpayers, and alumni. But,
remember, you are only 19 years old. Don?t give up yet! You can use this bad
experience to have a little fun. You can also use it to teach others about the
hypocrisy of the campus diversity movement.
ln fact, if l were in your shoes, l would handle the situation by taking the following
steps:
1. Just for fun, l would file a charge of homosexual harassment against the
student who read that diatribe. Specifically, l would make several references to
the new campus constitutional right to feel comfortable at all times.
2. Next, l would convince a Catholic student to file a charge of religious
harassment against the person who read that statement. ln the complaint, l
would make sure to ask how the university would respond if a student
transferring from Bob Jones University had read the same anti-Catholic
statements.
3. l would petition to have your professor attend a sensitivity training session for
allowing the classroom to become a hostile environment for heterosexual
students.
4. l would ask the university to fund a new Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Trans-
gendered, and Queer ldentified Life and Study Center (LGBTQLSC). The center
would help LGBTQ students deal with their violent tendencies. The LGBTQLSC
would offer several classes on anger management.
5. l would also ask the school to initiate ?heterosexual Safe Zones? where
straight students could go to seek protection from gay political fanatics who want
to harm them.
6. l would also establish a ?Catholic safe zone? to protect Catholics from the
same gay political fanatics.
7. Finally, l would file a motion for a list (under North Carolina General Statute
132) of all donors who have given more than $1000 to the school in the last five
years. Mail them a copy of the ?Rules of Conduct for Straight People.? Make
sure they are in touch with the university they support so generously.
Well, Bryan, that?s all l have for now. l could go on with more suggestions but l
won?t. l would hate to be accused of stirring up controversy in the UNC system. l
want to make sure that everyone feels comfortable at all times.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=149
Worker Opposed to Gays wins suit against AT&T
AT&T attempts to FORCE Homosexual Policies on Christians



nIIp:www.wasnngInIms.cmnaInaI2UU4U4U7-J24J2-2oJr.nIm
Worker opposed to gays wins suit
April 07, 2004

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHlNGTON TlMES

An AT&T Broadband employee who was fired after refusing to abide by company
rules that he said violated his religious beliefs about homosexuality has won a
federal court case.
Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
awarded Albert Buonanno of Denver $146,269 for lost salary, loss of 401(k)
matching contributions and compensation for emotional distress in a Friday ruling
released this week.
The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination
against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have
accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company
he had been with for nearly two years.
Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in
January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the
responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of
us," including sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a "certificate
of understanding" acknowledging that he agreed to the policy.
The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the
religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an
undue hardship on the company to do so.
Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing
with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate
against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford
lnstitute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno.
"This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. Whitehead
said. "lt concerns the freedom of conscience ? the right of individuals to object to
something they believe is wrong, especially when it contradicts their religious
beliefs, whether it is war, abortion, homosexuality or a number of other issues."
A spokesman for Comcast, which owns AT&T Broadband, said, the company
"is disappointed in the court's ruling," which they said appears to ignore attempts
by companies "to foster diversity and nondiscrimination in the workplace."
The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is reviewing
the case and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask the court to
reinstate him as a quota specialist, instead seeking monetary compensation. He
now works for Mental Health Corporation of Denver as a counselor.
The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to challenge
similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court challenges to the
"sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, which he said often aims at
training workers to accept and value diversity, including homosexuality.
"l think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said.
Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the company ?
such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious purposes, Mr. Whitehead
said.
"All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the homosexual
lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a sinful lifestyle," said
Mr. Whitehead.
But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and they
couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did.
ln the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to
avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr.
Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in
question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language
to make it less ambiguous.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=150

Heterophobic HATE rampant on School Campuses
Hissy fits and temper tantrums by GAY HETEROPHOBES are rewarded


GAY HETEROPHOBES are encouraged to throw temper tantrums and have
complete hissy fit meltdowns because they are REWARDED for this nutty
behavior. ln fact, by their own admission, the kids that CAUSED THE
DlSRUPTlON were rewarded and those kids who simply expressed their opinion
were punished and had their "Free Speech" rights trampled on.

And WHERE is the ACLU in all of this?

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14359889&BRD=985&PAG=461&d
ept_id=161556&rfi=6

Student opposition to civil unions disrupts SWHS
By Candace Taylor, Journal lnquirer
April 16, 2005
SOUTH WlNDSOR -- Four high school students were sent home Friday after
they wore T-shirts bearing anti-homosexual slogans to school, causing a series
of disturbances as other students became "emotionally distraught," students and
school officials said.
The boys, who wore white T-shirts on which they had written, "Adam and Eve,
Not Adam and Steve," say their constitutional right to free speech has been
violated.
"We were just voicing our opinions," said Steven Vendetta, who made the T-
shirts with his friends, Kyle Shinfield, David Grimaldi, and another student who
asked not to be identified. "We didn't tell other people to think what we're
thinking. We just told them what we think."

But other students say they felt threatened by the shirts, which also quoted Bible
verses pertaining to homosexuality.

"l didn't feel safe at this school today," said Diana Rosen, who is co-president of
the school's Gay-Straight Alliance.

Vendetta said the impetus for the T-shirts came earlier in the week, when
students at the high school took part in the annual Day of Silence, a project
orchestrated by the national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. On
the Day of Silence, students across the country do not speak, as a reminder of
the discrimination and harassment experienced by homosexuals.

Students at the high school also wore signs showing their support for legislation
that would recognize civil unions for same-sex couples in Connecticut, Vendetta
said.

Vendetta and his friends, who oppose civil unions, wanted to make their feelings
known.

"We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against
it," he said. "There is another side to this debate, and we're representing it."

Almost immediately, the shirts drew comment and debate from other students,
Vendetta said.

"l walked down the hall, and people were either cheering me on, yelling at me, or
just sneering," he said. "lt was the most intense experience."

Teachers brought the situation to the attention of high school Principal John
Dilorio, who said Friday that the law protects students' freedom of speech, as
long as that speech doesn't disrupt the educational process.

He told the boys they could continue to wear the shirts as long as they didn't
become a distraction to others.

The students returned to class. But heated arguments and altercations ensued
almost immediately, with some students becoming "very emotional," said student
Sam Etter.

Rosen said that when she first saw the shirts, she "almost didn't believe it." She
became very upset, crying and spending most of the day in administrators' and
guidance counselor's offices. She also got into several arguments, she said.

"l saw a large crowd gathered during one of our lunch waves," said senior
William "B.J." Haun. "A large debate was going on. lt involved a lot of people. By
the end of the day, everyone was talking about it and giving their two cents."

Eventually, Dilorio called the boys into the office and told them that other
students were becoming "emotionally distraught," Shinfield said. He then asked
the boys to remove the shirts. They refused and were sent home.

Dilorio said no disciplinary action has been taken against them.

Shinfield, who says he believes "the choice to become homosexual is against the
will of God," says he doesn't regret what he did.

"lf we took the shirts off, it ruined the whole point of wearing them," he said. "l
wouldn't have been able to deal with my conscience. This topic is really important
to me."

But he added that he didn't intend to hurt other students' feelings.

"lt upset me that people took it personally," he said.

Alex Goldberg, a member of the Gay-Straight Alliance, said his classmates have
a right to their opinions but took it too far.

"School is supposed to be a safe zone for everyone," he said. "lt's crossing the
line when you target other people."
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=155

BOTH the Right AND THE LEFT Disagree with Same-Sex Marriage
Same-sex marriage defeated by liberals in liberal states


As this piece clearly demonstrates, the ONLY people who want to FORCE same-
sex marriage are the cultural elite perverts in positions of power. Many of them
are in the media who intentionally work to distort the message and the facts...
Read for yourself. BOTH Liberals AND Conservatives clearly agree that Same-
Sex Marriage is WRONG in America, but the Holleywood and Liberal Media
radicals keep on pressing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.claremont.org/writings/050408cella.html
Same-Sex Marriage and the Deliberate Sense
By Paul J. Cella III -- April 8, 2005
Soon after last fall's election, a number of commentators began to point out the
curious fact that, contrary to conventional wisdom, gay marriage may not have
helped President Bush win reelection at all. The conventional wisdom had been
(from the Right) that moral issues carried the day, with opposition to gay
marriage leading the charge; and (from the Left) that bigotry and intolerance
carried the day, with "homophobia" leading the charge. There may be something
to this conventional wisdom, however one likes to formulate it. lt is possible that
gay marriage get Bush re-elected?mostly because the issue was on the ballot
in Ohio, the state that swung the election to Bush. The statisticians will have to
sort that treacherous question out, if indeed a final sorting-out is possible. But
what needs no sorting out, because it is plain as day, is the fact that a very large
number of people who voted for Senator John Kerry at the top of the ticket?and,
we might reasonably infer, voted for Democrats all the way down the ticket?went
on to cast their vote against gay marriage. Consider: Bush lost Oregon with 48%
of the vote, but a prohibition on gay marriage passed with 57% of the vote.
Another blue state, Michigan, resulted in very similar numbers. ln decisive Ohio,
Bush won with just over half the vote, and a prohibition on gay marriage won
62%. Similarly, in very red Mississippi and Georgia, Bush won with 60% and 58%
of the vote respectively, while gay marriage went down resoundingly (86% and
76%). And in this context let us not forget that other blue states, including
California, have already passed prohibitions on gay marriage.
ln short, the most striking fact about the decisive answer the American people
gave to the question of gay marriage, is that it was emphatically the answer of
In Amrcan ppI, not some faction or narrow majority of it. The most striking
fact about gay marriage is not "division" or disagreement, but precisely
agrmnI.
Now the place to begin any serious political inquiry is not, as we might be
inclined, in the minds of intellectuals, but down in the trenches, so to speak,
where men are slugging it out over what they regard as In critical questions
about who we are as a people and the future character of our nation. lt will do us
little good to draw our conclusions from the cosmopolitan opinions of urban
America, either of the Left or of the Right; for the cosmopolitans are manifestly at
odds on this issue (as they are on a number of other central issues) with the rest
of their fellow citizens.
What the urban elite tends to overlook is that on an issue like gay marriage the
most prominent feature is not disagreement or division but rather settled
agreement. Though we are told incessantly that gay marriage is a "polarizing" or
"wedge" issue, easily taken up by cynical demagogues, in fact it is not. lt is only
the lack of perspective among the urban elite that produces this confusion. Gay
marriage is only a "wedge" issue between a faction (albeit a loud and ubiquitous
faction) and the people themselves?between the urban elites and what Tn
FraIsI meaningfully terms "the deliberate sense of the community." The
"division," such as it is, on gay marriage emphatically does not mirror the division
designated by the red and blue states. Let it be noted that blue states by the
plenty, while voting reliably for Democrats, even sending near-socialists to
Congress year after year, have nonetheless passed prohibitions on gay
marriage. Noting this, we are pressed with a pregnant question: Would any state,
in the entire Union, act deliberately through its duly-elected representatives
sitting in legislative bodies (which do not, mind you, include courts) to legalize
gay marriage? We can push the matter farther: How many polities of any
kind?federal, state, local?would legislate through their representatives to legalize
gay marriage? Atlanta, Georgia votes 9-1 Democratic, yet it would be a close-run
thing indeed whether the city would legalize gay marriage.
These are interesting facts, and they point to something larger, for we have yet to
really consider In decisive factor in this; In factor which elevates this
discussion from the nitty-gritty of politics (where, l say again, all political
discourse must begin: not for nothing did Socrates simply walk about the city and
interrogate various Athenians) to the supreme heights of political philosophy.
Certainly a large number of Americans, probably amounting to a majority, oppose
gay marriage on moral and religious grounds (which means, for the Left, that
they oppose it because they are bigots), quite aside from constitutional
objections. But something has carried this from an issue of majority opinion to an
issue of suprma]rIy opinion. Something, in short, has given opposition to gay
marriage the status, not merely of a narrow majority but of "the people
themselves" (Publius's phrasing again). ls it possible that the csv objection
of gay marriage lies not in its substance but in the method of its enthusiasts? lf
so, other questions demand attention. Could it be that what so many
Americans?Democrats and Republicans, red-staters and blue-staters, men and
women, Pacific Northwesterners and Southerners?are so jealous to protect,
against the truculence of the innovators and despite all the stigma that attaches
to it in polite society, is the naIur an /rm / Inr gvrnmnI, which the
innovators are threatening to subvert? Could it be that what the innovators in
their enthusiasm have inadvertently put at issue is the very thing that makes all
other issues fade into the background? Could it be that they have threatened, by
opening it up to existential examination, the very thing which was so precious
that Lincoln mournfully led the nation into a bloody war of brother against brother
to preserve, that it "shall not perish from this earth"?
l would answer: yes. The proponents of gay marriage, in choosing as their final
legislator the courts of this country, have thrown open to question, in a radical
way, the very idea of self-government. They have made us think the unthinkable:
that we might no longer be governed, however untidily, however frustratingly, by
Publius's "deliberate sense of the community," but rather by a judicial plutocracy,
egged on by the urban sophisticates. They have asked us to answer a terrible
question. They have asked us to answer whether America will be a republic
anymore. The editors of the journal FrsI Tnngs cogently captured the outward
legal character of this calamity: "The question before us is how the Constitution
will be amended: by judicial fiat or by 'We the People of the United States'
employing the means established by the Constitution." They did not go to the
deeper philosophical question of our constitution as a republican people.
Nor is that all. For if the engine of this quiet but immense usurpation is the
judiciary branch of government, it has been assisted, more in exhibition and
publicity than in real substance, by a brace of renegade local officials who, in the
/rssn of the moment, have here and there (San Francisco most prominently, but
also little New Paltz, New York) defied state and federal law, with nary a veneer
of lawful authority, to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. These unlikely
renegades?predictably enough, considering the population from which the
national media draws its ranks?became overnight celebrities; and their
irresponsibility, almost as if it were calculated to do so, gave the issue a popular
status and unlikely urgency it would have never achieved if it had merely followed
the strictly judicial route of other similar issues. lt would be difficult, l think, to
overstate the effect of this official lawlessness on that great swath of America
that rarely engages passionately in politics. Though these renegades were never
nearly as important, in terms of legal substance, as the methodical usurpation of
the courts, few things could have been more impeccably calculated to arouse the
ire of the generally tranquil American populace than the spectacle of local
mayors simply defying duly-enacted law, itself resting on thousands of years of
human wisdom and experience, to "marry" homosexual couples?and all of it
cheered to high heaven by a transfixed national media. The spectacle was
astonishing to behold.
* * *
lt is true, of course, that judicial despotism has reared its face to the American
people before. lt reared up, in a sudden stroke, on the question of abortion; and it
has poisoned our politics ever since. lt reared up, some twenty years before, on
the question of racial integration of the public schools?but then the urgency of the
question was tempered, because the philosophical question was removed from
the discussion, when Congress acted properly, authenticating the deliberate
sense of the community to pass into law the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
lndeed, some might even argue that the possibility for this particular danger of
judicial despotism has always been latent in our constitutional system. But here, l
think, for the first time, we have the American courts, from the top on down,
preparing to say with no ambiguity, brooking no rebuke: We will be your lawgiver,
and you will be our subjects. And this, by its gravity, puts us in the realm of
political philosophy. For, just as one cannot have political philosophy without
politics, neither can one have politics without political philosophy. lt is the nature
of political philosophy to discern and clarify and refine, not the final answers but
the enduring problems of Man and his political life. Thus the problem of self-
government will always be with us. Attempts to resolve its difficulties will only
destroy it; and the temptation will ever confront us to simply abandon it as a
functioning ideal, for something advertised as more just, more equal, more
efficient, or more rational.
The introduction of self-government into the world meant the substitution of rule
by force and coercion (and these can certainly include the force of wayward and
capricious majorities) with rule by deliberation and consent. lt is government by
public debate, carried on between citizens, yes, but more precisely between
elected representatives. lt means compromise and perpetual discussion. lt
demands patience from the minority even when a cause is just, and magnanimity
from the majority even when the political strength is preponderant. lt depends
upon consensus, and, though it does nI set itself against change in principle, it
insists that change must come through the proper channels, namely the
legislative bodies. lt insists, moreover, that a minority must rely on the art of
persuasion, and trust in the good faith of its fellows; and that a majority must
respect the position of the minority, and bide its time until the minority can be
carried along in acquiescence. ln short, it is a very demanding ideal. The
opponents of democracy, throughout the history of political philosophy (and any
man who thinks they are mere reactionaries and fools has clearly not reckoned
with them; he can begin with one named Plato), have often charged that it asks
too much of men; that on the evidence most men are hardly capable of governing
their own appetites, much less a polity. But self-government is what our
forefathers entrusted to us. "We," wrote Lincoln, "when mounting the stage of
existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings.
We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them?they are a legacy
bequeathed to us, by a nc hardly, brave, patriotic, but nw lamented and
departed race of ancestors." Lincoln knew how fleeting these blessings were. He
saw their price.
Now one of the quintessential difficulties of democratic self-government is its
bewildering disorderliness, its never-ending loose ends, its ceaseless cross-
purposes, its lack of firm, guiding will. Frustrated, disillusioned, the people lose
faith. There will always be the threat of tyranny, brought on by the exhausted
dissatisfaction of the people. Rousseau perceived this difficulty and thought to
correct it with his doctrine of the General Will. Democracy must have something
behind it to secure its unity, to command the loyalty of its constituents: that it
might not simply fly to pieces. Publius perceived the problem too, and brilliantly
interpreted the Philadelphia Constitution to account for it in various ways,
including, of course, his doctrine of the Deliberate Sense. Behind all the turmoil
of democracy would be the "cool and deliberate sense of the community": a
shared agreement on certain supremely important things. nI Ins IruIns.
Lincoln thought deeply about the problem of self-government, its natural
vulnerabilities and temptations, and with the power of his penetration and the
majesty of his eloquence, looked to a remedy:
The question recurs "how shall we fortify against [the loss of faith in our institutions]?" The
answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity,
swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the
country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to
the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and
Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;?let every man
remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the
character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by
every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap?let it taught in schools, in
seminaries, and in colleges;?let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;?let it
be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.
And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young,
the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and
conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. (Lyceum Address, 1838.)
This, Lincoln's "political religion," l submit to you as the force behind the
opposition to gay marriage. Enfeebled by a thousand sophistries, enervated by a
dozen mad modern ideologies, attenuated by the distance of time and loss of
nearness or urgency, the American people, We the People of the United States,
have not yet lost our reverence for the laws. We will not suffer to have rogue
mayors and supercilious judges transform utterly, in their rush to accomplish an
innovation of very dubious justice, the way in which we make decisions about
ourselves as a people. Such a transformation is already underway in various
quarters, as l indicated above; but never has it been so brazenly advanced, its
opponents so vehemently denounced. ln their heedlessness, the opportunistic
advocates of judicial despotism would make a revolution in our character as a
people; they would blindly draw in the train of their favored innovation a question
of the profoundest importance, and reprove with the greatest ferocity anyone who
feels, though he may not be able to articulate it, that such a course of action,
whatever its ultimate goal, will surely wound, perhaps fatally, the American
system of self-government.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=160

THE DESTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE PRECEDES THE DEATH OF A CULTURE




http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=1580
THE DESTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE
PRECEDES THE DEATH OF A CULTURE
Sociologists and anthropologists who have studied the death of civilizations have
found that rampant sexual immorality, feminism, and homosexuality have been
factors in destroying nations.
y Rv. Lus F. SnIn
Cnarman, TraInaI 1aIus CaIIn
ln his 1979 book, Cur Oanc Has Turn I OaIn, Christian sociologist Carl W.
Wilson outlined the dangers facing traditional marriage and the family in
America's increasingly sexualized culture. Wilson could clearly see what was
going to happen to the American family if our society continued to be sex
saturated.
Wilson noted that history reveals that nations decline and eventually die when
sexual immorality becomes rampant and the traditional family is discarded in
favor of group sex, homosexuality, infidelity, and unrestrained sexual hedonism.
He pointed to the writings of British anthropologist J. D. Unwin, whose 1934
book, Sx an CuIIur, chronicled the historical decline of numerous cultures.
Unwin studied 86 different cultures throughout history and discovered a
surprising fact: No nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital
sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced sexual
hedonism. Unwin stated it this way, "ln human records there is no instance of a
society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a
tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence."
Unwin found that nations that valued traditional marriage and sexual abstinence
were creative and flourished. He described this as "cultural energy" that can only
be maintained when sexual activities remain restricted within marriage.
Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in Tn Amrcan sx rvIuIn, found essentially the
same thing when he examined sexual immorality as it relates to cultural decline.
Sorokin noted in the late 60's that America was committing "voluntary suicide"
through unrestrained sexual indulgence. He observed that as individuals began
engaging in pre-marital sex unrelated to marriage, the birth rate would decline
and our nation would be slowly depopulated. He predicted an increase in divorce,
deserdesertion, and an epidemic of sexual promiscuity resulting in a rise in
illegitimate children. His predictions, unfortunately, have come true.
Sorokin's study of decadent cultures convinced him that a healthy society can
only survive if strong families exist and sexual activities are restricted to within
marriage. Sexual promiscuity leads inevitably to cultural decline and eventual
collapse.
Carl Wilson notes that decadent cultures display seven typical characteristics:
Mn r]cI sprIuaI an mraI vIpmnI as In Iars / /amIs, mn gn
I ngIcI Inr /amIs n sarcn / maIraI gan, mn gn I ngag n
auIIrus rIaInsnps r nmsxuaI sx, wmn gn I vaIu In rI /
mInrn an nmmaRr, nusans an wvs gn I cmpI wIn acn
Inr an /amIs snIgraI, sI/sn nvuaIsm /ragmnIs scIy nI
warrng /acIns, an mn an wmn Is /aIn n G an r]cI aII auInrIy
vr Inr Ivs. Soon, moral anarchy reigns. When the family collapses, the
society soon follows.
Marriage ls Dying ln Scandinavia
Dr. Stanley Kurtz, a fellow with the Hoover lnstitution has written extensively in
recent years over the impact that homosexual marriages will eventually have on
our culture. ln two important papers published in The Weekly Standard in late
2003 and early 2004, Kurtz describes how the legalization of same-sex marriage
in the United States will lead inevitably to the destruction of marriage altogether.
Homosexual marriage will open the floodgates to other bizarre sexual
arrangements including polygamy and polyamory (groupings of males and
females into a ?married? unit).
Writing in Tn En C/ Marrag /n Scannava, (Tn RIy SIanar, 2/2/04),
Dr. Kurtz notes, for example, that Sweden has increasingly separated the idea of
marriage from parenthood and that the prevalence of homosexual partnerships
has only helped accelerate the decline in marriage.
Marriage, due in part to homosexual partnerships, has changed culture attitudes
to view marriage as having little to do with rearing children.
Kurtz also observes that Sweden is probably the most secular nation on the earth
and that ?Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to secularism. And
many studies confirm that, throughout the West, religiosity is associated with
strong marriage, while heightened secularism is correlated with a weakening of
marriage.?
ln Norway, the de facto legalization of homosexual marriage has not only
weakened the traditional family structure, it has also caused severe divisions
within the Norway?s Lutheran state church. Says Kurtz: ?Gay marriage lessened
the church?s authority by splitting it into warring factions and providing the
secular media with occasions to mock and expose divisions. Gay marriage also
elevated the church?s openly rebellious minority liberal faction to national
visibility, allowing Norwegians to feel that their proclivity for unmarried
parenthood, if not fully approved by the church, was at least not strongly
condemned.? ln Norway, the normalization of gay marriage has helped
normalize unmarried cohabitation and caused church divisions.
Kurtz observes: ?Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation
of marriage and parenthood. And, once established, gay marriage became one
of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-
wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce.?
Homosexual Marriage Will Lead To Social Chaos Dr. Kurtz? essay, ?Beyond
Gay Marriage,? (Tn RIy SIanar, 8/4/2003) describes the likelihood that
same-sex marriage will lead us into social chaos by also legalizing polygamy and
polyamory (group sex as a ?family?).
According to Kurtz, ?Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship
contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and
temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female.?
ln a related article published in AaInaI Rvw, (6/31/2003) Dr. Kurtz quotes
homosexual activist Paula Ettelbrick who says that homosexual marriages must,
of necessity, include a third person (a sperm father or female egg donor) as part
of a marriage triad.
She writes: ?? the family structures of lesbians and gay men who have children
simply do not fit into the marital structure erected to envelope heterosexual,
married couples with their children ? every lesbian couple with a biological child
has an automatic third person?the donor/father?who factors into the family. ?
Significant changes to the legal rules of parenting would have to be made to
accommodate these families.?
Not only would polygamous homosexual relationships be legalized, but
transgender marriages. Transgender is an umbrella term used by homosexual
activists to describe heterosexual cross-dressers, homosexual drag queens, and
transsexuals (individuals undergoing sex change operations). Some only go
through half of a sex-change operation and live as ?she-males.?
ln early 2004, two male-to-female transgendered individuals tried to get married
in Kansas but were denied a marriage license. They have threatened to sue the
state to be allowed to marry each other.
The legalization of homosexual marriage will lead to a litigation nightmare in our
nation over custody of children; legalized polyamory and transgender marriages.
The legalization of homosexual marriage will also threaten the religious freedom
of Christian businessmen and subject children in our public schools to even more
aggressive recruitment efforts. ln addition, homosexuals will push for passage of
hate crime laws to criminalize any verbal or written opposition to their goals.
Religious freedom could die once homosexual marriage is legalized and
Christians could be jailed for simply criticizing homosexual behavior.
lf we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
And, once the moral decline begins, it will be very difficult to turn things around.
William Bennett, in Tn BrRn HarIn says it well: "My concern is that we are
now embarked upon an experiment that violates a universal social law: ln
attempting to raise children without two parents, we are seeing, on a massive
scale, the voluntary breakup of the minimal family unit. This is historically
unprecedented, an authentic cultural revolution-and, l believe, socially
calamitous. We may be under the illusion that we can cheerfully deconstruct
marriage and then one day decide to pull back from the brink. But as a friend of
mine puts it, once you shoot out the lights, can you shoot them back on again?
As the long record of human experimentation attests, civilizations, even great
civilizations, are more fragile and perishable than we think."
Our culture must strengthen traditional marriage, promote abstinence before
marriage, and reject any attempts to undermine the natural law by redefining
marriage to include same-sex couples. The future of our civilization is at stake!
This is a battle we cannot afford to lose.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=165

New Hate Crime Report Exposes Homosexual Special Rights Agenda
Hate Speech is nothing but a Code Word for PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY



http://www.worthynews.com/commentary/hate-crimes-bill-4.html
New Hate Crime Report Exposes Homosexual Special Rights Agenda
May 31, 2001
Washington, DC ? Traditional Values Coalition has just published "Hate Crime
Legislation: Unequal Treatment Under The Law," a report that details the danger
and injustice of hate crime legislation.
"Hate crime laws violate freedom of speech, religion, and criminalize thought,"
said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty today. "Hate crime laws are being
used by homosexual activists to punish any person who has the courage to
speak out against the recruitment of children by homosexuals."
The report exposes the myth that the United States is experiencing an epidemic
of hate crimes--and shows that hate crime laws create a system of unequal
justice under the law. "A special interest group that can claim victim status under
hate crime laws can punish not only actions, but speech and thought under these
laws," said Lafferty. "A person who criticizes homosexual behavior should not
have to fear being punished for his views."
Lafferty expressed concern over the "hate crime" provisions in S. 1, the
education bill that is currently being debated in the U.S. Senate. "S. 1 will
continue the funding of hate crime/anti-Christian bigotry curricula for public
schools. School officials will continue targeting children who are critical of
homosexual behavior," Lafferty noted.
This bill also contains so-called "safe school" provisions that will further promote
homosexuality under the guise of protecting homosexual students. This
legislation will punish the thought and speech of students who may oppose
homosexuality on moral grounds. Lafferty urges the Senate to strip all hate crime
language from S. 1. "President Bush must veto S. 1 if any hate crime language is
included and if there are no protections against anti-Christian bigotry," said
Lafferty.
TVC is urging concerned citizens to sign two petitions against S. 1. One is urging
that all references to hate crimes be stripped from the bill
(http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petition.html?name=S_1_hate_crimes.; the
other urges that President Bush veto S. 1 if it contains hate crime language
(www.conservativepetitions.com/petition.html?name=veto_senate_bill_1.
TVC's report also details the dangers of Senator Tom Daschle's bill, S. 19, the
"Protecting Civil Rights of All Americans Act," which contains numerous hate
crime provisions. "S. 19 will provide special legal protections for homosexuals
and will make criticism of homosexual behavior a federal offense," said Lafferty.
"S. 19 includes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that will allow
homosexuals to sue their employers or co-workers if they feel intimidated by
criticism of their behavior. This 'Thought Police' bill must be defeated." "Hate
Crime Legislation: Unequal Treatment Under the Law," is available on TVC's web
site at: www.traditionalvalues.org/TVCSpecialReportHateCrimes.PDF.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=193

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS protest GAY MARRIAGE attempt by Spanish Socialists!
The Radical Reds (Socialists) in Spain attempted to FORCE Gay Marriage


Just like the radical socialists in America that CALL themselves "Democrats," the
Socialists in other countries are running into stiff opposition in trying to push their
perversion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159978,00.html
Hundreds of Thousands Protest Gay Marriage Bill in Madrid
Saturday, June 18, 2005
MADRlD, Spain ? Hundreds of thousands of people led by 20 Roman Catholic
bishops and conservative opposition leaders clogged downtown Madrid on
Saturday in a demonstration against the Socialist government's bill to legalize
gay marriage and permit gay couples to adopt children.
Chanting in favor of the family and children's rights, the demonstration, called by
a lay Catholic group, the Spanish Forum for the Family, was held in a festive
atmosphere with participants waving colorful balloons and Spanish and regional
flags.
A half hour into the demonstration, organizers were claiming 1.5 million people
had attended. But media eyewitnesses found the estimate difficult to believe, with
most putting the crowd size at some 500,000. No police figure was immediately
available.
Madrid's Cardinal Jose Antonio Maria Rouco Varela (search) was among 20
bishops at the head of the rally, along with the opposition Popular Party's
leaders, Angel Acebes and Eduardo Zaplana.
Earlier Saturday, Deputy Socialist Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la
Vega (search) defended the law and accused protesters of discrimination, saying
their actions meant they wanted the rights they enjoyed to be denied to others.
The new law "does not oblige anyone to do anything they don't want to do," she
said.
Although the protest was backed by Spain's Episcopal Conference (search) and
the Popular Party, there appeared to be serious divisions over the issue within
both groups. Neither the bishops' conference president, Ricardo Blazquez, nor
Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy were present.
Also noticeable by their absence were the Popular Party's leaders in Madrid ?
regional government president Esperanza Aguirre and city mayor Alberto Ruiz
Gallardon.
The gay marriage bill is expected to become law in a matter of weeks. lt has
been passed by the lower chamber of Parliament and will be voted on next week
by the Senate.
Opinion polls indicate a majority of Spaniards support the bill.
But demonstrators were angry at what they called the degradation of the
institution of marriage and the fact that gay couples may adopt.
"Marriage can only be between man and a woman," said Agustin Cruz, 41. "lt's a
divine and natural law. Marriage of homosexuals is a lie. You have to call things
by their name. The first lie begins when you start calling queers 'gays.' They're
queers, it's not an insult, it's the definition of that race of people."
Banners reading "FamilyMan+Woman" and "A mother and father for every child"
could be seen up and down the demonstration, which was attended by families
and individuals of all ages. Handfuls of priests and nuns mixed with lay
protesters.
Chants for Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to resign
resounded continuously.
"This demonstration is the people's response to the government's provocations,"
said Fr. Jose Ramon Velasco. We're not against homosexuals but allowing them
to marry degrades matrimony.
"And they shouldn't have the right to adopt because if those children turn out to
be homosexual, who will be to blame, the government?"
Velasco compared the bill to the beginnings of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
"Back then the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back
this law," he said. "l'm serious, give it time and it will destroy the moral fiber of
Spain and the West."
The Bishops' Conference last week said the gay marriage bill was the biggest
challenge to the church and its values in 2,000 years.
lt was the first time the church has given such a display of anti-government
activism in more than 20 years.
Some 500 buses transported people to the protest from around country while
special flights brought people from the Canary lslands and Spain's enclaves in
Morocco.
The gay marriage bill is one of several controversial measures introduced by
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government since it
ousted the Popular Party from office in elections in March, 2004. Others included
withdrawing Spanish troops from lraq, halting an education bill that would have
made religion obligatory in schools and scrapping a national water plan that
envisaged hundreds of dams and major water transfer construction projects.
The demonstration forced a complete halt to above-ground traffic in most of
central Madrid.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=213

Using Canada as a Guide, Gay lobby ultimate goal is SEX WITH CHILDREN
Pedophilia is the goal




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTlCLE_lD=45191
Normalizing pedophilia
Posted: July 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Now that the gay lobby has successfully persuaded the Parliament of Canada to
legalize same-sex marriage, the question arises: What will it do next?
Will it retreat for a time into inactivity and wait for the public to bestow semi-
respectability on the new condition? Or will it brazenly push the government to
silence Christian churches that carry the gay-marriage conflict into the next
federal election by removing their tax deductibility status? Or will it open a new
campaign to prohibit all criticism of homosexual practice on moral grounds by
deeming it an exercise in "hate"?
Last week, eight days after the bill went through the Commons, Canadians
learned the answer. While the lobby may pursue some of the above, it would also
push forward against the last standing barrier to sexual "freedom." lt would tackle
the laws against sex with children.
Not directly, of course. Public opinion has not "advanced" sufficiently to accept
pedophilia. But it will fight a current government move to tighten the child
pornography section in the Criminal Code. The gays will insist that possession of
material that represents sex with children remain legal in Canada on
"educational" or "artistic" grounds, provided the representation is the product of a
writer's or artist's imagination and that no actual children were involved in its
production.
This exemption was made three years ago by a British Columbia court trying a
self-confessed possessor of photographs and stories of children engaged in
sexual activity. The court convicted him for possessing the photographs and
acquitted him for the purely "imaginary" material.
This meant that drawings and stories of children engaged in sex could be freely
bought and sold in Canada. Public outrage at the ruling became so severe that
the government introduced an amendment to the Criminal Code to remove this
exemption. The amendment has passed the Commons and is now before a
Senate committee.
Last Wednesday, the Globe and Mail, chief voice of the gay lobby in the
Canadian media, in a lengthy lead editorial launched a formal attack on the
amendment. While acknowledging that "politicians are right to seek to protect the
victims of that sick abusive trade," (i.e., child pornography), "they are wrong to
lose their sense of proportion in fighting it."
The amendment would jeopardize the legality of such literary works as Vladimir
Nabokov's "Lolita," says the Globe. lt "covers a wide territory: A 16-year-old
sneaking a picture of a 17-year-old in a shower, or a 16-year-old who invites
someone under 14 to touch his or her body. Writers beware."
The amendment also sets minimum sentences for people convicted under the
section, denying the courts the right to let them off with a wrist slap. This, too, the
Globe saw as a threat. lt quoted approvingly the warning of one senator not to
"impose new minimum sentences simply because some people consider the
legal system and sentencing proceedings to be ineffective."
Such "glaring flaws," says the Globe, are being overlooked because "emotion is
over-riding research." The amendment represents "an attempt to whittle away at
free expression."
The Senate will pass the amendment, as the Globe knows full well. But the
question arises: Why did this editorial appear now? After all, the amendment has
been before Parliament for three years. Coming, as the editorial did, right on the
heels of the gay-marriage bill, some kind of strategy must be involved. Clearly, it
signals the next move in the culture war, the opening attack on the last sexual
taboo.
The real battleground will not, of course, take place in Parliament at all. Whether
the amendment survives in Canadian law, or is deemed unconstitutional under
Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will be decided in the courts. The
Globe's editorial is not aimed at senators, but at judges. lt serves notice upon
them: Here is where we're going next.
"Educating the public" to this new reality will naturally take time. But the arts lead
the culture. lf purely imaginary drawings and stories of sex between children and
adults can be made acceptable today, creeping first into literature and the visual
arts, then into music, then into the movies, eventually the physical acts
themselves will become acceptable as well. That's the way things work.
So it's onward until the last bastion falls. The fact that our whole society may be
collapsing along with it has not been seriously considered. History alone testifies
to that possibility, but so what? Who reads history?
T By/I puIsn a wRIy nws magazn n wsIrn Canaa /r U yars
an s nw gnraI Ir / "Tn CnrsIans," a J2-vIum nsIry / CnrsIanIy.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=244

Family Advocate Angry Over [DEM] Legislature Pro-Homosexual Move
Gay agenda includes FORCED taxpayer funded homosexual education to school kids


Looking at Massachusetts as the "gay model" for their agenda, homosexual
"marraige" is the first step, and then the DEMOCRATS want to FORCE
TAXPAYER FUNDED HOMOSEXUAL EDUCATlON ON SCHOOL CHlLDREN
AS THE NEXT STEP!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Family Advocate Angry Over Legislature's Pro-Homosexual Move
By Jim Brown
July 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Masschusetts pro-family group is blasting the state legislature
for overriding the governor's veto of a 70 percent increase in state funding for
homosexual programs in public schools.
Last month, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney vetoed a $175,000 funding
increase for Gay Straight Alliance clubs and school assemblies promoting same-
sex "marriage." However, the state legislature, led by House Ways and Means
chairman Robert DeLeo, voted to override Romney. Brian Camenker, who heads
the Waltham-based group Article 8 Alliance, recalls DeLeo's influence in the
matter.
"The chief of staff of this guy [DeLeo] had a phone conversation with me [during
which] he talked about, in very graphic ways, how he liked these programs," the
pro-family spokesman says.
Camenker notes that the conversation is described on his group's website, but
describes its content as "very, very disturbing" -- adding that "that's the kind of
culture that's going on in the Massachusetts legislature." And that culture, he
contends, exists mainly because the homosexual movement "aggressively
lobbies the legislature every single day of the year."
As for the funding approved by the legislature, Camenker expects it will be used
to fund such things as the "Little Black Book" -- a graphic how-to manual on
homosexual sex that was recently distributed at Massachusetts' Brookline High
School -- and other pro-homosexual promotions.
"Gay days in the public schools, assemblies, all kinds of homosexual programs
and clubs and handouts and counseling sessions with kids, and their parades,
their get-togethers downtown. lt's every parent's nightmare," he states.
According to Camenker, DeLeo changed his home phone number after receiving
hundreds of phone calls from parents urging him not to override the governor's
veto.
Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapFrss, is a reporter for American
Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/282005e.asp
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=252

Queers taking over College Classes using HATE against Heterosexuals
The Gay Agenda at work in North Carolina and around the Country



Queers under siege
Mike S. Adams (archive)
July 16, 2004

Dear Bryan:
l?m sorry to hear about your recent experience in criminal justice class. l don?t
know why so many criminal justice classes include chapters on ?queer theory?
these days. l was especially sorry to hear that one of your gay classmates got
up in front of the class and read the following:
/ wanI Inr I a mraIrum n sIragnI marrag, n as, n puIc
spIays / a//cIn amng In ppsI sx an ma mags InaI prmI
nIrsxuaIIy. UnII / can n]y In sam /rm / mvmnI an sxuaIIy
as sIragnIs Inr prvIg musI sIp an I musI gvn vr I m an my
qur ssIrs an rInrs. SIragnI ppI wII nI Ins vIunIarIy an s Iny
musI /rc nI I. SIragnIs musI /rgnIn nI I. Trrrz nI I. Far
s In msI pwr/uI mIvaIn. A n wII gv us wnaI w srv. RgnIs ar
nI gvn Iny ar IaRn, y /rc / ncssary. /I s asr I /gnI wnn yu Rnw
wn yur nmy s. SIragnI ppI ar yur nmy?
?/ naI Jss HIms s mucn /? r]c / n rpp wn a. // smn
RII nm /? cnsr I ns wn /auII. / naI RnaI Ragan, I, caus n
mass-murr my ppI /r gnI yars. BuI I nnsI, / naI nm vn
mr /r uIgzng Ryan nI wInuI /rsI amIIng ns guII, wInuI ggng
/rgvnss /r Ryan?s aIn an /r In aIns / Ins / Inusans / Inr
FA?s-msI / Inm qur. / naI nm /r maRng a mcRry / ur gr/. / naI
In /Rng Fp, an / naI Jnn /Rng CarnaI /Rng C?Cnnr, an / naI
In wnI /Rng CaInIc Cnurcn. Tn sam gs /r In MIIary an spcaIIy
/r AmrRa?s Law En/rcmnI C//caIs-In cps-sIaI sancIn sasIs wn
ruIaIz sIrI IransvsIIs, prsIIuIs an qur prsnrs?
l was also shocked by the final statement of the diatribe concerning ?Rules of
Conduct for Straight People.? l understand that it was read out loud as follows:
?O nI /IaunI yur nIrsxuaIIy. B scrI. RsR ng msIaRn /r a Iz
r a nm. // yu /I Ins ruIs ar un/ar, g /gnI nmpna n sIragnI
cIus, r GC FK 1CURSELF/
Well Bryan, l know that you are disappointed by the quality of education you are
getting here in the UNC system. Your belief that UNC is a national
embarrassment is shared by many students, taxpayers, and alumni. But,
remember, you are only 19 years old. Don?t give up yet! You can use this bad
experience to have a little fun. You can also use it to teach others about the
hypocrisy of the campus diversity movement.
ln fact, if l were in your shoes, l would handle the situation by taking the following
steps:
1. Just for fun, l would file a charge of homosexual harassment against the
student who read that diatribe. Specifically, l would make several references to
the new campus constitutional right to feel comfortable at all times.
2. Next, l would convince a Catholic student to file a charge of religious
harassment against the person who read that statement. ln the complaint, l
would make sure to ask how the university would respond if a student
transferring from Bob Jones University had read the same anti-Catholic
statements.
3. l would petition to have your professor attend a sensitivity training session for
allowing the classroom to become a hostile environment for heterosexual
students.
4. l would ask the university to fund a new Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Trans-
gendered, and Queer ldentified Life and Study Center (LGBTQLSC). The center
would help LGBTQ students deal with their violent tendencies. The LGBTQLSC
would offer several classes on anger management.
5. l would also ask the school to initiate ?heterosexual Safe Zones? where
straight students could go to seek protection from gay political fanatics who want
to harm them.
6. l would also establish a ?Catholic safe zone? to protect Catholics from the
same gay political fanatics.
7. Finally, l would file a motion for a list (under North Carolina General Statute
132) of all donors who have given more than $1000 to the school in the last five
years. Mail them a copy of the ?Rules of Conduct for Straight People.? Make
sure they are in touch with the university they support so generously.
Well, Bryan, that?s all l have for now. l could go on with more suggestions but l
won?t. l would hate to be accused of stirring up controversy in the UNC system. l
want to make sure that everyone feels comfortable at all times.
MR Aams? {www.OrAams.rg) nxI R sgnng wII aI Trvr Snp n
asnngIn, OC, n JuIy 2J aI J2:U p.m. Tn sIr s IcaI aI 22J
FnnsyIvana Avnu S.E. n CapII HII.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040716.shtml
Studies Demonstrating Homosexual BEHAVIOR is destructive
Some could easily argue that homosexual BEHAVIOR is EVIL!


How sick has our own Politically Correct culture become when we no longer
condemn BEHAVlOR that is completely destructive. Not only self-destructive,
but potentially deadly to the individual practicing it, and to those who participate?

We have become a warped "Politically Correct" culture. When we as a people
don't stand up and call homosexual BEHAVlOR the evil that it is, we tacitly
consent to the destruction and death that it causes. STOP HOMOSEXUALlTY
NOW!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

check out this PDF first:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
By John R. Diggs Jr., M.D.
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf


_______________________________________________

The American College of Pediatricians

Excerpted From:
Parenting lssues
Homosexual Parenting: ls lt Time For Change?
Read all of it:
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BlSKlT=4233170734

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than
among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships
are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the
average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17
Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous
involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed
relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 lndividuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are
more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance
abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some
would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America,
the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in
cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in
homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice
homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35
Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult
counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major
depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and
especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36

__________________________________


New York Public Health Officials
Alarmed Over Dangerous Strain Of HlV

February 14, 2005 - Public Health officials in New York City are becoming
increasingly concerned over the discovery of a rare and dangerous form of HlV
that was found in a 40-year-old gay male in December.
The man had a history of engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners. He
was also a user of methamphetamines.

The man had tested positive for HlV in 2003 but in December had already had
symptoms of AlDS. Blood tests showed a high level of the virus. The virus also
showed resistance in treatment from four different drugs.
Read all of it: http://www.narth.com/docs/strain.html

______________________________________________


American Academy Of Family Physicians Publishes Health Screening Guidelines
For Gay Patients

June 10, 2004 -- American Family Physician, the official journal of the American
Academy of Family Physicians, published health screening guidelines for gay
patients in its May, 2004 issue.
Dr. Daniel Knight, (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences) authored the
report. ln it, he notes that "Recent trends indicate a resurgence in risky behaviors
that expose men who have sex with men to HlV infection and other STDs. The
reported prevalence of men engaging in un-protected anal intercourse increased
from 37% in 1993-94 to 50% in 1996-1997."

Dr. Knight also warns: "There is evidence that many men are engaging in
dangerous sexual practices that may jeopardize their health. These sexual
practices include anal sex without a condom ('barebacking'), oral sex without a
condom, oral stimulation of the anus ('rimming') without protection, multiple sex
partners at one time, and the use of illicit drugs."

The report states that "Men who have sex with men are at significant risk of
contracting HlV infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AlDS), as
well as gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection."
Read all of it: http://www.aafp.org/afp.xml

____________________________________________

Why lsn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of lts Medical
Consequences?

By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
Delaware Family Foundation

..."there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious
diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals. This, to me, is tragic,
when we know that homosexuality can be prevented, in many cases, or
substantially healed in adulthood when there is sufficient motivation and help."

"The risk of anal cancer soars for those engaging in anal intercourse. According
to one report, it rises by an astounding 4000%, and doubles again for those who
are HlV positive.[iiib]

"Can anyone refute that anal intercourse tears the rectal lining of the receptive
partner, regardless of whether a condom is worn, and the subsequent contact
with fecal matter leads to a host of diseases?"

Diseases to which active homosexuals are vulnerable can be classified as
follows:

Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia
trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice,
scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter
jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A,
B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal
incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum,
rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled
nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AlDS).[iv]

"Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable
result of male-with-male sex"
Read all of it: http://www.narth.com/docs/consequences.html

__________________________________

New York: Super-HlV Man Has Sex With 100 Men

February 25, 2005 - New York health officials are continuing to express alarm
about a man who was diagnosed recently with a new HlV strain that becomes
full-blown AlDS in months, not years.

Dr. David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AlDS Research Center in Manhattan says
the man "participated in wild orgies fueled by crystal meth before coming sick."
The man is estimated to have had unprotected sex with at least 100 men. "We
don't know if this is an isolated case or if there are more cases out there."

The new HlV strain is resistant to 19 out of the 20 antiviral drugs used to combat
AlDS. The 46-year-old gay man tested positive for HlV in December. Another
test indicated he had antibodies to HlV, indicating he had been infected for more
than three months but less than 20, according to Dr. Ho.
Read all of it: http://www.narth.com/docs/superhiv.html

___________________________________


Two New Studies Describe Gay Barebacking, Circuit Parties, And Spread of HlV

Read all of it: http://www.narth.com/docs/circuit.html

August 29, 2005 - A study published in the August, 2005 edition of the Journal of
Sex Research, and one in the Journal of the lnternational Association of
Physicians ln AlDS Care [JlAPAC] (Vol. 4. No. 2, 32-46, 2005) describe the
attitudes of individuals who engage in unprotected anal sex (barebacking) and
those who use drugs and engage in multiple sex activities at gay circuit parties
throughout the United States.

The authors describe circuit parties as weekend-long erotically charged "drug-
prevalent dance events attended by up to 25,000 self-identified gay and bisexual
men who socialize and dance nonstop, sometimes for 24 hours or longer."

Most circuit party attendees (95%) admit using psychoactive drugs. Of these,
61% ingested three or more drugs in one night. ln addition, 67% reported
engaging in anal or oral sex. Only 21% reported engaging in "safe anal sex."
Twenty-nine percent had multiple sex partners during a weekend. Of these, 47%
reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAl).

__________________________________

Unsafe Sex Practices On Rise Among Older Gay Males

The trend is attributed to the widespread use of crystal methamphetamines, the
lnternet to easily locate multiple sex partners, and "condom fatigue."

A study of sex habits among Tucson's gay male population shows that HlV
infection rates among older gays is on the rise after a decade of decline. ln Pima
County, Arizona, gays account for about 5% of the population but comprise
nearly 60% of those currently infected with HlV. Of those, 70% are aged 30 to
50.
Read all of it: http://www.apria.com/resources/1,2725,494-353515,00.html

___________________________________
Syphilis Epidemic Among lnner Sydney Gay Men

Syphilis has reached epidemic proportions among homosexual men in inner
Sydney, leading to calls for frequent screening to curb the transmission of both
syphilis and HlV, according to research published in the current issue of the
Medical Journal of Australia.

The report showed a ten-fold increase in notifications, from six cases in 1999 to
162 in 2003.

The report combined NSW Health data on infectious syphilis notifications from
1998-2003, a case series of 57 homosexually active men diagnosed with early
syphilis in inner Sydney from December 2002 to January 2004, and a
prospective cohort study of syphilis among 1333 HlV-negative homosexually
active men in Sydney recruited from June 2001 to December 2003.
Read all of it: http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-6F57FW

______________________________________


Many HlV-Positive Males Unaware They're lnfected

April 27, 2005 - CDC researchers have just published the results of a study of
more than 5,600 gay and bisexual males between the ages of 15-29 in the
Journal of Acquired lmmune Deficiency Syndromes (April 15, 2005).
The study, headed by Duncan A. MacKellar with the CDC, found that the HlV
epidemic among young gays and bisexual males "continues unabated." He found
there is a low rate of testing for the virus among this population.

According to a Reuters report on this study, 10% of those surveyed were found
to be HlV positive; 77% of these were unaware that they were infected.
Read all of it: http://www.narth.com/docs/unaware.html

Syphilis has reached epidemic proportions among homosexual men in inner
Sydney, leading to calls for frequent screening to curb the transmission of both
syphilis and HlV, according to research published in the current issue of the
Medical Journal of Australia.

The report showed a ten-fold increase in notifications, from six cases in 1999 to
162 in 2003.

The report combined NSW Health data on infectious syphilis notifications from
1998-2003, a case series of 57 homosexually active men diagnosed with early
syphilis in inner Sydney from December 2002 to January 2004, and a
prospective cohort study of syphilis among 1333 HlV-negative homosexually
active men in Sydney recruited from June 2001 to December 2003.
Read all of it: http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-6F57FW
Psych Professions ATTACK Christianity as Mental Disorder
If you are opposed to the gay agenda, you have a mental illness - so say the psychos


Maybe we should stop calling them "psychologists" and "psychiatrists" and start
calling them what they really are--, pscychotic.

psycnss - A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage,
characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and
causing deterioration of normal social functioning.

Calling those who disagree with homosexuality on the basis of religious or moral
grounds "mentally ill" certainly shows that the "psychs" are psychotic...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prescription for Tolerance -- ls Moral Judgment a Mental Disorder?
By Allan Dobras
February 2, 2006
lt was bound to happen. ln the span of a single generation, we have seen the
practice of sodomy evolve from a bizarre sexual behavior to a normative
alternative lifestyle; from illegality to a constitutional right; from the closet to the
boardroom; from tolerance to promotion; and lastly, from the bathhouse to the
marriage altar. The next step, which is already in process, is reminiscent of a
Soviet-style ?reeducation? program.
According to a December 10, 2005, asnngIn FsI article, ?Psychiatry
Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an lllness,? it seems there is a serious
move afoot to formally designate those who are repulsed by homosexual practice
as suffering from a pathological neurosis??homophobia.? ln other words, a
person who views the legitimization of homosexuality as sinful, immoral, or
destructive to society may have a mental disorder!
That analysis was offered by a number of mental health professionals, including
UCLA psychology professor Edward Dunbar, who equates so-called homophobia
with racial bias and suggests the ?disorder? should be included in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
According to Professor Dunbar, ?When I see someone who won?t see a physician because they?re
Jewish, or who can?t sit in a restaurant because there are Asians, or feels threatened by homosexuals
in the workplace, the party line in mental health says, ?This is not our problem.? If it?s not our problem,
whose problem is it??
Gary Belkin, deputy chief of psychiatry at New York?s Bellevue Hospital, said ?Psychiatrists who are
uneasy with including something like this in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual need to get used to
the fact that the whole manual reflects social context. That is true of depression on down. Pathological
bias is no more or less scientific than major depression.? Dr. Belkin plans to conduct a study on
pathological bias among patients at his hospital.
Other psychiatrists have gone a step further and suggested that persons who
exhibit ?homophobia? may need to be treated with anti-psychotic medications,
with a program already implemented within the California Department of
Corrections.
Shama Chaiken, divisional chief psychologist for the department, said, ?We treat racism and
homophobia as delusional disorders. Treatment with anti-psychotics does work to reduce these
prejudices.?
Alvin F. Poussaint, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, says that persons with such
pathological biases are ?delusional? and believes their problems should be treated with psychiatry.
?They imagine people are going to do all kinds of bad things and hurt them, and feel they have to do
something to protect themselves. When they reach that stage, they are very impaired. . . . They can?t
work and function; they can?t hold a job. They would benefit from treatment of some type, particularly
medication.? (Emphasis added)
A voice of ?dissent? was heard from psychiatrist and author Sally Satel, who
opined that hate-crime perpetrators could evade responsibility by claiming they
suffered from a mental illness: ?l think it?s absurd. You could use it as a defense
[in court].?
BrRacR MunIan, the homosexual ?love story? between two cowboys has
served as a catalyst to bring the issue of ?homophobia? as a neurosis before the
public. lrrespective of the fact that Hollywood and liberal elites are thrilled by the
film and have honored it with a number of awards, moviegoers have generally
been turned off by the portrayal of the noble American cowboy as gay. Many
theaters are refusing to show the film, prompting co-star Heath Ledger to claim
the cancellations are ?akin to racism.? He added:
/ nar a wnI ag InaI sI 1rgna was gng I an I. BuI
InaI?s a sIaI InaI was Iyncnng ppI nIy 2o yars ag, s
InaI?s I xpcI. . . . FrsnaIIy, / n?I InnR In mv s
[cnIrvrsaI] uI / InnR may In Mrmns n UIan . / InnR
I?s nIarus an vry mmaIur / a scIy?/ Iw ppI ar
Ivng. / InnR w snuI mr cncrn / Iw ppI xprss
angr n Iv, Inan Iv.
The premise that deep opposition to homosexual practice is a mental disorder
appears prominently in columnist Dru Sefton?s examination of the negative
reaction to the film in her January 6 column. The article features the ?expert?
opinions of several researchers who see aversion to the film as ?homophobia?
and offers a good example of the homosexual propaganda machine at work.
Dr. Dean Hamer, a National lnstitutes of Health (NlH) researcher said to be
investigating homophobia, was described as ?a scientist who discovered genetic
links to sexuality.? He commented, ?lt does seem to be almost culturally
universal that heterosexual men can have a deep repulsion to overt
homosexuality, but there is no study l know of to ascertain whether this is a
biologically based trait.?
Actually, Dr. Hamer is a homosexual activist who has been searching
unsuccessfully for a genetic link to homosexuality for many years. ln 1993 he
published some study results on gene position Xq28 that he alleged showed a
genetic link to homosexuality. The study was widely reported in the press and
touted as discovery of a ?gay gene.?
However, his discovery did not hold up to scientific scrutiny. A much larger study
by researchers George Rice and others concluded, ?Our data do not support the
presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position
Xq28.? Reportedly, Dr. Hamer was later investigated by the NlH on charges of
scientific fraud.
Dr. Simon LeVay, also said to be investigating homophobia, agreed with Dr.
Hamer. ?From a neurobiological basis, l just don?t think this response has been
researched at that level, although it?s something that should be.?
Dr. LeVay is the author of the 1991 study, ?A Difference in the Hypothalamic
Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men.? The study, which was
reported to have identified a physiological difference between gay and straight
men, was later proved to be bogus. Dr. LeVay himself admitted, ?l did not prove
that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. l didn?t
show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in
interpreting my work.?
Dr. George Weinberg, a New York City psychologist and researcher, commented
that the aversion to BrRacR MunIan is ?definitely homophobia.? He said the
film is ?the idea of one man?s adoration for another. A love affair more deep and
lasting and romantic than with their wives.? He advised that those who are
uneasy about the film ?first understand you have this problem. At least by
acknowledging it, that?s a start. lt?s like saying, ?l have a fear of heights.??
ln reality it is not unusual, nor is it immoral, for a man to have a deep and
affectionate bond with another man, but not the erotic relationship described by
Dr. Weinberg. As a case in point, men often experience a sacrificial, moral love
among comrades in arms, which is called agap love. The greatest example of
such love was the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross: ?For God so agapa
the world, He gave His only begotten Son . . ?
Plainly, it is part of the gay rights strategy to portray homosexuality as ?normal?
and to marginalize?and even criminalize?the views of those who might expressly
disagree. BrRacR MunIan has provided an opportunity for activists to take
the debate over homosexuality to a new level and suggest that aversion to the
practice may be a neurosis.
Thus, in one generation homosexuality has been removed from the DSM as a
sexual disorder, and persons who find it abnormal and repulsive have been
offered up in its place.
Notwithstanding, it is well established that the practice is repulsive, self-
destructive, and corrosive to society, as both sacred and secular sources have
emphatically stated for the last several thousand years. The fact that it is
repulsive is both a bane and advantage to the homosexual rights movement.
Because the topic is so unseemly, there is scant open discussion of
homosexuality, and the public is understandably reluctant to seek out information
on the subject. (For a peek through the window of reality of the homosexual
lifestyle, visit gayhealth.com.)
lt is an arrogant ploy on the part of gay activists to insinuate that people who find
homosexual acts to be repulsive may be mentally disturbed. However, the good
news is that such persons would not have to worry about being arrested under
?hate crimes? statutes for voicing negative opinions about the lifestyle?they?re
simply crazy.
AIIan Oras s a /rIanc wrIr n rIgus an cuIIuraI ssus an an
IcIrncs ngnr. H Ivs n Sprng/I, 1rgna.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=333
Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM)
Do you know how to answer the gay agenda?



http://www.winst.org/top%20ten%20lists.html
Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM)
Tp JU ScaI ScnI/c ArgumnIs AgansI Sam Sx Marrag {SSM).
A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact,
married family is best for children. ln particular, see work by David Popenoe,
Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul
Amato, and Alan Booth. This statement from Sara McLahanan, a sociologist at
Princeton University, is representative: ?lf we were asked to design a system for
making sure that children?s basic needs were met, we would probably come up
with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory,
would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two
adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted
quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the
child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child
and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that
either parent would abuse the child.?
* Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent:
What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press. p. 38.
1. Children hunger for their biological parents
SS couples using lVF or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children
who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center
psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of lVF often ask their single or
lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the
following: ?Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?? ?Can l write him a letter??
?Has he ever seen me?? ?Didn?t you like him? Didn?t he like me?? Elizabeth
Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their
non-custodial parent, usually the father.
* Kyle Pruett. 2000. Fatherneed. Broadway. p. 204.
* Elizabeth Marquardt. 2004. The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of
Divorce. Forthcoming.
2. Children need fathers
lf SSM becomes common, most SS couples with children would be lesbians.
This means that we would have yet more children being raised apart from
fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial
behavior/delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. What is fascinating is
that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children.
For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew
up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early
puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an
intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe?s work, suggests that a
father?s pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a
strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives
them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
* Ellis, Bruce J., Bates, John E., Dodge, Kenneth A., Fergusson, David M.,
Horwood, L. John, Pettit, Gregory S., & Woodward, Lianne. Does Father
Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage
Pregnancy?. Child Development, 74, 801-821.
* David Popenoe. 1996. Life Without Father. Harvard.
3. Children need mothers
Although gay men are less likely to have children than lesbians, there will be and
are gay men raising children. There will be even more if SSM is legalized. These
households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in
providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and
emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique
counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges
associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor
Maccoby summarizes much of this literature in her book The Two Sexes. See
also Steven Rhoads? book, which comes out in the fall.
* Eleanor Maccoby. 1998. The Two Sexes. Harvard.
* Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter.
4. lnadequate evidence on SS couple parenting
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are ?no
effects? of SS couple parenting on children. But the research in this area is quite
preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from
serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of
Virginia, who is agnostic on SSM, offered this review of the literature on gay
parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian Court considering SSM: ?Through
this analysis l draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles l reviewed contained
at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those
studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific
research.? This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would
want to launch a major family experiment.
*Steven Nock. 2001. Affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding
Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department.

5. Children raised in SS homes experience gender and sexual disorders
Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, the evidence does suggest
that children raised by lesbians or gay men are more likely to experience gender
and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey?an advocate for SSM and a
sociologist?reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following:
?lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range
of traditional gender prescriptions.? Her conclusion here is based on studies that
show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are
more masculine. She also found that a ?significantly greater proportion of young
adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual
mothers? reported having a homoerotic relationship.? Stacey also observes that
children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. Her review
must be view judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor
Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some
credence to conservative concerns about the effects of SS couple parenting.
*Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001. ?(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of
Parents Matter?? American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially pp.
168-171.
6. Vive la difference
lf SSM is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road
of de-gendering marriage. There would me more use of gender-neutral language
like ?partners? and?more importantly?more social/cultural pressures to neuter
our thinking and our behaviors in marriage. But marriages typically thrive when
spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered
needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier
when their husband earns the lion?s share of the household income. Likewise,
couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and
the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia
Psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
* E. Mavis Hetherington & John Kelly. 2002. For Better of For Worse. Norton. P.
31.
* Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter.
7. Sexual fidelity
One of the biggest threats that SSM poses to marriage is that it would probably
undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. ln the first edition of his book in
defense of marriage, Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan wrote: ?There is more
likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between
two men than between a man and a woman.? This line of thinking, of course,
were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms,
magazines, and other mass media, would do enormous harm to the norm of
sexual fidelity in marriage. One recent study of civil unions and marriages in
Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of
heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions,
reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay
men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
* Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of
Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of
Psychology.
* David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison. 1984. The Male Couple. Prentice Hall.
P. 252.
8. Marriage, procreation, and the fertility implosion
Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one
another. lndeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that
marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a
society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional
terms. Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-
natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous
social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. SSM would only
further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it
establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.
This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the
majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. lt is no accident
that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing SSM have
some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per
woman?well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. For national fertility rates,
see:
* http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
For the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see
* http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf
9. For the sake of the children.
The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades has seriously
undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have
children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James
Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized
marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract.
George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread
availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual
revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got
pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using
contraception or procuring an abortion. lt is plausible to suspect that SSM would
have similar consequences for marriage, that is, it would further destabilize the
norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their
children. Why? SSM would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both
their mother and their father. This would be particularly important for men, who
are more likely to abandon their children. SSM would make it even easier than it
already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all,
they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising
children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell
themselves, l do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
* James Q. Wilson. 2002. The Marriage Problem. Basic. PP. 175-177.
* George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz. 1996. "An Analysis of
Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of
Economics CXl: 277-317.
10. Women & marriage domesticate men.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more
time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see
their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home. lf
the distinctive sexual patterns of ?committed? gay couples are any indication
(see above), it is unlikely that SSM would domesticate men in the way that
heterosexual marriage does. lt is also extremely unlikely that the biological
effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in SSM. Thus, gay
activists like Andrew Sullivan who argue that gay marriage will domesticate gay
men are?in all likelihood?clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not
justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
* Steve Nock. 1998. Marriage in Men?s Lives. Oxford.
* lnstitute for American Values. 2003. Hardwired to Connect. P. 17.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=341

Homosexual Alliance to Attack Marriage




Homosexual Alliance to Attack Marriage
AOAC.cm staff report
One of the big issues facing America today is the type of country we will live in
tomorrow. As we often hear, what country will we give to our children and
grandchildren? lf the left has its way, America will be a secularized, modern-day
Sodom and Gomorah.
Why is the homosexual "marriage" issue such a big deal? Why not look at what
the homosexuals and their allies say themselves. But before we do, let's look at
what marriage lS, as defined by America's history and traditions, as well as the
U.S. Supreme Court. ln a direct challenge to nature of what marriage lS, the
court dealt with polygamy (multiple wives), and determined that marriage itself is:
"formed on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and
springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the
holy estate of matrimony. Murpny v. Ramsy, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1885) (unanimous).
The whole reason homosexual "marriage" supporters promote the changing of
what marriage lS into something else to to attack and umderine marriage. This is
their goal from their own mouths and from their own advocates. For example,
from another court case from 2001, the Lambda Legal organization that supports
same-sex marriage "so that marriage will lose some of its luster." Read for
yourself this excerpt from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:
"Lambda wants to knock marriage off its perch by requiring the
board of education to treat unmarried heterosexual couples as well
as it treats married ones, so that marriage will lose some of its
luster." /rzarry v. Cncag Bar / EucaIn, No. 00-3216, (7th
Cir., 2001). http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/003216.html
Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can marry anyone of the opposite
sex at any time. The fact is, they don't really want marriage, that's a lie, they want
to CHANGE WHAT MARRlAGE lS. To help in this they have found many allies
on the left and in the Democratic Party. Consider the biggest special interest
groups and allies of the Democratic Party that detest traditional family values--;
The ACLU, N.O.W, Americans United (to Remove God), the Teacher's Unions,
NAMBLA, Lambda Legal Defense, and on, and on, and on.
As a short excerpt from a legal brief l coauthored for the Massachusetts
Goodridge case, there is a very clear agenda to destroy marriage by those who
advance the causes of Socialism. "Destroying marriage, family, and morality are
central components of the homosexual and feminist agendas of "destroying
hegemony as envisioned by the Marxist communist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci's
philosophies were developed to destroy Western Civilization including America."
"Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks
of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to
perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. lt
was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and
exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy
served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to
feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers
and 'fathers' who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized
society. Borst, William, Ph.D. American History. A Nation of Frogs,
The Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1, January 2003, pg 2. (Online
version at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf )
A short search on the lnternet reveals the real goal of the same-sex "marriage"
agenda. Right from the homosexuals own mouths, they have also mapped out
their goals:
"[F]ight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once
granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand
the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes
but rather to... radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo
Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994,
p. 161.
"[E]nlarging the [marriage] concept to embrace same-sex couples
would necessarily transform it into something new... Extending the
right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional
gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means,
perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself
of the sexist trappings of the past." - Tom Stoddard, quoted in
Roberta Achtenberg, et al., "Approaching 2000: Meeting the
Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the
Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San
Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
"[Marriage is] a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in
American culture. lt is the final tool with which to dismantle all
sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AlDS into
public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society
views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "l Do, l Do, l Do, l
Do, l Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
"Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person
of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...
Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and
family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society...
ln arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men
would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples,
have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives
similarly... We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true
alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of
reality. -- Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When ls Marriage a Path to
Liberation?, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and
the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
"...American marriage is inextricable from Christianity... ln 1972 the
National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the 'repeal of all
legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons
entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to
all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.' -- Judith
Levine, "Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage lsn't Radical
Enough, The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to
mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for
abolishing age of consent laws. Levine herself has written in favor
of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and
adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting
Children from Sex (p. 88.)
"ln one sense the right is right... to accuse the gay and lesbian
rights movement of threatening homogenization... if gay and
lesbian liberationists ever achieve full equality, they will do away
with the social need for the hetero/homo division. The secret of the
most moderate, mainstream gay and lesbian civil rights movement
is its radically transformative promise (or threat, depending on your
values)." -- Gay historian Jonathan Katz, The lnvention of
Heterosexuality, 1995, p.188.
"Heterosexual hegemony ... is being simultaneously eroded and
reconstructed. ...The forms of sexuality considered natural have
been socially created and can therefore be socially transformed."
(pg. 219) "New social policies would focus on transforming social
relations and would be based on empowering of lesbians, gay men,
sex-trade workers, women and people of colour." (pg. 229) -- Gary
Kinsman, "The Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada," Black
Rose Books, 1987.
"[A]ny leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to
throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is
squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." -- Chris
Crain, Washington Blade, August, 2003.
Parents, grandparents, families everywhere, what kind of a nation will we leave
to our children and grandchildren if we don't stand up and become real activists
in this attempt to redefine marriage. lsn't it time we stopped pandering to the lying
liars on the left in every position they occupy and started fighting back. Start
openly challenging the insanity of this same-sex "boondoggle" and stop letting
politically "correct" insanity deter you from standing up. lf we don't stand up
today, there won't be anyone left to stand up for our children and grandchildren in
a few more years.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=352

Homosexual adoption report written by 'pro-gay advocate'
Associated Press Hides Homosexual Agenda behind report




Homosexual adoption report written by 'pro-gay advocate'
Associated Press doesn't disclose bias of controversial policy's author
March 25, 2006 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

"Adoption lnstitute Supports Gay Parents," trumpets the headline of the
Associated Press report - followed by "Major Adoption lnstitute lssues Report
That Says Blocking Gay Adoption Keeps Kids in Foster Care."
Quoting the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption lnstitute as advising adoption agencies
to energetically recruit homosexuals and lesbians, the report gives the
impression America's adoption industry has turned clearly in the direction of not
only accepting, but strongly promoting, homosexual adoption.

"Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents
disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system
who need permanent, loving homes," the adoption organization said.
However, as J. Richard Pearcey reveals in his Pearcey Report, the pro-
homosexual adoption report was written by a well-known pro-"gay" advocate.

The author of the study, notes Pearcey, is identified in the story only as "lllinois
State University adoption expert Jeanne Howard." And although AP does report
that the study was "funded by the Gill Foundation and the Human Rights
Campaign," both actively involved in promoting the "gay rights" agenda, the
report, writes Pearcey, "does not inform readers that Jeanne Howard is
passionately involved in promoting acceptance of homosexuals in her work with
P-FLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)."

"Homosexual activists' handprints are all over this one," adds Robert Knight,
director of the Culture & Family lnstitute, part of Concerned Women for America.
"Take it with a grain of salt. They funded it and will no doubt promote it, hoping
the public will be too distracted to check its pedigree."

Associated Press's failure to disclose the bias of its "expert" is reminiscent of
Time magazine's Oct. 10 cover story on "gay teens." ln "The battle over gay
teens," a positive portrayal of American youth "coming out" and proclaiming that
they are "gay," Time fails to disclose that its reporter, John Cloud, is himself
homosexual. And Cloud, in turn, doesn't mention until near the end of his lengthy
report that the key researcher on which the entire story is based is also
homosexual.

ln fact, as WND revealed, Cloud - identified only as a Time staffer - in fact has a
long history of advancing "gay" causes, including the promotion of anonymous
homosexual orgies.

ln the May 9, 1997, edition of the Washington City Paper, a homosexual
publication, Cloud authored a piece called "The Naked City" in which he
described his first-hand experiences at a Washington, D.C., group-sex party for
homosexuals.

ln his Time article, Cloud positively portrays the phenomenon of ever-younger
American children self-identifying as "gay," praises the massive proliferation of
Gay Straight Alliance clubs in public schools nationwide, showcases the Point
Foundation, which provides scholarships to youngsters who believe they are
"gay," and categorically dismisses professional therapeutic and religious
attempts to help homosexuals change their orientation.

Cloud's key expert throughout the Time cover story is Ritch Savin-Williams,
chairman of Cornell University's human development department and author of a
new book called "The New Gay Teenager." Not until near the close of the article
does Cloud slip in the fact that Savin-Williams is "a 56-year-old gay man with a
slightly elfish mien."

While such blatant advocacy on Time's part has provoked outrage, it also plays a
central role in advancing the radical "gay rights" agenda, says David Kupelian,
who dramatically exposes the sophisticated homosexual propaganda machine in
his new book, "The Marketing of Evil."

"When it comes to homosexuality and gay rights, most Americans simply have no
idea what hit them," said Kupelian. ln the book's opening chapter, "l unveil all of
the amazing techniques and strategies radical 'gay rights' marketers have used
over the last 15 years to utterly transform Americans' views toward
homosexuality.
"An absolutely vital part of that marketing campaign," Kupelian adds, "is played
by the not-so- 'mainstream media,' including Time."

Homosexual 'expertise'

ln another even more high-profile instance of the non-disclosure of pro-
homosexual "experts," in late 2004 the American Psychological Association - the
world's largest psychologists' organization with a reported 150,000 members -
announced its controversial endorsement of same-sex "marriage".

What the APA didn't announce, however, was that the seven-member panel that
spearheaded the evaluation and endorsement effort reportedly consisted entirely
of "gay activists." ln fact, one of the panel members was the deaf lesbian who
incited a national firestorm of protest when she and her lesbian partner, also
deaf, used artificial insemination to intentionally produce deaf children.

The "working group" of psychologists, appointed by the APA Council of
Representatives in February 2004 included: Armand Cerbone, Ph.D., Chicago;
Beverly Greene, Ph.D., St. John's University; Kristin Hancock, Ph.D., Graduate
School of Professional Psychology at John F. Kennedy University; Lawrence A.
Kurdek, Ph.D., Wright State University; Candace A. McCullough, Ph.D.,
Bethesda, Md.; and Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., University of California, Los
Angeles.

The APA's published qualifications for the working group members were "a
combination of both scientific expertise in family and couple relations and
professional expertise with lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations."
What sort of "expertise"? According to the National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality, or NARTH, the psychologist association's "Working
Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships" is made up of "gay activists."

For instance, reported NARTH:
"Dr. Armand Cerbone, who was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 and
was awarded an award for distinguished service to the gay movement by the Society for the
Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues, which is Division 44 of the APA.
"Dr. Beverly Green, who served as editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues,
published by Sage Publications in 2000.
"Dr. Kristin Hancock, who developed the APA's 'Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Clients,' and is a founding member of APA's Division 44, a group focusing on gay issues.
"Dr. Lawrence A. Kurdek, who serves on the editorial board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Psychology."
Possibly most controversial of all is the presence on the APA's working group of
Dr. Candace A. McCullough, a lesbian who attempted in 2002 to produce, for the
second time, a deaf child by artificial insemination, using sperm from a deaf
donor. Both McCullough and her lesbian partner, Sharon Duchesneau, are deaf.
Their attempt to create a second deaf baby was profiled by the Washington Post
on March 31, 2002.

"lt would be nice to have a deaf child who is the same as us," Duchesneau, who
carried the baby to term, told the Post two months before the baby boy, named
Gauvin, was born. "l think that would be a wonderful experience. You know, if we
can have that chance, why not take it?"

They succeeded, according to the Advocate ("The National Gay & Lesbian
Newsmagazine"), which disclosed in 2002 that Duchesneau and McCullough had
earlier sought a deaf sperm donor to father their daughter, Jehanne, as well as
later for their son, Gauvin, focus of the Post article.

"As a result," says the Advocate report, "Jehanne is deaf, and Gauvin is deaf in
one ear and has severe hearing loss in the other. And that's what both mothers -
who consider their deafness an identity, not a disability - intended."

Ken Connor, former president of the Washington-based Family Research
Council, echoed the sentiments of many: "To intentionally give a child a disability,
in addition to all the disadvantages that come as a result of being raised in a
homosexual household, is incredibly selfish," he told Agence France Presse.

Explaining the APA's resolution blessing same-sex marriage, NARTH president
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi said the psychologist organization has "let political activists
take over the APA in this particular area, and these activists are giving us their
own, values-laden 'take' on the issues."

NARTH, an organization of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers
and others focused on therapeutically helping homosexuals become
heterosexual, was founded in 1992.

Because the APA starts out "with the foundational belief that there's no real
difference between the genders, then mothers and fathers start to look
interchangeable," said Nicolosi. "With such a worldview, gay and straight
relationships look the same; then gay marriage starts to look as if it were no
different from the natural,

biological family. And, when the research comes in - as indeed it has - showing
gays and lesbians to be less psychologically healthy than straights, then the APA
simply dismisses it, saying that the psychological problems are due solely to
society's homophobia."
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=355

Why So Few?
Gay Marriage serves NO Social Benefit. Only to undermine marriage.



This review of the studies and details is VERY telling. lt demonstrates that the
vocal supporters of "Gay Marriage" are simply lying about the reasons. There is
no significant push within the gay community for marriage. There is a push
ONLY by those who wish to weaken and undermine marriage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


June 05, 2006

Why So Few?
Looking at what we know about same-sex marriage.

By Stanley Kurtz

Why have so few gays chosen to marry? A new study by Maggie Gallagher's
lnstitute for Marriage and Public Policy (iMAPP) estimates that, in countries that
legally recognize same-sex uni0ns, typically between 1 percent and 5 percent of
gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage. Obviously, that is a
very low number. Much of the argument for gay marriage turns on the claim that
same-sex couples need the cultural, legal, and economic benefits of marriage.
Yet if only a small number of gays actually marry, the practical impact of the
change on gays themselves would be minimal.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to
maintain stable families for the children they create. lt would be a mistake to
undercut that purpose by redefining marriage, whatever the take-up rate for
same-sex uni0ns. Yet, for those receptive to arguments for same-sex marriage,
the case for this reform would be greatly weakened if it turned out that only a few
gays actually marry.

And there's more at stake than numbers. Since the "conservative case for same-
sex marriage holds that marriage will import a more conservative ethos to the
gay community, we need to know something besides how many same-sex
couples actually marry. lf substantial numbers of gay couples take advantage of
the legal benefits of marriage, while simultaneously rejecting traditional marital
norms (like monogamy), that would greatly weaken the "conservative case for
same-sex marriage.

Despite the few short years formal same-sex marriage has been available, we
can now offer some preliminary answers to questions about why so few gays
marry, and how those gays who have married understand their uni0ns. The
iMAPP study covered only countries that have formal same-sex marriage, with
data going back, at most, five years (for the Netherlands). Yet a turn to
Scandinavia provides a fuller story. A series of recent empirical studies on
Scandinavian registered partnerships have made available a fascinating body of
data about a same-sex partnership system that has been in existence for 17
years in Denmark, 13 years in Norway, and 12 years in Sweden (19 years if we
go back to the same-sex uni0ns Sweden created in 1987).

The new studies show that after nearly two decades of Scandinavian registered
partnerships, only a very small number of gays have actually entered legal
uni0ns. And there are clear indications are that even many couples who have
registered may be doing so more for legal benefits than because they aspire to
traditional marital norms. ln short, there are now clear signs that same-sex
marriage is not working the way its defenders claim it should, even for gays.

De Facto Marriage
Before turning to the new Scandinavian studies, we need to consider an obvious
objection. Scandinavian same-sex uni0ns are "registered partnerships, not
"marriage. Presumably, the iMAPP study excluded data on take-up rates for
Scandinavian same-sex uni0ns because they were not formal "marriage. Yet
there is good reason to believe that take-up rates for Scandinavian registered
partnerships are not substantially different than they would be for formal
marriage.

The title of an important new study by prominent Scandinavian demographers,
Gunnar Andersson, Turid Noack (and associates) tells the tale: "The
Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden.

Andersson and Noack use the terms "registered partnership and "same-sex
marriage interchangeably, explaining that Scandinavians generally see
registered partnerships as a de facto form of marriage. To be sure, in addition to
their uni0ns being called something other than "marriage, Scandinavian
registered partners were initially not permitted to adopt children, to receive state
funded artificial insemination, or to be married in the state church. (Many of those
differences have now fallen away, especially in Sweden and Denmark.) Yet few
Scandinavian gays and lesbians consider these exclusions barriers to
registration.

Along with the work of Andersson and Noack, a recent book by William Eskridge
and Darren Spedale, Gay Marrag: Fr BIIr r /r rs? sheds light on
Scandinavian registered partnerships. Eskridge and Spedale criticize me in their
book, and l've responded to them in "No Nordic Bliss, "Zombie Killers, and
"Smoking Gun. Certainly, l find the rosy picture of Scandinavian registered
partnerships painted by Eskridge and Spedale unconvincing and incomplete.
Notwithstanding my objections to their broader approach, however, Eskridge and
Spedale provide us with some fascinating material. And one point they make
convincingly is that the differences between registered partnerships and formal
same-sex marriage do not account for the low take-up rate.

ln their conversations with registered partners, and in an online survey of 812
Danish gays and lesbians, Eskridge and Spedale found that most gay Danes
consider registered partnerships and marriage to be "about the same thing.
Words like "marriage and "spouse are frequently used to describe the
relationship of registered partners. And very few respondents said they would be
any more likely to enter a uni0n if "partnerships were converted to formal
"marriage. Eskridge and Spedale note that the lifting of adoption restrictions in
Sweden and Denmark has had no discernable effect on partnership registration
rates.

The experience of the Netherlands with a system of registered partnerships also
suggests that take-up rates for such an institution do not substantially differ from
rates of same-sex marriage. After an initial surge of 3,010 Dutch same-sex
partnership registrations during the first year of availability in 1998, registrations
leveled off to 1,757 in 1999 and 1,600 in 2000. When Dutch same-sex marriage
came into effect in 2001, there was an initial surge of 2,414 marriages (many
converted from prior registered partnerships), followed by a leveling off to 1,838
in 2002, 1,499 in 2003, 1,210 in 2004, and 1,166 in 2005. So in both the initial
surge pattern, and in absolute amounts, the take-up rates, first for Dutch
registered partnerships and then for Dutch same-sex marriage, have been about
the same. lf anything, the Dutch same-sex marriage rate is down somewhat from
the earlier rates of registered partnerships.

ln short (and following Andersson, Noack, Eskridge, and Spedale), it seems
perfectly fair to take the nearly two-decade-long experience of Scandinavia with
same-sex registered partnerships as a rough approximation of what take-up
rates would have been had full and formal gay marriage been in effect during the
same period.

Very Low Numbers
According to Andersson and Noack, the incidence of same-sex marriage in
Norway and Sweden is "not particularly impressive. As Eskridge and Spedale
put it, the number of same-sex couples in legal uni0ns is "at best, modest. Given
the numbers, even these characterizations border on understatement. Andersson
and Noack's data on Norway run from 1993 through 2001. ln that time, a
mere1,293 same-sex partnerships were contracted. During the same period,
196,000 heterosexual marriages were entered into in Norway. That indicates a
ratio of about 7 new same-sex marriages for every 1,000 new opposite-sex
marriages. The Swedish numbers are starker still. Andersson and Noack show a
mere 1,526 same-sex partnerships registered in Sweden between 1995 and
2002. Given the 280,000 heterosexual marriages recorded during the same
period, we are talking about 5 same-sex partnerships per thousand heterosexual
marriages. These ratios of same-sex partnerships to opposite-sex marriages are
considerably lower than various estimates of the proportion of gays in the
population.

These comparisons are important, because one of the key objections to the
iMAPP study was that it did not offer a clear juxtaposition of the yearly marriage
rates of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Drawing on comments by UCLA
demographer, Gary Gates, same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch
argued that it was unfair to compare the small percentage of gays who had
married in just a few years (in, say, the Netherlands) with the massive
accumulated number of heterosexual marriages contracted over decades. Yet
the Andersson-Noack study does give us a comparison of yearly marriage rates
between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the results continue to show a
strikingly low rate of same-sex marriage.

ln fact, the differences are larger than the numbers indicate. ln a response to
Rauch, Maggie Gallagher noted that comparisons of yearly marriage rates have
their own drawbacks. After all, said Gallagher, since gays start out with 0 percent
married, you would expect them to get married at a higher yearly rate than
heterosexuals, many of whom are already "taken. Given that, the striking
discrepancies in yearly marriage rates between Scandinavian heterosexuals and
homosexuals are all the more impressive.

Any way you slice it-whether as a proportion of the total gay population, or as a
likelihood of getting married in any given year-Scandinavian gays are far less
likely to get married than heterosexuals. ln contrast to Andersson and Noack's
yearly-marriage-rate comparison, Eskridge and Spedale offer an estimate of
married gays as a proportion of the total gay population. Using estimates of the
gay population ranging from 1 percent to 5 percent of national populations,
Eskridge and Spedale say that anywhere from less than 10 percent (they don't
give an actual figure) to less than 1 percent of Scandinavian gays have taken
advantage of registered partnerships.

For the BenEFlTS
So the numbers of Scandinavian gays actually getting married are very low. But
that's only the beginning. What proportion of the already very small number of
Scandinavian registered partners enter their uni0ns with what we might call a
reasonably "conservative attitude? The answer is uncertain, yet there are strong
indications that, despite the tendency to call these uni0ns "marriage, a great
many registered partners have decidedly untraditional views about what their
uni0ns entail.

ln that online survey of 812 Danish gays and lesbians run by Eskridge and
Spedale, 49 percent of respondents claimed that their "primary reason for
entering into a registered partnerships was, or would be, to secure the legal
rights of marriage. Only around 41 percent said that demonstrating their
commitment to their partner or their community was, or would be, their chief
motivation for registering. We don't have results for a comparable heterosexual
population, yet it's striking that so many Danish gays see partnership as chiefly a
matter of legal benefits. lt seems unlikely that half of heterosexuals would say
that securing legal benefits was their "primary reason for getting married. At any
rate, that sort of response from heterosexuals would indicate a significant
hollowing out of marriage.

The reported focus of Danish gays on the legal benefits of marriage, rather than
on the relationship, tells us something meaningful. As an explanation for low
European take-up rates, University of Minnesota professor of law and same-sex
marriage advocate Dale Carpenter notes that many gays take an "oppositional
stance toward social convention. "Just give us the benefits of marriage and you
can keep the word, is one way Carpenter describes that oppositional attitude. ln
her 1999 study, Frm Tns Oay Frwar, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that
even many of those American gays and lesbians who actually disdain traditional
marriage (and even gay commitment ceremonies) might possibly get legally
married. Why? For "the bennies-the financial and legal benefits of marriage. So
gay couples with an interest in the legal benefits of marriage can have a
decidedly unconservative view of the institution itself. Returning to Denmark, the
fact that fully half of those gays surveyed said benefits were their "primary
reason for marrying suggests that the number of Danish registered partners with
a "conservative attitude toward their uni0ns may be far smaller than the already
minimal partnership registration numbers would indicate.

To a degree, Eskridge and Spedale concede this. Same-sex couples approach
legal uni0n "with more pragmatism than their heterosexual counterparts, they
say. Even the couple Eskridge and Spedale select as their demographically
"typical registered partners saw no reason to register for years, until concerns
about death benefits that made them change their minds. At that point, this
typical registered couple, like many others, told no one about their registration, so
as to avoid a wedding ceremony altogether.

lmmigration Marriages

The pragmatic cast of Scandinavian same-sex uni0ns likely goes further still.
While half of Scandinavian partners say they marry chiefly for the benefits, as
many as one third of Scandinavian partners likely have a very specific benefit in
mind. Around one third of Scandinavian registered partnerships involve a foreign-
born member. The numbers are particularly striking for men. ln Norway, 43
percent of male partnerships include a non-Norwegian citizen. ln Sweden, the
figure is 45 percent. Many of these cross-national uni0ns are with non-
Europeans.

This huge disproportion of dual-nationality uni0ns suggests that many
Scandinavian same-sex couples have married chiefly to facilitate immigration.
Andersson and Noack clearly recognize this phenomenon. Eskridge and Spedale
downplay it. They call immigration rights "only the tip of the iceberg when it
comes to the benefits of same-sex uni0ns. Yet the numbers say that uni0ns
contracted primarily for immigration purposes probably represent, not merely the
tip, but a huge part of the base of the iceberg. This suggests that, among the
already extremely small number of Scandinavian same-sex partnerships, a far
smaller number are undertaken for anything like "conservative reasons.

So after an experiment in same-sex marriage that has lasted between one and
two decades, Scandinavian marriage rates are still exceedingly low. As many as
half of all partnerships may be undertaken primarily for legal benefits, and only
secondarily, if at all, out of a "conservative attitude toward uni0n formalization.
About a third of all same-sex uni0ns involve non-citizens, often from non-
European countries. Many of these partnerships would likely not have been
entered at all were it not for the immigration rights.

ln short, if registered partnerships were designed to bring a more stable and
conservative family ethos to Scandinavia's gays, far too few have married for this
to have happened. And the actual attitudes of Scandinavian gays toward their
marriages may be even less conservative than the numbers we've seen so far
indicate. ln Part ll of "Why So Few? we'll see why.

SIanIy KurIz s a /IIw aI In Husn /nsIIuI

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVmMDgyYWRmOTNjOTM2M2JlNGZhZ
Tl5YTlmYjY4ZWY
Gay Agenda - What Gay Agenda?
The Widely Published Goals of the "Gay Agenda"



Gay Agenda - What Gay Agenda?

The agenda and vision that we must proudly articulate is that yes, indeed, we
intend to change society.
Matt Foreman, president of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Nov. 10,
Creating Change conference.

By Peter LaBarbera, AFT

When it comes to chutzpah, homosexual activists have it in spades. They work
their lavender tushes off revolutionizing the age-old Judeo-Christian definitions of
marriage and family; fight for gay/straight clubs in middle- and high schools,
and homosexuality-affirming lessons for all students even toddlers; lobby for
open homosexuality in the armed forces; oppose marriage-preference adoption
laws based on the absurd proposition that a child having two gay daddies is no
worse off than one having a mother and a father; make outrageous claims that
esteemed historical figures like Abe Lincoln were gay; and radically reinterpret
the Bible to to change homosexuality from an abomination to a gift from God.

Then they turn around and ridicule the idea that there is a gay agenda.

Heres an entry from lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding:

The Homosexual Agenda is an elusive document. Weve been looking around
for a copy for quite some time; the distribution plan is so secret that its almost
like we need a queer Indiana Jones to hunt the master copy down. The various
anti-gay forces are certain that we all have a copy and are coordinating a attack
to achieve world domination. Pam Spaulding

Memo to Pam: you dont have to risk being chased by a giant boulder in the
Amazon to find a copy of that elusive agenda; just click this link for the 1972 Gay
Rights Platform
( http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm )

Note the last two demands under States in the 1972 platform: Repeal all laws
governing the age of sexual consent and Repeal all legislative provisions that
restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.

Or try this link for the 1987 (Homosexual) March on Washington.
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha1987.htm

No agenda here, other than the calls for:
* The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual
orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as
protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin

* anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.

* The government should ensure all public education programs include
programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. Institutions that discriminate
against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal
funding.

* a massive [federal] AIDS education and prevention program that is explicit,
culturally sensitive, lesbian and gay affirming and sex positive.

* Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay
couples.

* All people must have access to free abortions and contraceptives on demand
regardless of age. (strangely, abortion advocacy has long been part of the
homosexual activist agenda)

The truth is that there are multiple homosexual agendas, with the unifying theme
that they all endorse the normalization of homosexual perversion (they call it
orientation) as a civil right. The most radical of the large national homosexual
groups is the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force (NGLTF),
( http://www.thetaskforce.org/ )
which combines leftist ideology with grassroots organizing.

At the NGLTFs 2006 Creating Change conference held in Kansas City, MO,
Nov. 8-12, Executive Direct Matt Foreman laid out a seven-point gay agenda
for the Task Force:

So heres that agenda: Matt Foreman

1 - The floor of our agenda is, of course, that every gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgendered person is protected from discrimination no matter where they
live or work. But our vision insists that companies like Wal-Mart that yes,
prohibit discrimination - cannot be allowed to make billions of dollars every year
while leaving one out of every six of their employees with no health insurance at
all.

Translation: The Agenda includes federal ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination
Act) and hate crimes legislationboth top priorities for liberals in the new
Democratic-led Congress. Note that Foreman makes no exceptions for churches,
Christian or religious ministries (e.g., child care agencies), or religious-owned
small businesses, although exemptions are written into the ENDA bill.

2 - The floor of our agenda is, of course, a country where a womans right to
choose is inviolate and peoples sexual lives are their own business. But our
vision is a country where sexual freedom is seen for what it is: a fundamental
human right.

Translation: The Task Forces gay agenda is anything goes, including
abortion, even though homosexual couples cannot conceive children. In one of
the Creating Change break-out sessions, sexual freedom was defined, in part,
as the right to signal ones sexuality and to act on it without stigma.

At another Creating Change panel attended by an Americans For Truth
reporter, a speaker asserted: Choosing how many [sex] partners you have is a
human right. Thus the definition of human rights is expanded to almost
complete sexual anarchy. Future articles on the Creating Change conference
will reveal how the Task Force through its alliances with even more radical
groups now embraces sex work (prostitution) as a human right, even for
teenagers.

Dont expect to read about that in the media.

3 - The floor of our agenda is, of course, that all of us can serve our country
openly in the military. But our vision is a country where none of the lives and
limbs of our soldiers whatever their orientation or identity are wasted as
fodder to advance empire and economic interests.

Translation: The leftist Task Forces gay agenda adds a twist to the usual
homosexual call for repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell: contempt for the freedom-
promoting aims of American foreign policy, thus trivializing the sacrifices of our
men in uniform. The lives of the men and women who died serving their country
in Afghanistan and Iraq were not wasted, Mr. Foreman.

4 - The floor of our agenda is, of course, that queer and questioning kids are
protected from bullying, harassment and violence in our schools.

Translation: The Task Force Gay Agenda capitalizes on adolescent confusion by
promoting the notion of queer kids. The gay movement talks about
protecting these children, but balks at the idea of warning them about the
massive health risks of homosexual sexespecially for males. And regarding
those questioning kids, do you think the gay movement wants to expose them
to the pros and cons of embracing homosexuality? Not a chance. Diversity as
employed in the service of what might be called Sexual Correctness is a sham.

As our undercover writers discovered (the Task Force bans conservatives at its
events), some of the queer kids attending Creating Change were exposed to
very extreme behaviors and advocacy. Americas teenagers need guidance and
moral standards to live by. They dont need to be led into dangerous (and illegal)
sexual behaviors, including sex workin the guise of advancing sexual
freedom.

5 - The floor of our agenda is, of course, the demise of Americas anti-gay
industry and putting an end, once and for all, to their use of us and our families
for cynical culture wars and political gains.

Translation: Thats us, folks. This thinly-veiled slap and Christian and
conservative groups betrays the intolerance that is at the core of the gay
agenda. Homosexual activists are driven to verbally bash religious traditionalists
because the latter stand in the way of the their goal of celebrating homosexual
behavior and using the government to promote it.

Again, dont be naive: the same Task Force that compares Christian advocates
of traditional sexual morality to racist fringe groups will have no problem one day
pushing for laws that ban hate speech (e.g., Christian preaching against
homosexuality).

6 - The floor of our agenda is, of course, unequivocally fighting for and winning
the freedom to marry with, as Evan Wolfson says, all of its rights,
responsibilities, and social significance. But our vision is a country where a
persons healthcare, support in ones old age, or access to other vital benefits
and entitlements are not dependent on a persons marital status.

Translation: It is not enough for the Task Force to seek to legalize counterfeit
gay marriage; they want to destroy any societal preference toward marriage,
thus dishonoring genuine holy matrimony itself.

7 - The floor of our agenda is, of course, a country that not only honors and
respects the amazing and wonderful diversity of the families we have built
against tremendous odds, but a country that honors and respects the reality and
the diversity of all American families.

Translation: The Task Force demands that others honor and respect any group
that wants to label itself family. And not just gay families: consider the Task
Forces Creating Change session (listed in the official program) on
polygamy/non-monogamy. When sexual radicals talk diversity, dont assume
that just means just homosexual relationships.

Matt Foreman said to an audience of over 1,000 homosexual activists attending
Creating Change: We are strong, unbowed, unbeaten, vibrant, energized, and
ready to kick some butt.

Advocates of the natural family and real marriage had better assume a similar
posture:

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

- I Corinthians 16:13

Read Matt Foreman's Task Force speech in its entirety here .
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/M_%20Foreman_Creating_Change.pdf
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpag
e&pid=464

Feminism and the connection to homosexuality



ln the quest to tear down family and culture, to confuse children and society in
general about the need for lifelong marriage, feminism has long been about
promoted homosexuality and every alternative lifestyle possible.

"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged
femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to
be free. --Andrea Dworkin. "The Root Cause," speech, 26 Sept. 1975,
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (published in
Our Blood, ch. 9, 1976).

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified
as a lesbian to be fully feminist" ('National NOW Times, Jan.1988).


"In one sense the right is right...to accuse the gay and lesbian rights
movement of threatening homogenization....if gay and lesbian
liberationists ever achieve full equality, they will do away with the
social need for the hetero/homo division. The secret of the most
moderate, mainstream gay and lesbian civil rights movement is its
radically transformative promise (or threat, depending on your
values)." Gay historian, Jonathan Katz, The Invention of
Heterosexuality, 1995, p.188.

"[W]omen encountering feminism are frequently told they should
become lesbian, an assertion that runs from the subtle to the blatant
... For many of today's feminists, lesbianism is far more than a sexual
orientation or even a preference. It is, as students in many colleges
learn, 'an ideological, political, and philosophical means of liberation of
all women from heterosexual tyranny.'" The AntiPhallic Campaign in
Rene Denfeld, The New Victorians p.45

"So long as feminism remains institutionalized it will purvey coercion.
Feminists may be beyond rational persuasion. . . But they are in the
end asking women to make themselves unattractive to men, and to
forego love and children. Feminism will be forgotten, commanding only
the loyalty of barren women whose genetic lines are running to
extinction." -- Michael Levin, Professor of Philosophy, City College of
New York in Feminism and Freedom, p.306

"It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so
glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no
reason to believe that they ever existed.... Men have always been the
leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." -- Feminism
Against Science, National Review, November 18,1991, p.30.
"Just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the
elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class
distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, ... not
just the elimination of the male privilege, but of the sex distinction
itself; genital differences between human beings would no longer
matter culturally." [Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex (New
York: Bantam Books, 1972) pp.10-11.]

"Heterosexual hegemony ... is being simultaneously eroded and
reconstructed. ...The forms of sexuality considered natural have been
socially created and can therefore be socially transformed." (219)
"New social policies would focus on transforming social relations and
would be based on empowering of lesbians, gay men, sex-trade
workers, women and people of colour." (emphasis added, 229) "The
Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada" by Gary Kinsman, Black
Rose Books, 1987

It is not true that there are two sexes which are discrete and opposite,
which are polar, which unite naturally and self-evidently into a
harmonious whole -- Andrea Dworkin. OUR BLOOD: PROPHECIES AND
DISCOURSES ON SEXUAL POLITICS. From Chapter 9, "The Root
Cause". As delivered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, September 26, 1975.

"Heterosexuality like motherhood, needs to be recognized and studied
as a political institution. . .the model for every other form of
exploitation." Adrienne Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian
Existence," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5 No.4
(1980) 637

"Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist
institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women
are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the
spray of semen...[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and
philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual
tyranny... " Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This
Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color, ed. Cherrie
Moraga (Women of Color Press,1983), pp.128-137.

"The opposite of heterosexual desire is the eroticising of sameness, a
sameness of power, equality and mutuality. It is homosexual desire."
Sheila Jeffreys, Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual
Revolution (London: Women's Press,1990) p.300

"There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different
characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings
not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions,
impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights;
they would mix them in all things - their occupations, their pleasures,
their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to
make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so
preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result
but weak men and disorderly women." -- Alex de Tocqueville.
Democracy in America, Vol. 2, Ch. XII, "How The Americans
Understand The Equality Of The Sexes," 1840

"[I]t would not be hard to show, did space permit, that this movement
[women's suffrage] on the part of these women is as suicidal as it is
mischievous. Its certain result will be the re-enslavement of women,
not under the Scriptural bonds of marriage, but under the yoke of
literal corporeal force. The woman who will calmly review the condition
of her sex in other ages and countries will feel that her wisdom is to
'let well enough alone?'. Under all other civilizations and all other
religions than ours, woman has experienced this fate to the full; her
condition has been that of a slave to the male-sometimes a petted
slave, but yet a slave. In Christian and European society alone has she
ever attained the place of man?s social equal and received the homage
and honor due from magnanimity to her sex and her feebleness. And
her enviable lot among us has resulted from two causes: the Christian
religion and the legislation founded upon it by feudal chivalry. How
insane then is it for her to spurn these two bulwarks of defense?? She
is thus spurning the only protectors her sex has ever found, and
provoking a contest in which she must inevitably be overwhelmed." ~
Robert L. Dabney, "Women?s Rights Women" in Discussions,
Volume 4, pages 502-503.

"The House has become a three-ring circus, but the clowns aren't
funny and the new ringmaster seems distracted." Washington,
DECEMBER 14, 1998 1:49 PM - PRESS RELEASE - Statement of NOW
Executive Vice-president Kim Gandy Urging Women to Lobby Against
Impeachment of Bill Clinton for his abuse of another woman, Monica
Lewinsky.

"Feminism rode into our cultural life on the coattails of the New Left
but by now it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of
intellectual barbarisms." -- Carol Iannone, The Feminist Confusion,
Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties. Lanham,
MD, Madison Books, 1989, p. 153.

?A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its
benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage
completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to
society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter
an archaic institution."
?McnIangI SgnrI, "BraI av," OUT magazn, OcmrJanuary
J994, p. JoJ.
* * *
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would
necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the
right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional
gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means,
perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests
itself of the sexist trappings of the past."
?Tm SIar, quI n RrIa AcnInrg, I aI, "Appracnng 2UUU:
MIng In CnaIIngs I San Francscs FamIs," The Final Report of the
Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, CIy an CunIy / San Francsc, Jun
J, J99U, p.J.
* * *
"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family
in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle
all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and
AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in
how society views and treats us."
? McnIangI SgnrI, "/ O, / O, / O, / O, / O," OUT magazn, May
J99o, p. U.
* * *
?Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a
person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for
doing so. ? Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex,
sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very
fabric of society. ? As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different
from non-lesbian women. ?In arguing for the right to legal
marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that
we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and
purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. ? We must
keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to
marriage and of radically reordering society?s view of reality.?
?FauIa EIIIrcR, ?Snc nn /s Marrag a FaIn I LraIn??, n IIam
RunsIn, ., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law {Aw 1rR: Tn Aw Frss,
J99), pp. 4UJ-4Uo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margaret Mead, a leading female anthropologist stated "[i]t is true . . . that all
claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have
no reason to believe that they ever existed. . . . Men have always been the
leaders in public affairs, and the final authorities at home." -- Quoted in Goldberg,
Utopian Yearning versus Scientific Curiosity, p. 31
Mead also states, "[n]owhere do l suggest that l have found any material which
disproves the existence of sex differences." -- Goldberg, The lnevitability of
Patriarchy, p. 44.
In Epstein, Inevitabilities of Prejudice, p. 12. Deceptively, Epstein
implies that Mead did not believe in the universality of patriarchy and
sex differences. She stated that while Mead's work on complete sex
role changeability had been questioned, these criticisms are not of
sufficient merit. She does not point out that Mead sided with Goldberg
and did not believe that her research demonstrated non-universality at
all. For a similar erroneous treatment of Mead's work from an
evangelical perspective, see Winston Johnson, Gender, Society, and
Church, in Gender Matters: Women's Studies in the Christian
Community, ed. June Steffensen Hagen (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan/Academie, 1990), p. 228. Although Mead could be
inconsistent (see Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 361) her
statements regarding gender differences are fairly representative of
other leading anthropologists as well, such as George P. Murdock
(e.g., Atlas of World Cultures [Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press, 1981] and Social Structure [New York: Free Press, 1965]) and
Stephens (The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American
Decline. Robert H. Bork (1996). Regan Books/HarperCollins NY
(pp.193-225)

Many people suppose that feminism today is a continuation of the
reform movement of the past. They occasionally notice a ranting Bella
Abzug or an icy Gloria Steinem but imagine them to be merely the
froth of extremism on an otherwise sensible movement. That is not the
case; the extremists are the movement. What the moderate academic
feminists Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge write about radical
feminism in the universities is true of the movement as a whole.
Today's radical feminism is "not merely about equal rights for
women.... Feminism aspires to be much more than this. It bids to be a
totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive
as Marxism, as assured of its ability to unmask hidden meanings as
Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates
as evangelical fundamentalism. Feminist theory provides a doctrine of
original sin: The world's evils originate in male supremacy." (Daphne
Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales
from the Strange World of Women's Studies (New York, Basic Books,
1994), P. 183)...

"The gender perspective of radical feminism ... attacks not only men
but the institution of the family, it is hostile to traditional religion, it
demands quotas in every field for women, and it engages in serious
misrepresentations of facts. Worst of all, it inflicts great damage on
persons and essential institutions in a reckless attempt to remake
human beings and create a world that can never exist."

Perhaps the first thing to point out, however, is that radical feminism
in its largest aspirations is doomed to failure. That makes the harms it
inflicts on people and institutions in pursuit of its unattainable ends all
the more inexcusable. Radical feminism shares the most destructive
idea in the original draft of the Port Huron Statement: human nature is
infinitely malleable and hence infinitely perfectible. This idea,
encrypted in the substitution of "gender" for "sex," is essential to the
feminist enterprise of removing all differences between men and
women in the roles they play in society. If certain talents are
predominantly male and others predominantly female by nature, that
enterprise is defeated. Hence, feminists insist that the differing roles of
the sexes have nothing to do with biology. What a society's culture can
construct, it can deconstruct. Culture is everything and Culture can be
changed so that all male-female differences, other than in their
reproductive organs, will disappear. Women will then appear in every
profession and occupation in proportion to their representation in the
population at large. The statistical imbalances we see today are merely
the results of conditioning and discrimination.

Even if this feminist contention were correct, its totalitarian
implications are obvious. Culture is a stubborn opponent. To defeat it
requires the coercion of humans. The Soviet Union attempted to create
the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing
squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more
corrupt culture. The feminists are having a similarly corrupting effect
on our culture with only the weapon of moral intimidation. The
contention that underneath their cultural conditioning men and women
are identical is absurd to anyone not blinded by ideological fantasy.

The early kibbutz movement in Israel had the same ideology as
today's radical feminists: sexual equality meant sexual identity, and
sexual differentiation was inequality. For a brief period, the ideologues
attempted to raise children apart from their families and to raise boys
and girls in ways that would destroy sex roles. The program was as
extreme as the most radical feminist could want. But it collapsed
within a very few years. Boys and girls returned to different sex roles.
The American sociologist Melford Spiro, who studied the kibbutz, wrote
that he had wanted to "observe the influence of culture on human
nature or, more accurately, to discover how a new culture produces a
new human nature." He "found (against my own intentions) that I was
observing the influence of human nature on culture." (Melford E. Spiro,
Gender and Culture: kibbutz women revisited (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1979), P. 106.)

"A NOW LDEF staff attorney has been appointed to the American Bar
Association Custody Executive Committee. From that vantage point,
we [NOW] successfully opposed a proposed A.B.A. model
statute that would PERMIT [emphasis added] judges to impose
joint custody over a parent's opposition." -- A NOW Legal Defense
and Education Fund, November 16, 1988.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&p
id=5
FEMINISM IS COMMUNISM
Still MORE Quotes. Some may be duplicates, but there are many



FEMlNlSM lS COMMUNlSM. Who says this? The FEMlNlSTS THEMSELVES.
First, if you go to my first book at
http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy and read my first chapter you
will find these proofs:
?...Ellen Wilkinson,...had served her political apprenticeship in the
feminist and peace movements, and in the communist
party..? [pp. 123 A Century of Women.] ?Anna Louise
Strong doctor in philosophy, campaigner for child welfare and socialist
party member, appeared to be the epitome of radical
progressivism...(she) found herself facing empty tables at the
American Unions against militarism: ?The respectable members were
returning to war work. The President?s of the Women?s Club?s were
?swinging behind the President.? Only a handful of socialists,
anarchists and industrial workers of the
World??Wobblies??remained. [pp. 91 A Century of Women.]
?Cristal Eastman in contrast, challenged the political mainstream as a
socialist-feminist.
[p.
97 A Century of Women.]
?Socialists and Anarchist who continued in opposition were severely
persecuted, when Emma Goldman organized a No-Conscription
League, the government arrested every young man attending the
meeting.? [p. 100 A Century of Women.]
?...In Europe (Margaret Sanger) researched the history and practice of
birth-control, meeting writers on sex psychology like Edward Carpenter
and Havelock Ellis, with whom she had a love affair. She also made
friends with anarchists and socialist advocates of birth control Rose
Witlop, her companion Guy Aldred and Stella Browne. Havelock Ellis
was however, to convince her that the cause of sexual reform would
be best served by separating it from the left. Sanger?s
supporters in the United States tended to be linked to the Socialist
Party, the Industrial Workers of the World or Anarchist circles.?
[p.
111 A Century of Women.]
?The Socialist-Feminist Journalist and agitator Agnes Smedley, for
example, was arrested in April 1918 because of her support for Indian
Nationalist as well as birth control, bringing Margaret Sanger to her
defense.?
[p.
112 A Century of Women.]
?In 1922...the Anarchist Rose Witcop and her companion Guy
Witcop...[along] with these Socialist and anarchist women gained
support no only from women who were anxious to lima their families,
but also from radicals committed to sexual liberation. For example,
Harry Wicks describes his autobiography, Keeping My Head, how birth
control and free love were part of the Battersea Socialist movement,
along with vivisection and vaccination.?
[p.
140 A Century of Women.]
?Egalitarian in theory if not in practice, the party attracted numerous
women like Dorothy Healey. Healey joined the Young Communist
League (YCL) in 1928 at age fourteen and went on to serve as the
leader of the Lost Angeles district Communist party for over twenty
years.?

[Second to None, Vol II, by Ruth Barnes Moynihan and Cynthia Russett
? 1993 The University of Nebraska Press, ISBN 0-8032-3166-0, p.
189.]
?From the vantage point of an African-American feminist, with
revolutionary aspiration toward socialism that refuse to go away."
[Malcom X, In Our Own Image Joe Wood, Editor, @1992, St. Martin's
Press, Inc., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, ISBN 0-312-
06609-0, p. 41.]
...The girls became the world's first lady stockbrokers and, when that
palled, proprietors of the Welsley newspaper that was first to publish
Marx's Communist Manifesto in the United States. [SEX IN HISTORY,
by Reay Tannahill, @1980, 1992, Scarborough House/ Publishers;
ISBN 0-8128-8540-6; p. 397.]
The late Eleanor Leacock was an anthropologist and feminist who
published claims of societies that were supposedly "Egalitarian," in
regard both to wealth, and to sex. Her writings display a strong
Marxist bent. She wrote a long and admiring introduction for her new
edition of Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
State, which was published by International House Publishers (New
York, 1972), the publishing arm of the Communist Party of the USA.
[Deceptions of a 'Gender Equal Society': Eleanor Leacock's Depiction of
the 17th-Century Montagnais-Naskapi by Robert Sheaffer, June, 1993]
In a new book, "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine
Mystique", Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation)
establishes beyond doubt that the woman who has always presented
herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on her
groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind.
In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political
activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for a
quarter of a century before the publication of "The Feminist Mystique"
launched the modern women's movement.
Professor Horowitz documents that Friedan was from her college days,
and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the
leaders of America's Cold War fifth column and for a time even the
lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb
projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.
...Her husband, Carl, also a leftist, once complained that his wife "was
in the world during the whole marriage," had a full-time maid and
"seldom was a wife and a mother".
[From: Betty Friedan's secret Communist past Why has this feminist
icon continued to cover up her years as a party activist? By David
Horowitz SALON magazine Jan. 18, 1999 ]
ln fact, (as shown above) it was a believe a pair of lesbian feminists whom first
brought the COMMUNlST MANlFESTO into the United States and published it
and sold it, and disseminated it. Throughout feminisms history (right up to Hillary
Clinton) you will find them knee deep into Socialism and Communism. ln fact,
the Democratic Party (at whose last convention had every main speaker a female
and not male--excepting one: Ted Kennedy) can be considered the modern
communist party of the United States.

You are "clearly" wrong here. Not just clearly, but "egregiously" wrong.
Feminism was socialsm in our past, and it is socialism/communism now. Those
goals are to deconstruct the family in order to gain inroads to the control of
capital:
?In the origins of the family, private property and the state Engels
refers to Patriarchy as a form of the family whose essential features
were the incorporation of the bondsmen and the power vested in the
Paternal head of the family. [F. Engels (1884). The origins of the
family, private property and the state, in K. Marx and F. Engels,
Selected Works, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968, p. 488.]
Similarly in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels refer to ?The
little workshop of the Patriarchal master.? Here Patriarchy is
understood as a social relation of domestic production. [K. Marx and F.
Engels ?The Communist Manifesto? in D. McLennan (Ed.), Karl Marx:
Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, 1977 p. 227.]
However, we can see that the definition of Patriarchal advanced by
Marx and Engles is a limited one. Patriarchy refers to the system under
pre-capitalist modes of production in which the means of production
and organization of labour was owned and controlled by the head of
household, rather than a more generalized system of female
subordination and male domination.?
[The Law of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition from Feudalism to
Capitalism, by Marry Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London,
EC4p 4EE, pp. 6-7.]
Just the facts.

====================
[...]
> "Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in
the same, and
> Socialist/Communist government is the goal of
feminism."[1]
>
> [1] Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.
Catharine A.
> MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press
Page 10.

You trust MacKinnon? Feminists often seek to join
themselves to
Christianity too, does that mean Christianity is evil?
======================

The only feminists l know who seek to join themselves to Christianity are the
"Republican Feminists" (l believe, l cannot remember fully the subcategory (out
of many subcategories) of feminism which believes in Christianity. Again, to
quote from the first Volume l of my work:
"In the 1970s the concept of "republican motherhood" provided the
rationale for women's political activities. It also initiated a debate on
women's education and led to the first female academies. The term
recalled Thomas Paine's ideal of the republican as an independent,
mature person dedicated to the good of society. It reflected women's
newfound patriotism, which developed during the American
Revolution. Republican mothers had a dual responsibility : to educate
sons to be good citizens and to promote the communal good.
Throughout the nineteenth century, women used the rhetoric of
republican motherhood to justify their political activities, saying they
could not be good mothers unless they could vote to keep wrong doers
out of public office.
[Women's Progress in America, by Elizabeth Frost-Knappman, @1994
ABC-CLIO, Inc., 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911, Santa Barbera,
CA 93116-1911, ISBN 0-87436-667-4; pp. 258-259.]
However; this is oxymoronic, as one of the avowed goals of feminism is to
destroy the church, patriarchy and Christianity. This is not a guess, this is within
the definition of feminism itself.

Feminism hates the church, Patriarchy and Christianity. Period.

=====================
> Its first mandate is to control mankind's free will and
the resources
> of economic development. Know that Marx and Engel
first goal was to
> deconstruct both the home and family. This is the first
LAW of
> Feminism and socialism/communism; destroy the rule of
the father.

That is no goal of socialism. Feminism and the evil rulers
of society
aim for this, not socialists.
==================

WRONG. Again, you have zero idea of what you are speaking of. Zero.

lt is Lenin tells us: "The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division
of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the
nations closer together, but to merge them. . ." How were they to do this? The
communist revolution first goal was to deconstruct the home and family. lt wasn't
the second thing they did in Communist Russia, it was the first thing:
"Citing Engels that ?it is the law of the division of labour that lies at
the basis of the division into classes.? And utilizing his observation that
the original division of labour was between a man and woman for
the purpose of childrearing?that within the family the husband was the
owner, the wife the means of production, the children the labour, and
the reproduction of the human species was important economic criteria
in itself."
[The Law of the Father?, Mary Murray, pg 21, cited from S. Firestone,
the Dialectic of Sex, London, The Woman?s Press, ?1979; p. 14.]
Citing from the same work:
?In the origins of the family, private property and the state Engels
refers to Patriarchy as a form of the family whose essential features
were the incorporation of the bondsmen and the power vested in the
Paternal head of the family. [F. Engels (1884). The origins of the
family, private property and the state, in K. Marx and F. Engels,
Selected Works, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968, p. 488.]
Similarly in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels refer to ?The
little workshop of the Patriarchal master.? Here Patriarchy is
understood as a social relation of domestic production. [K. Marx and F.
Engels ?The Communist Manifesto? in D. McLennan (Ed.), Karl Marx:
Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, 1977 p. 227.]
However, we can see that the definition of Patriarchal advanced by
Marx and Engles is a limited one. Patriarchy refers to the system under
pre-capitalist modes of production in which the means of production
and organization of labour was owned and controlled by the head of
household, rather than a more generalized system of female
subordination and male domination.?

[The Law of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition from Feudalism to
Capitalism, by Marry Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London,
EC4p 4EE, pp. 6-7.]
We have already placed many of the feminist leaders in the camp of socialism,
and now we have found that socialism/communism main intend, as cited by Marx
and Engels, is to get rid of the "little Patriarchal Master" within the home in order
to deconstruct the family.

These propositions are an identity.

===================
> From Chapter Three of my book:

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. Even worse because
your
"authority" is a) no authority at all and b) yourself.
======================

Perhaps my words do not entreat you. However; you have not addressed the
authority of the other works l cite over and over...meanwhile, all you offer is
dissonance...nothing more. No cites...no authority, just imbecilic noise.

======================
> We must understand, that feminism, is
socialism/communism.[1]

Untrue.

> Indeed, where Karl Marx and every communist on
earth want to
> create a class struggle in order to control the means
of
> production,feminists just replace class with
gender.[2]

Then they are different, aren't they? Class and gender
divides are
interconnected, the traditionalist rightist upper/middle
classes
fighting for the idolisation of woman.
====================

Wrong. You didn't read it right. Perhaps they are different. But, feminist are
using communism, and instead of using the term 'class' to perpetrate
communism on an unsuspecting American society--they are using 'GENDER.'

ln other words, it is the thief using a gun instead of a knife to steal your property.
Just because you claim the gun and knife are different terms, does not mitigate
the crime of thievery.

Your argument holds no logic. Again, only noise.

====================

> Where
> communist attempted global conquest, now, the
feminist create a
> silent "constant state of war" implemented silently
against every
> home and family via feminism.[3] I find it very odd
that other
> their party intellectuals have also made this same
connection:
> Everything feminists advocate was advocated by the
Communist
> Party of the United States in the 1940's and 1950's.

Go on, prove it. Feminism is far more akin to Nazism than
to Communism,
right down the the parallels between Marija Gimbutas and
the Nazi
Ahnenerbe and the ethnic cleansing of planned
parenthood.
=================

What planet are you from? Take me to your leader.

Have you ever heard the term "Feminazi?"

lf you have, then "why" did the term gestate? Why is it in the lexicon of American
thought and vernacular?

And again, you have made my case; as "if" you admit that feminism is "far more
akin to Nazism than to Communism" you will have to disprove my theory that
Feminism/Socialism/Communism/Fascism are all the same plant in different
stages of growth.

l want a sidebar notation here, that it is Lenin whom said: "The goals of
socialism are to lead to a communist state."

===================
> Betty
> Frieden, author of The Feminine Mystique (1963) and
founder of
> modern feminism,

She was nothing of the sort.
===================

LOL. Yeah...right. This fact, has been documented over and over. ln fact, l
think she herself has finally admitted it. lt also has been published publicly for
quite some time now--and odd--that every person publishing these facts has not
been sued...

Odd, no?

Would endeavor quotes to this fact? Please go to:
http://www.savethemales.ca/150801.html and read: "What Betty Friedan Didn't
Want You to Know" by that garrulous propagandist Henry Makow Ph.D., August
15, 2001.

=====================
> hid the fact that she had been a Communist
> activist for 20 years.

Steinem worked for the CIA.
=====================

And also was a socialist. Again, all those within Feminist enclaves, are not for
either Christianity, Capitalism, Patriarchy, nor even truth or justice. Please note:

"Logic is a weapon of oppression." (Nye in PK:152)

"Logic was made for men by men." (Nye 1990:177)

=====================
> (See Feminist historian, Kate Weigand's,
> Red Feminism: American Communism and the
Making of Women's
> Liberation, Johns Hopkins Univ.Press, 2001).
Feminism simply
> transfers Marxist class analysis to gender. The aim is
the same:
> the "patriarchy" (white men, capitalism) is the source
of all
> evil and must be destroyed ("transformed").

Socialism has nothing against the "patriarchy". Socialism
has nothing
against white men. The impact of feminism has been
disproportionately
negative on men of racial minorities.
=================

You have zero knowledge. Again, from my first book, quoting a University
Professor, he quotes socialism as being "Anti-Patriarchy." Why? lf it is, then
why are Feminism and Socialists/Communists from the same root of the same
plant in different stages of growth??

===================
> Women (the
> proletariat) and anyone else deemed "oppressed"
(gays, people of
> color) must be handed position and power on a silver
platter.[4]

Women are the now legendary bourgeoisie.
===================

Uhm....yeah.

Whatever that means.

===================
> "Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender
hatred, just
> as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class
hatred.

Socialism is nothing of the sort.
===================

1.) Who said anything about socialism? Why did you make that intellectual
leap?
Could it be, because Feminism is an offshoot of Socialism, exactly the way Lenin
saw Socialism as the pre-state of Communism??

Hmm. Me thinks this could be something called a "Freudian slip" on your part.
l think you just admitted my case.

2.) Socialism: Any theory or system of social organization which would abolish,
entirely or in great party, the individual effort and competition on which modern
society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action, would introduce a more
perfect and equal distribution of the products of labor, and would make land and
capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the
community." [From: Blacks Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, ? 1933, West Publishing
Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 1636.]

(What is very odd, is that just on a whim, l went to Google and typed in the term
Socialism. You know what the second hit is? "Radical Women Freedom
Socialist Party." Odd, no? What "is" the FSM you ask?? Well, don't let me tell
you, here is what they say:

THE FREEDOM SOClALlST PARTY lS a revolutionary, socialist feminist
organization, dedicated to the replacement of capitalist rule by a genuine
workers' democracy that will guarantee full economic, social, political, and legal
equality to women, people of color, gays, and all who are exploited, oppressed,
and repelled by the profit system and its offshoot -- imperialism. [Go to:
http://www.socialism.com/whatfsp.html ]

Gee...kind of sounds close to the legal definition of socialism given by Blacks
Law Dictionary, no??

=======================
> Feminism's business is fashioning weapons to be
used against men
> in society, education, politics, law and divorce court.
The
> feminist aim is to overthrow "patriarchal tyranny." In
this
> undertaking, the male's civil rights count for no more
than those
> of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in
National
> Socialist Germany.[5]

Yeah, of course.

> [1] [S]econd-wave feminism stands as an excellent
example of a
> 1960s movement that blossomed from the seeds
that Communist women
> germinated thirty years earlier. American
Communism and the
> Making of Womens Liberation, by Henry Makow,
PhD., October 3,
> 2001; http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html
> [2] Sexuality is to feminism what work is to
Marxism&From: Toward
> a Feminist Theory of the State, by Catharine A.
MacKinnon, 1989,
> First Harvard University Press, p. 3.
> [3] They will subvert all foreign nations using this
same gender
> warfare as well. I believe this is what is presently
occurring
> foundationally in the Middle East.
> [4] http://www.escape.ca/~scruples/uw/main.html
> [5] What civil rights has wrought. Paul Craig
Roberts, July 26,
> 2000. Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate.
>
> Feminism, Socialism and Communism-is the exact
opposites from each
> other. Like matter and anti-matter--they are totally
disparate and
> cannot occupy the same area.
>
> COMMUNISM. "A system of social organization in
which goods are
> held in common, the opposite of the system of
private property;

As any Christian knows, this is the only way to run a
society.
==================

No it is not. Communism is directly against religion. Again, are you ignorant of
history? Stalin as well as other communist regimes (China in most particular)
remove(d) all religions....and outlawed them. lndeed, wasn't it Marx who said
"Religion is the opiate of the masses?"

Methink's no true Christian will countenance communism.

===================
> communalism, any theory or system of social
organization
> involving common ownership of agents of production
of industry,
> the latter of which theories is referred to in the
popular use of
> the word "communism" while the scientific usage
sometimes
> conforms to the first alone and sometimes alternates
between the
> first and second; also the principles and theories of
the
> Communist Party, especially in Soviet Russia.
Feinglass v.
> Reinecke, D.C.Ill., 48 F.Supp. 438, 440.
>
> As Dr. Milton Freedman

Appeal to incredibly biased authority.
===================

No...again, all my cites come from "things" called "Dr.'s" or "Doctor's."

You mistake education for bias. You must be a product of our national education
system.

===================
> Please note the delusion as quoted by Herbert Hoover:
"The Socialists
> claim they would preserve democratic institutions and all
other
> freedoms except economic freedom."

Ditto.

[...]
> Any Feminist government is a socialist government
> which devolves to Communism then institutes fascism to
support it.

Any feminist government must have an element of social
control.
Socialism is anti-feminist. Read a bit of Orwell, he was a
real
Socialist.
==================

l have no idea what you are saying. l'm not sure Orwell was a socialist. (l think l
have heard that), however his writings do not expound that political philosophy, in
fact, expose it and lend it as reprehensible.

l would suggest you (and everyone following this thread, read the work on him
located at: http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/storgaard.htm

That URL is quite eclectic in cataloguing who Orwell was and excerpts from his
diary. "lF" Orwell was in fact, a socialist--he may have started out as one, but l
do not believe he ended as one, as his work depicts. Please note a quote of his
from the aforementioned URL:
In 1943 Orwell felt that the people in England, because of their
admiration for the Russian war effort, consciously or unconsciously
overlooked the faults of the communist regime in the USSR. He also
felt that the English communists used their position as unofficial
representatives of the USSR to prevent the truth from coming out -
just as they had done in connection with the Spanish Civil War.
"Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the
corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a
Socialist country. [...] And so for the past ten years I have been
convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we
wanted a revival of the Socialist movement." [CEJL vol. 3 p. 458]
[From: http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/storgaard.htm ]
ln this you may be right however; the final conclusion of this analysis says it all
from this document:
5. Conclusion
On the surface Orwell?s political development may seem filled with
contradictions. After his time as a policeman in Burma he was an
anarchist; a superficial one perhaps and not very consistent but that
was how he felt. In the early 1930s he became more critical of society,
and in The Road to Wigan Pier we see him as a socialist. But he is an
undogmatic socialist who does not care much for the theories and who
criticises the doctrinaire socialists, who precisely because of their
theories, have forgotten that socialism first and foremost is about
liberty and justice. After Spain he was very sympathetic to anarchism
and was even more undogmatic after having seen what dogmatism
can lead to. The membership of the ILP therefore seems inconsistent,
since party membership will always to some extent result in
dogmatism. But this must be seen in relation to the war, which at that
time was just around the corner. Orwell was against the war and he
felt that the ILP was the only party that would adopt the right attitude
to the war, most likely because of the party?s pacifism. With the war a
drastic change in Orwell took place. Having been against the war he
was now for it; he criticised the pacifists for views that he himself had
held just a few years before; and he left the ILP. With Animal Farm he
took up the themes from Spain and Homage to Catalonia and
elaborated on them. Orwell?s anti-authoritarianism became more
pronounced as he came closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four, where we see
Orwell as a fairly consistent anarchist who saw the dangers of the
State and leaders in general.
As said, this development may seem contradictory, but this is because
Orwell lived in the present. His views were always to some extent
shaped by the situation he at any given time was in. Perhaps he only
had one view. In 1936 Orwell said that to him socialism first and
foremost meant liberty and justice, and this view he never left. The
contradictions were in many ways a consequence of this basic belief.
==================
> However; under the system of CAPITALISM, you NEED
the family.

Capitalism doesn't need the family. The family is very
important in
socialism, in capitalism it is expendable and won't survive
long.
==================

You are so wrong it is not even funny. You must read and educate yourself; as
you are just making superfluous remarks with no authority. Just one book which
controverts your thinking (out of many) is quite definitive on this question. Read:
Tn Law / In FaInr, FaIrarcny n In TransIn /rm FuaIsm I CapIaIsm,
by Marry Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4p 4EE].

==================
> Capitalism uses peoples individual needs in which to
have them accrue
> wealth. To have Capitalism, you need families.

In what way? You are a fool.
===================

Read CapIaIsm an Frm, by Milton Freedman, ?1962; University Chicago
Press ? 1962; also Tn Ra I Sr/m by Frederick A. Von Hayek; as well as
the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

All of whom were written by apparent fools.

==================
> You need a free
> society. You NEED sexual regulation.

Contradictory statements. Freedom and regulation are
mutually exclusive.
Freedom and capitalism are mutually exlusive. Capitalism
is the only
cause of poverty, starvation and so on. It is a child of
greed.
===================

Wrong. You are in direct contravention of all great thinkers from Plutarch to
Freud (and beyond) who understood that "to have an advanced society, you
need sexual regulation."

The idea that you can make sex work for society, was foundationally what Marx
and Engels feared, and why they called fatherhood, "the little Patriarchal
Master." They did not want him, as that person accrued wealth from his home
and family, and NOT FOR THE STATE.

All family law in the US is based off of "Wisconsin Model" Article 81 Russian
Soviet Family Law. Clearly, this precept is not only an important one, it is one of
which both the government, socialists/feminist take quite seriously. Their own
acts admit it.

===================
How many families did Pinochet and Thatcher destroy?
==================

Easy question: The answer is 14.2.

==================
In socialism there can never be the underclass there is in
capitalism.
==================

Tell the Russians that.

Apparently their whole society collapsed under that belief.

=================
> Where CAPITIALISM needs all
> members of the family to voluntarily submit to
Patriarchy (sexual
> regulation) the feminists/communists NEED to destroy
the family:

Capitalism has destroyed the patriarchy, Socialism will
reconstruct it.
================

You know not of what you speak of. They are completely disparate ideals.
Socialism and Patriarchy are in direct Contravention of each other. That is why
Marx, and Engels, all the way up to Trotsky and beyond, made sure that the
Father and Christianity (Church) were outlawed.

You cannot have state directed control over a society and have free Father's
reigning independently within their homes. That's like saying you are going to
have cancer by having all the cells in the body be healthy. No...Cancer needs an
unhealthy cell to propagate. lt needs its own disease to flourish.

================
> "The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people
must find
> better ways of living together. ... Whatever its
ultimate
> meaning, the break-up of families now is an
objectively
> revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported
oppression by
> separating people into small, isolated units, unable to
join
> together to fight for common interests." From:
Functions of
> the Family, by Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of
Liberation,
> Fall, 1969.

What's that got to do with socialism?
==============

That was cited from a feminist who was a socialist who declared the goals of
destroying the family. ln other words, you have a socialist declaring what for so
long you have been attempting to dissuade otherwise.

This is called "proof." l know you aren't familiar with things like 'proof'--but, this
discounts your whole thesis and proves socialists need to deconstruct and
destroy the family. Just like the Socialist Feminists admitted above at their URL.

===============
[...]
> In other words, you cannot have a free
> independent media which informs the public--and then
have a
> Matriarchal / Feminist society.

That's exactly what we've got, fool. Capitalism is about
money, the
media will do whatever gets it the most money. In a
socialist country it
does what the government tells it. Neither is honest. A
feminist
society, like the ball-less American society, will breed a
feminist
media. A feminist government in a socialist country will
cause a
feminist society through a feminist media. All capitalist
media will
reenforce the feminism in society, only socialist media has
the
capability to go against this.
================

Read what you just wrote here over. You contradict yourself and you are
completely non-sensible.

=================
> In Hillary Clinton's Village, the
> Media can ONLY be a propaganda arm of the
government.

The media is always for propaganda, the propaganda of it's
owners.
Capitalist media can be swayed by the preexisting views of
the public
too, beyond that all media is just propaganda. Even
Thatcher, in her
dispute with the unions, had the BBC lie outright to make
her jackbooted
stormtroopers look like the wronger party.
==================

Wrong...under a free-American Capitalist society, the media controls itself.

lndeed, if your proposition was true: then how in the past did the media expose
great corruption scandals, such as the Teapot Dome scandal? How did the
media expose both GOVERNMENT and lNDUSTRlAL corruption??

Under your paradigm, these things couldn't happen, YET THEY DlD.

How do you explain that? Water fluoridation?

==================
[...]
> You cannot have savings, and have
> a government with a huge 7 Trillion dollar debt.

In a socialist country that would never happen. Nor would
there be the
huge budget for military and black projects.
================

l.B.l.D. See the term "Collapse of Russia" noted above.

================
> You cannot have an
> intelligent society under Socialism, ergo, you need a dolt
school
> system which is dead last in world TMSS scores...

America is the least socialist of all the major countries on
earth. Only
Andorra, San Marino and other tax haven type countries
are less so.
Socialism provides services for the people, capitalism
doesn't. Based,
as Tony would say, on the size of your need, not the size
of your
wallet.
===================

Wrong. We have converted to a total socialist nation in every aspect. From
education to health care to government itself.

Capitalism provides a system where people help themselves. This has proven to
be one of the most efficient systems to help people on earth. You don't have to
believe me, believe the figures in regards to Family Law itself. The BEST place
you can place people on this earth, is not the single family household--it is not
gay and lesbian, it is not the socialist "blended family"--the BEST place you can
place a man, woman and child is in the two parent household.

This institution, throughout millennia has been the place where people are best
protected, best cared for, have the best sex and most reliability throughout their
lives. There is no other institution which even comes close to comparing to it.

================
> under Patriarchy, you
> have highly efficient schools and an educated public as
Thomas
> Jefferson mandated, and which this nation implemented
for almost 200
> continuous years (until the advent of modern feminism
within our
> schools).

Then it's just diluted socialism. Anything publicly funded is
socialism.
Why have a public school system, but no public health
system, no
publicly owned industries and so on? Answer me that.
================

Wrong. For our present school system was developed by a SOClALlST named
Horace Mann.

Once he took hold of our schools, they have devolved to the state where NOW
the US is DEAD LAST in world TMSS scores.

That is the genius of socialism within our socialist controlled educational schools.

====================
[...]
> IT IS SELF-REGULATING FOR THE GREATEST PART;

Rubbish.

> AND IT EMBUES
> THINGS SUCH AS CHIVALRY AND CALVANISM WHICH
DOES GREAT THINGS FOR ANY
> NATION.

Chivalry and calvinism. Worship of woman combined with
fatalism. Yeah,
great.
=============

Yet socialism has no comparable institutions to stand up to these beneficial
institutions within Patriarchy and Capitalism.

============

> These systems demand free-sovereign families.
Whereas,
> feminism/socialism/communism has to destroy families
in order to
> "seize control of production" (wealth).

Frankly, this is one of the stupidest arguments against
socialism I've
ever heard. A nice blend of incorrect facts, non sequiturs
and "i'm
right because I say I'm right".
===================

Well, l suggest you count up the ClTATlONS which are REPLETE throughout my
arguments to you. Add up YOUR citations (zero) and then figure out who is
saying "l'm right because l say l'm right."

l will say l am right because of the innumerable AUTHORlTlES l have submitted
to this argument.

lt is you that babble with unsubstantiated documentation.

You are nothing but a socialist lackey, and you not only have lost this argument, l
have humiliated you intellectually.

l say: "So much for socialism." lf you are the best its got, l rest my case.

===================

[...]
> In fact, they lead to huge oppressive
> "statist" governments whom brutally control their
populaces "from
> cradle to grave."

Pinochet.

> Where freedom is constrained and overthrown. Where
> huge prison systems and government infrastructures are
instituted,
> groomed and maintained...
>
> You cannot have huge prison populations--and have a
free government.

America, as I've already said, is far less socialist than
France,
Holland, even England yet has a far larger population of
prison inmates
relative to population of country, largely from the
desperate underclass
only a lack of socialism could allow.

> Clearly, feminism is worse than Capitalism.

Feminism isn't an economic system.
=============

OH YES lT lS...and all you have to do is READ THE FAMlLY CODE TO PROVE
THlS.

The family code is in fact, a socialist "transfer of wealth program." You don't
have to believe me, believe the case U.S. v. Faass, 265 F.3d 475, 489 (6th Cir.
2001) (yet another one of those nagging "citations" l give" where the US District
court admits this fact.
.W. Remains Dedicated to the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples
Feminism - on the FRONT LINES of the Homosexual Marriage push



NOW Remains Dedicated to the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples
December 9, 2004 - Press Release
nIIp:www.nw.rgprssJ2-U4J2-U9.nImI
The National Organization for Women remains deeply committed to equal
marriage rights for every committed couple in the United States. Our goal to
achieve marriage equality has not been changed by the outcome of the 2004
election, and post-election data proves that the marriage issue did not the cost
Sen. John Kerry the presidency.
"We are committed to seeing that full marriage and social equality are a reality for
same-sex couples," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "We are asking our allies
not to cave to pressure created by the radical right. We will not compromise our
values. We will not allow discrimination to be written into the Constitution."
"Ensuring equal marriage rights will demonstrate this country's commitment to
diversity, equality, tolerance and respect - ideals that we continue to promote
throughout the world," said Gandy. "The civil rights movement fought for
interracial couples to be able to marry - and we won. We're fighting for marriage
rights again, this time for same-sex couples. Again, we will win."
"Moving further to the center or the right is a faulty tactic," said Gandy. "We must
stand firm in who we are and continue fighting until our vision for marriage
equality is won."
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&p
id=118
Gay marriage 'rights'
The Quest to Destroy



Gay marriage 'rights'
Thomas Sowell
December 31, 2004

ln all the states where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, the voters voted
against it -- as they should have.

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it
is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the
government. lt is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they
want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their
worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can
make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. lf my wife buys an automobile with her own money,
under California marriage laws l automatically own half of it, whether or not my
name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation
of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just
one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience.
Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of
opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts
its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the
same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more
sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when
they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever
kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social
approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

lf you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to
their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do
in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are
bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts
of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as
well. lt has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more
government money for AlDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to
special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on
which to do so as anything else.

lncidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage,
even though gay activists are pushing it.

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a
means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of
AlDS.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools,
where so-called "AlDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that
promote homosexuality. ln some cases, gay activists actually come to the
schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the
addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.

There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our
schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in
other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from
society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the
taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of
the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that
cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the
structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses
seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.
nIIp:www.IwnnaII.cmcIumnsIsInmasswIIIs2UU4J2J.snImI
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&p
id=119
The psychological strategy of the homosexual lobby
Their Propaganda and HATE Campaign to Keep



The psychological strategy of the homosexual lobby
BY DR Leahcim Semaj
Sunday, January 02, 2005
I take issue with the recent discussion describing Jamaican
people who see homosexuality as dysfunctional or deviant as
being sick people. This is what is done when one subscribes to
the concept of "homophobia".

Once persons refuse to accept the agenda that homosexuality is
normal and healthy behaviour, they are labelled as sick, they have a
phobia. How did we get into this mess?
Psychosexual Disorders can be grouped into two main categories: The
first is sexual dysfunction: when physiologically normal functions fail,
eg inability to respond to erotic stimulation with arousal, erection or
orgasm, or when interest in sex is diminished or absent.
The second is sexual deviance: when a sexual behaviour violates the
laws, or social norms of a social group or society.
Prior to 1973, Psychosexual Disorders were defined in the following
categories:
. Homosexuality,
. Paedophilia (children),
. Incest,
. Voyeurism,
. Zoophilia (animals),
. Frotteurism (rubbing on strangers),
. Necrophilia,
. Transvestism (cross-dressing),
. Urophilia (urine),
. Mysophilia (filthy surroundings),
. Coprophilia (filth, brown shower),
. Klismaphilia (enema),
. Troilism (sharing your partner and watching),
. Masochism,
. Sadism, and
. Various fetishes.


Most of these have been retained in the psychological literature, but in
1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality
from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders.
Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a
resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both
associations have urged all mental health and other professionals to
help dispel the stigma of mental illness that many people still associate
with homosexual orientation.
Yet all the other psychosexual disorders and perversions have been
retained. Why?
Since 1976, the APA has divided homosexuality into two categories,
Egosystonic and Egodystonic. This distinction proposes that people
who are sexually attracted to their own gender and happy with that
situation are normal, while those who are unhappy need help. Why
this one disorder? Why not any of the others?
In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association, in its Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual IV, removed paedophilia as a sexual perversion. This
event was followed in 1999 when the American Psychological
Association released an APA Bulletin report, A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using
College Samples.
In this report, Bruce Rind, et al, claimed child sexual abuse could be
harmless and beneficial. This led to a situation in which Illinois State
Representative Bob Biggins introduced House Resolution 325 damning
the APA Rind study.
Later that year, the US Family Research Council held a press
conference in Washington, DC. Here a coalition of members of
Congress, child protection advocates, child abuse victims and public
policy groups charged the APA to renounce the Rind study. This
conference was largely ignored by mainstream media in the USA.
Concern is being expressed that the American psychological and
psychiatric establishment are now setting us up to engineer a cultural
endorsement of incest in the same way that the endorsement of
homosexuality was orchestrated.
On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association finally
showed its hand and announced its support for legalisation of same-
sex civil marriages and opposition of discrimination against
homosexual parents.
They concluded that denying same-sex couples legal access to civil
marriage is discriminatory and can adversely affect the psychological,
physical, social and economic well-being of homosexual individuals.
The report stated that prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples
is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and
other members of their families the legal, financial and social
advantages of civil marriage.
We now understand the full agenda: It begins with tolerance, then
acceptance, then endorsement, then finally that we recognise same-
sex marriages. This is inconsistent with my understanding of the order
of the universe.
Years ago, Suzanne Dodd proposed that: "The Western World is
quickly adopting the concept that homosexuality is a viable alternative
lifestyle. If your son decides to marry another man, you are supposed
to smile and say, 'That's nice'.
Be aware that soon enough we will be expected to see two men get
married, and unless we smile and say, 'That's nice' we might lose all
our foreign aid." (Money Index #366; page 46) Are we now there?

Alice in Wonderland approach to sexual behaviour
The use of the word "gay" is an attempt to remove the negative
connotation inherent in the concept of homosexuality. The word
"homophobia" implies that anyone who does not endorse and 'big-up'
homosexual acts is sick.
The objective is for us to be on the defensive. Why is it a "phobia" to
not love homosexual acts and other perversions and to resist the
pressures to give private perversions the status of public acceptance?
If we accept homosexuality as "normal" behaviour, why not accept all
the other perversions and dysfunctions also? If we believe that
persons with the other perversions and dysfunctions are in need of
help, why are not the homosexuals?
The poet Haki Madhubuti reminds us
.That which is normal for us
Will never be normal for us
As long as the abnormal defines what normality is
Are there historical precedent and consequences for these actions? I
believe that it is time for Jamaican psychologists to be straight with
the people of Jamaica as to what our position is.
Are we following the dictates of the American Psychological
Association? Or do our experiences, history, culture and heritage tell
us otherwise? Mine do. I do not accept that homosexuality or any of
the other perversions or psychosexual dysfunctions be endorsed as
being part of what we identify as normal and healthy behaviours.
Feminism and the connection to homosexuality



ln the quest to tear down family and culture, to confuse children and society in
general about the need for lifelong marriage, feminism has long been about
promoted homosexuality and every alternative lifestyle possible.

"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged
femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to
be free. --Andrea Dworkin. "The Root Cause," speech, 26 Sept. 1975,
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (published in
Our Blood, ch. 9, 1976).

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified
as a lesbian to be fully feminist" ('National NOW Times, Jan.1988).


"In one sense the right is right...to accuse the gay and lesbian rights
movement of threatening homogenization....if gay and lesbian
liberationists ever achieve full equality, they will do away with the
social need for the hetero/homo division. The secret of the most
moderate, mainstream gay and lesbian civil rights movement is its
radically transformative promise (or threat, depending on your
values)." Gay historian, Jonathan Katz, The Invention of
Heterosexuality, 1995, p.188.

"[W]omen encountering feminism are frequently told they should
become lesbian, an assertion that runs from the subtle to the blatant
... For many of today's feminists, lesbianism is far more than a sexual
orientation or even a preference. It is, as students in many colleges
learn, 'an ideological, political, and philosophical means of liberation of
all women from heterosexual tyranny.'" The AntiPhallic Campaign in
Rene Denfeld, The New Victorians p.45

"So long as feminism remains institutionalized it will purvey coercion.
Feminists may be beyond rational persuasion. . . But they are in the
end asking women to make themselves unattractive to men, and to
forego love and children. Feminism will be forgotten, commanding only
the loyalty of barren women whose genetic lines are running to
extinction." -- Michael Levin, Professor of Philosophy, City College of
New York in Feminism and Freedom, p.306

"It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so
glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no
reason to believe that they ever existed.... Men have always been the
leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." -- Feminism
Against Science, National Review, November 18,1991, p.30.
"Just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the
elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class
distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, ... not
just the elimination of the male privilege, but of the sex distinction
itself; genital differences between human beings would no longer
matter culturally." [Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex (New
York: Bantam Books, 1972) pp.10-11.]

"Heterosexual hegemony ... is being simultaneously eroded and
reconstructed. ...The forms of sexuality considered natural have been
socially created and can therefore be socially transformed." (219)
"New social policies would focus on transforming social relations and
would be based on empowering of lesbians, gay men, sex-trade
workers, women and people of colour." (emphasis added, 229) "The
Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada" by Gary Kinsman, Black
Rose Books, 1987

It is not true that there are two sexes which are discrete and opposite,
which are polar, which unite naturally and self-evidently into a
harmonious whole -- Andrea Dworkin. OUR BLOOD: PROPHECIES AND
DISCOURSES ON SEXUAL POLITICS. From Chapter 9, "The Root
Cause". As delivered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, September 26, 1975.

"Heterosexuality like motherhood, needs to be recognized and studied
as a political institution. . .the model for every other form of
exploitation." Adrienne Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian
Existence," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5 No.4
(1980) 637

"Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist
institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women
are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the
spray of semen...[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and
philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual
tyranny... " Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This
Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color, ed. Cherrie
Moraga (Women of Color Press,1983), pp.128-137.

"The opposite of heterosexual desire is the eroticising of sameness, a
sameness of power, equality and mutuality. It is homosexual desire."
Sheila Jeffreys, Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual
Revolution (London: Women's Press,1990) p.300

"There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different
characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings
not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions,
impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights;
they would mix them in all things - their occupations, their pleasures,
their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to
make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so
preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result
but weak men and disorderly women." -- Alex de Tocqueville.
Democracy in America, Vol. 2, Ch. XII, "How The Americans
Understand The Equality Of The Sexes," 1840

"[I]t would not be hard to show, did space permit, that this movement
[women's suffrage] on the part of these women is as suicidal as it is
mischievous. Its certain result will be the re-enslavement of women,
not under the Scriptural bonds of marriage, but under the yoke of
literal corporeal force. The woman who will calmly review the condition
of her sex in other ages and countries will feel that her wisdom is to
'let well enough alone?'. Under all other civilizations and all other
religions than ours, woman has experienced this fate to the full; her
condition has been that of a slave to the male-sometimes a petted
slave, but yet a slave. In Christian and European society alone has she
ever attained the place of man?s social equal and received the homage
and honor due from magnanimity to her sex and her feebleness. And
her enviable lot among us has resulted from two causes: the Christian
religion and the legislation founded upon it by feudal chivalry. How
insane then is it for her to spurn these two bulwarks of defense?? She
is thus spurning the only protectors her sex has ever found, and
provoking a contest in which she must inevitably be overwhelmed." ~
Robert L. Dabney, "Women?s Rights Women" in Discussions,
Volume 4, pages 502-503.

"The House has become a three-ring circus, but the clowns aren't
funny and the new ringmaster seems distracted." Washington,
DECEMBER 14, 1998 1:49 PM - PRESS RELEASE - Statement of NOW
Executive Vice-president Kim Gandy Urging Women to Lobby Against
Impeachment of Bill Clinton for his abuse of another woman, Monica
Lewinsky.

"Feminism rode into our cultural life on the coattails of the New Left
but by now it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of
intellectual barbarisms." -- Carol Iannone, The Feminist Confusion,
Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties. Lanham,
MD, Madison Books, 1989, p. 153.

?A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its
benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage
completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to
society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter
an archaic institution."
?McnIangI SgnrI, "BraI av," OUT magazn, OcmrJanuary
J994, p. JoJ.
* * *
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would
necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the
right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional
gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means,
perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests
itself of the sexist trappings of the past."
?Tm SIar, quI n RrIa AcnInrg, I aI, "Appracnng 2UUU:
MIng In CnaIIngs I San Francscs FamIs," The Final Report of the
Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, CIy an CunIy / San Francsc, Jun
J, J99U, p.J.
* * *
"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family
in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle
all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and
AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in
how society views and treats us."
? McnIangI SgnrI, "/ O, / O, / O, / O, / O," OUT magazn, May
J99o, p. U.
* * *
?Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a
person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for
doing so. ? Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex,
sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very
fabric of society. ? As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different
from non-lesbian women. ?In arguing for the right to legal
marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that
we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and
purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. ? We must
keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to
marriage and of radically reordering society?s view of reality.?
?FauIa EIIIrcR, ?Snc nn /s Marrag a FaIn I LraIn??, n IIam
RunsIn, ., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law {Aw 1rR: Tn Aw Frss,
J99), pp. 4UJ-4Uo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margaret Mead, a leading female anthropologist stated "[i]t is true . . . that all
claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have
no reason to believe that they ever existed. . . . Men have always been the
leaders in public affairs, and the final authorities at home." -- Quoted in Goldberg,
Utopian Yearning versus Scientific Curiosity, p. 31
Mead also states, "[n]owhere do l suggest that l have found any material which
disproves the existence of sex differences." -- Goldberg, The lnevitability of
Patriarchy, p. 44.
In Epstein, Inevitabilities of Prejudice, p. 12. Deceptively, Epstein
implies that Mead did not believe in the universality of patriarchy and
sex differences. She stated that while Mead's work on complete sex
role changeability had been questioned, these criticisms are not of
sufficient merit. She does not point out that Mead sided with Goldberg
and did not believe that her research demonstrated non-universality at
all. For a similar erroneous treatment of Mead's work from an
evangelical perspective, see Winston Johnson, Gender, Society, and
Church, in Gender Matters: Women's Studies in the Christian
Community, ed. June Steffensen Hagen (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan/Academie, 1990), p. 228. Although Mead could be
inconsistent (see Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 361) her
statements regarding gender differences are fairly representative of
other leading anthropologists as well, such as George P. Murdock
(e.g., Atlas of World Cultures [Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press, 1981] and Social Structure [New York: Free Press, 1965]) and
Stephens (The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American
Decline. Robert H. Bork (1996). Regan Books/HarperCollins NY
(pp.193-225)

Many people suppose that feminism today is a continuation of the
reform movement of the past. They occasionally notice a ranting Bella
Abzug or an icy Gloria Steinem but imagine them to be merely the
froth of extremism on an otherwise sensible movement. That is not the
case; the extremists are the movement. What the moderate academic
feminists Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge write about radical
feminism in the universities is true of the movement as a whole.
Today's radical feminism is "not merely about equal rights for
women.... Feminism aspires to be much more than this. It bids to be a
totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive
as Marxism, as assured of its ability to unmask hidden meanings as
Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates
as evangelical fundamentalism. Feminist theory provides a doctrine of
original sin: The world's evils originate in male supremacy." (Daphne
Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales
from the Strange World of Women's Studies (New York, Basic Books,
1994), P. 183)...

"The gender perspective of radical feminism ... attacks not only men
but the institution of the family, it is hostile to traditional religion, it
demands quotas in every field for women, and it engages in serious
misrepresentations of facts. Worst of all, it inflicts great damage on
persons and essential institutions in a reckless attempt to remake
human beings and create a world that can never exist."

Perhaps the first thing to point out, however, is that radical feminism
in its largest aspirations is doomed to failure. That makes the harms it
inflicts on people and institutions in pursuit of its unattainable ends all
the more inexcusable. Radical feminism shares the most destructive
idea in the original draft of the Port Huron Statement: human nature is
infinitely malleable and hence infinitely perfectible. This idea,
encrypted in the substitution of "gender" for "sex," is essential to the
feminist enterprise of removing all differences between men and
women in the roles they play in society. If certain talents are
predominantly male and others predominantly female by nature, that
enterprise is defeated. Hence, feminists insist that the differing roles of
the sexes have nothing to do with biology. What a society's culture can
construct, it can deconstruct. Culture is everything and Culture can be
changed so that all male-female differences, other than in their
reproductive organs, will disappear. Women will then appear in every
profession and occupation in proportion to their representation in the
population at large. The statistical imbalances we see today are merely
the results of conditioning and discrimination.

Even if this feminist contention were correct, its totalitarian
implications are obvious. Culture is a stubborn opponent. To defeat it
requires the coercion of humans. The Soviet Union attempted to create
the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing
squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more
corrupt culture. The feminists are having a similarly corrupting effect
on our culture with only the weapon of moral intimidation. The
contention that underneath their cultural conditioning men and women
are identical is absurd to anyone not blinded by ideological fantasy.
The early kibbutz movement in Israel had the same ideology as
today's radical feminists: sexual equality meant sexual identity, and
sexual differentiation was inequality. For a brief period, the ideologues
attempted to raise children apart from their families and to raise boys
and girls in ways that would destroy sex roles. The program was as
extreme as the most radical feminist could want. But it collapsed
within a very few years. Boys and girls returned to different sex roles.
The American sociologist Melford Spiro, who studied the kibbutz, wrote
that he had wanted to "observe the influence of culture on human
nature or, more accurately, to discover how a new culture produces a
new human nature." He "found (against my own intentions) that I was
observing the influence of human nature on culture." (Melford E. Spiro,
Gender and Culture: kibbutz women revisited (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1979), P. 106.)
"A NOW LDEF staff attorney has been appointed to the American Bar
Association Custody Executive Committee. From that vantage point,
we [NOW] successfully opposed a proposed A.B.A. model
statute that would PERMIT [emphasis added] judges to impose
joint custody over a parent's opposition." -- A NOW Legal Defense
and Education Fund, November 16, 1988.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&p
id=5
Feminism's tie to the occult and witchcraft




??[I]t is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands
and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written
in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female
religions like witchcraft" from "The Declaration of Feminism,"
November 1971.

"WITCH was ... the striking arm of the women's Women's Liberation
Movement ... WITCH [stands for] Women's International Terrorist
Conspiracy from Hell". (pg 604) Morgan claims that "witchcraft was
the pagan religion of all of Europe for centuries prior to the rise of
Christianity". (pg 607) "Our sabotage has ranged from witches
research into herbal poisons ..." (pg xiiv) -- Robin Morgan. Sisterhood
is Powerful.

The whole Feminist cult is rankly atheistical, and they despise the
teaching of St. Paul and of the church. They proclaim the "New
Religion" and the "New Freedom of Women," for by these they are
"emancipated" from all moral and religious restraint. ?Benjamin V.
Hubbard -- (Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism,1915, pp. 142

"Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement,
solace and inspiration from real women... Two thousand years of
patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to
turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world" Annie Laurie
Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," "The Humanist", July/August 1988, p.37

"By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in
human potential, not God" -- Gloria Steinem, editor of 'MS' magazine.

In the keynote address, Sr Elaine Wainwright spoke of the superiority
of feminine traits; the destructive elements in the patriarchal system;
the need to de-construct, re-interpret, and reconstruct Scripture; the
need to rid the world of androcentric bias and replace it with "the
weaver woman goddess Wisdom in one of her many manifestations
which included Isis, Lilith, Sophia and even Jesus/Christa." Margaret E.
Mills, Woman: Why Are You Weeping, North Melbourne: News Weekly,
1997, p.108 Ibid, p.108

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much
that He won't fit anymore." Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods:
Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions (Quoted at beginning of
From Father God to Mother Earth)

NOW is the time to take back control of our lives. NOW is the time to
make reproductive freedom for wimmin of all classes, cultures, ages
and sexual orientations a reality. NOW is not the time to assimilate to
bureaucratic puppeteers who want to control, degrade, torture, kill and
rape our bodies. NOW is the time to drop a boot heel in the groin of
patriarchy. NOW IS THE TIME TO FIGHT BACK. NO GOD, NO MASTER,
NO LAWS. -- Profane Existence, May/June 1992, p.1. (And rage must
be stoked with falsehoods and irrationality. Try to imagine writing a
reasoned statement about bureaucrats who want to torture, kill, and
rape women's bodies. It cannot be done. -- Robert Bork's portrayal of
this statement, from Slouching toward Gommorrah)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Issues Tearing Our Nation's Fabric. Chapter 7, Feminism. The
Center for Reclaiming America. Coral Ridge Ministries.

Over the years, feminists have laid claim to a wide range of issues
calculated to portray the victimization of women and the urgency of
their cause. Rape, abuse, domestic violence, problems with
discrimination and self-esteem, and even slavery, are common themes
in feminist literature. Fortunately, none of these is as serious or as
widespread as the leaders of the movement would have us believe.

In her book, Who Stole Feminism?, Christina Hoff Sommers
investigates the campaign of disinformation and distortion being
carried on by some in the movement. Though Sommers is, herself, a
feminist, her motivation is to separate fact from fiction and to help
clarify the issues. One of the statements she examines is the charge
that 150,000 women die of anorexia each year. Both Gloria Steinem
and Naomi Wolf helped perpetuate this rumor in their bestselling
books. But on tracing the source of the statistic to the Anorexia and
Bulimia Association, Sommers found that the original report had stated
only that from 100,000 to 200,000 women may suffer from such
conditions; but the number of deaths is closer to 70. Hardly the
epidemic the feminist authors implied.

There are many such examples. Law professor Catherine MacKinnon
claimed in a widely publicized report that half of all women will be
victims of rape at least once in their lives. The original projections
from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, however, say that approximately
8 percent of women will be victims either of rape or attempted rape at
least once in their lifetime?considerably fewer than half.

[F]eminist leaders are not interested in fair treatment or equal rights
alone; it is apparent they want exceptional privilege enforced by law,
and to get it, large numbers of them have entered the legal
professions.

A feminist lawyer, professor of law at Columbia University, and now a
justice of the United States Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has
championed the radical redefinition of the role of women in society,
including the elimination of all laws that grant respect, preference, or
advantages for women? Ginsburg has repeatedly opposed laws from a
more genteel age which, in some states, have made cursing in the
presence of women a misdemeanor, or in another case protected
widows from usury and mistreatment. Her published views on
prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, military service for women,
lowering the age of consent for sexual activity, and many other issues
are equally alarming.

These radical views make one wonder what sort of perverse logic is
behind this kind of feminist litigation. Better treatment for women is
apparently not the issue. Their goals are the feminization and
subordination of men, and their tactics are to cry ?victimization? and
?conspiracy.?"

In a 1986 case in which a woman had charged a man with rape, then
later admitted that she had agreed to sex and had cooperated with the
accused at the time, the Supreme Court agreed with the feminist
argument that "?voluntariness? in the sense of consent" is not
sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction for rape. The Court held
that material evidence, including oral statements by the parties, was
immaterial if the woman felt she had been abused.

Conservative, Christian, and anti-feminist organizations need to be
alarmed about the precedents being set by the bizarre rulings of the
activist courts. "The feminists want the battered woman syndrome to
free any woman from conviction of violent crime," warns Phyllis
Schlafly. "The feminists are even pushing the Catherine MacKinnon
fantasy that all heterosexual sex should be considered rape unless an
affirmative, sober, explicit verbal consent can be proved."

In addition to a basic disagreement with the aims of militant
feminism, a majority of American women have repudiated the
movement?s drift toward lesbianism, goddess worship, and
other sordid practices. Witchcraft, which most Americans once
thought to be dead and gone, has reappeared, revived primarily
by feminists; and even in mainline Protestant denominations
there has been a new movement toward the occult, angel
worship, and even demon worship. The Re-Imagining
conference sponsored by feminist organizations within the
National Council of Churches, was one notorious attempt to
enshrine the goddess Sophia as a Christian deity; but events
like this have alerted many women to just how extreme
modern feminism has become.

FEMINIST NEO-MARXIST HATE GROUP ADVANCES LEGISLATION IN THE CONGRESS
Is N.O.W. an anti-American Marxist Front Group?




NEO-MARXlST HATE GROUP ADVANCES LEGlSLATlON lN THE
CONGRESS
A very powerful Neo-Marxist Hate Group[i],[ii],[iii],[iv],[v] is
attempting to deceive the Congress of the United States yet again
[vi],[vii],[viii]. This organization's goals and objectives are to destroy
families, marriages, and yes, even to wipe out children
[ix],[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii],[xiv]. Leaders of this organization have even
promoted [xv] and supported [xvi] INCEST with children. This same
ADVOCATE FOR INCEST has MOCKED THE US CONGRESS for not
knowing what they had passed in dealing with this legislation which is
now up for renewal [xvii]. This organization has become a powerful
but seditious group seeking to destroy the Constitution [xviii],[xix].
Their leaders have proclaimed that the overwhelming majority of the
US Congress are rapists
[xx],[xxi],[xxii],[xxiii],[xxiv],[xxv],[xxvi],[xxvii] and that Congress is
twisted for supporting marriage [xxviii].

This organization supports special legislation that is patently
unconstitutional by their own admission [xxix],[xxx]. And through this
organization's contempt and hatred of marriage and families, THEY
SUPPORT AND PROMOTE CHILD ABUSE [xxxi],[xxxii] while
perpetrating a FRAUD ON THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
[xxxiii],[xxxiv],[xxxv],[xxxvi],[xxxvii],[xxxviii],[xxxix],[xl],[xli],[xlii].

This organization's name is NOW, and the legislation they support is
VAWAII. And by the way, in some US Cities, SILENCE is now Domestic
Violence as well [xliii].

Ask yourself, with as well supported as these simple paragraphs and
statements are, how will VAWAII, supported by this seditious HATE
GROUP, be used to destroy the marriages of your family, your
children, or your grandchildren? Ask yourself, will you vote for political
expedience and political correctness and side with the Divorce
Industry? As NOW, and the various members of their HATE GROUP
assemble over the next several weeks, will you bow to the pressure as
over 5,000 marriages and their children are destroyed each day in
America? Or will you stand up and be counted as one who would
make the difficult decisions necessary to look into the FRAUD of the
entire Divorce Industry? Will you be courageous enough to call for
OPEN HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE INDUSTRY, THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY, AND INTO NOW??

How many more children and families will be sacrificed on the alter of
political correctness and FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED FRAUD
[xliv],[xlv],[xlvi],[xlvii]??

This short piece is a SMALL SAMPLE OF OVER 1,000 CITABLE
SOURCES SHOWING THAT THE ENTIRE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
INDUSTRY IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD DESIGNED TO
DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS while
undermining and DESTROYING the SOCIAL FABRIC of our country and
our culture.

SOLUTION:
Make VAWA TRULY about Domestic Violence and MAKE IT GENDER
NEUTRAL. It is imperative that the Federal Government, through tying
it to funding, or through DIRECT PROVISION make false claims a
SPECIAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE. ANY organization that is found to
encourage the use of false claims, or questionable claims, should be
open to having ALL funding IMMEDIATELY suspended pending a FULL
INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ANYONE
FOUND ENCOURAGING SUCH FALSE CLAIMS --; unless LAWLESSNESS
is the ultimate GOAL of VAWA. Certainly the Constitution is of little or
no concern.

General Reno, using the DOJ has also released a "special supplement"
to the VAWA act. The composition of this group, was overwhelmingly
those with a VESTED INTEREST IN MORE FEDERAL FUNDING AT THE
FEDERAL GRANT TROUGH, and those with a FEMINIST AND NOW bent
to their work [xlviii]. It isn?t surprising with the BILLIONS at stake to
continue to destroy families. After reviewing even a FRACTION of the
attached citations, it should become readily apparent that NOW and
the Feminist supported DOMESTIC VIOLENCE networks consider the
Congress and the Judiciary FOOLS who will do their special interest
bidding.

bill wood
charlotte, nc
September 3, 2000

submitted to the US Congress, over 200 major media outlets, and over
2,000 various other individuals and father's groups across the country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~

On Thursday, 9/07/00, on the seventh floor of the Hart Senate office
building in DC a number of dedicated activists attended a press
conference regarding the impending reauthorization of VAWA - the
"Violence Against Women Act." Senator Biden (one of the bill
sponsors) was personally handed literature pointing out facts related
to the institutionalized misinformation and a clarification was
requested, he looked at the information then mouthed that "It's in
there" and gave a wink and a thumbs-up sign. He also had his chief of
staff tell another gentleman that it (clarification that all funds are
available to assist ALL DV victims - regardless of gender) "would be a
part of the legislation prior to
a vote."

[ii] "Destroy the family," as Lenin said, "and you destroy
society." Thereby he merely repeated what Socrates had said before
and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set
out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the
ultimate father -- could be constructed.

[iii] "Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred,
just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class
hatred. Feminism's business is fashioning weapons to be used
against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce
court. The feminist aim is to overthrow "patriarchal tyranny."
In this undertaking, the male's civil rights count for no more
than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in
National Socialist Germany." What civil rights has wrought. Paul
Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000. Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate.

[iv] "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political
act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class
that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

[v] "The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those
interlocked aberrations--for instance, law, art, religion, nation-
states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right--
these institutions are real and they must be destroyed." (Andrea
Dworkin) [THIS COMMENTARY IS CLEARLY SUBVERSIVE AND
DESIGNED TO UNDERMINE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!]

[vi] N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000; NOW claims that
VAWA is Gender Neutral and that it provides protection for men and
children when a simple reading of VAWA shows that it CLEARLY
EXCLUDES help for children and men.

[vii] NOW's LDEF (Legal Defense Education Fund) sponsors and helped
to WRITE the VAWA legislation and therefore NOW is AWARE that the
language of the bill **specifically** excludes children and is gender
biased. Yet NOW is KNOWINGLY LYING to the Congress of the
United States of America and ellicits help from Congress and
the Judiciary to destroy more families and children.

[viii] N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000
HATCH PROMISES TO BRING VAWA REAUTHORIZATION TO SENATE
FLOOR VOTE

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/06-12-2000.html#hatch_vawa
"...it is important to stress that the Violence Against **WOMEN** Act
[emphasis added] is gender neutral. Funds are available to support
programs which assist men as well as women; if the language in the
act were not gender neutral, it could not meet a Constitutionality
challenge." [Obvious "talking point" propaganda]

"And, any statistics that our opponents may cite that suggest that as
many women as men are batterers are simply inaccurate and cannot
be substantiated by sound scientific research."

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm - these "statistics" are
from A PARTIAL LIST of approximately 234 studies showing that the
NOW CLAIM IS YET AGAIN ANOTHER FRUAD!!!

[ix] "How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone
will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that
women can begin establishing a community of work with each other
and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their
husbands and become economically independent, either
through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne
Dunbar.

[x] "The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find
better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the
break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...
"Families have supported oppression by separating people into small,
isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...
-- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of
Liberation, Fall, 1969.

[xi] "The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of
New York...All the discriminatory practices against women are
patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't
destroy the inequities between men and women until we
destroy marriage." -- From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Morgan (ed),
1970 p. 537.

[xii] Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as
reported in the SF Chronicle "Our research and most other studies
show that wife-battering occurs in 50 percent of families throughout
the nation." The SF Chronicle comments, "Only the most crazed man-
hater could believe that."
Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for
battered women, wrote "I was struck by what a beneficial
alternative to the nuclear family this arrangement [communal
housing and child raising] was for these women and children."
(p.195) The Battered Woman

Gordon Fitch: The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and
depravity.

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of
oppression, danger, and drudgery for women." -- From article,
"Is Marriage the Answer?" by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-
June, 1995

"Only when manhood is dead--and it will perish when ravaged
femininity no longer sustains it" -- (Andrea Dworkin)
"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training
them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their
'true' role. -- (Andrea Dworkin)
... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of
her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally
destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization
permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do
not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." --
Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of
Liberation, Fall, 1969.
The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the
most pervasive prejudice in the Western world. -- Judith Stacey

The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work -- Toni
Morrison
"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and
human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." --
From Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p. 294
Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time -- Ms.
Ehrenreich extols the "long and honorable tradition of 'anti-family'
thought," waxing nostalgic for those early feminists who regarded
marriage as just another version of prostitution. This deeply defective
institution "can hardly be the moral foundation of everything else," she
argues, pining for the day when "someone invents a sustainable
alternative."

Barbara Ehrenreich in Time: Only with the occasional celebrity crime
do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family
may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all that it
can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence,... Even
in the ostensibly "functional," nonviolent family, where no one is killed
or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of
shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky
sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears,
the little digs and rivalries...

From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p. 537: We
can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy
marriage.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that
the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is
oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it
has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection
and desire." -- - From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice:
Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of
contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human
race to evolve. Andrea is one of them."--Gloria Steinem

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average
dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative
difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace
Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating
with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." --
Sheila Jeffrys

"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer?
They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete
hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't
like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down." -- Letter
to the Editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" -- Signed: Liberated
Women, Boronia -- Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February
1996
[xiii] It is well known, well understood, and widely accepted that
divorce is destructive to children especially, but it also has detrimental
psychological affects on women and men as well...
"In summary, 30% of the children in the present study experienced a
marked decrease in their academic performance following parental
separation, and this was evident three years later. Access to both
parents seemed to be the most protective factor, in that it was
associated with better academic adjustment...Moreover, data revealed
that noncustodial parents (mostly fathers) were very influential in their
children's development...These data also support the interpretation
that the more time a child spends with the noncustodial parent the
better the overall adjustment of the child."

Factors Associated with Academic Achievement in Children Following
Parental Separation, L. Bisnaire, PhD; P. Firestone, PhD; D. Rynard,
MA Sc American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(1), January, 1990
********************
[THE WOMEN OF TOMORROW THAT NOW SEEKS TO DESTROY!!]
"While in most instances adolescents from recently disrupted
household were more negatively affected by their parents' divorce,
some findings did identify long-term effects of earlier disruption.
Adolescent girls who had experienced parental divorce when they were
younger than six or between six and nine years old reported becoming
involved with alcohol or drugs in proportions higher than did girls from
intact families. Adolescent girls whose experience of divorce occurred
before they were six more frequently reported skipping school than did
girls from intact families or girls whose parents divorced when they
were between the ages of six and nine."

"These findings underscore the vulnerability of adolescents whose
parents have divorced within the last five years. The impact of the
marital disruption was most pronounced among girls, who skipped
school more frequently, reported more depress ehavior, and described
social support in more negative terms than did boys from recently
disrupted homes."

The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic A.
Frost, PhD; B. Pakiz, EdM, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(4),
October, 1990
********************
[MORE FEMALE NOW VICTIMS] "Among teenage and adult
populations of females, parental divorce has been associated with
lower self-esteem, precocious sexual activity, greater delinquent-like
behavior, and more difficulty establishing gratifying, lasting adult
heterosexual relationships. It is especially intriguing to note that, in
these studies, the parental divorce typically occurred years before any
difficulties were observed..

"At the time of the marital separation, when (as is typical) father
leaves the family home and becomes progressively less involved with
his children over the ensuing years, it appears that young girls
experience the emotional loss of father egocentrically as a rejection of
them. While more common among preschool and early elementary
school girls, we have observed this phenomenon clinically in later
elementary school and young adolescent children. Here the continued
lack of involvement is experienced as an ongoing rejection by him.
Many girls attribute this rejection to their not being pretty enough,
affectionate enough, athletic enough, or smart enough to please father
and engage him in regular, frequent contacts".

"Finally, girls whose parents divorce may grow up without the day to
day experience of interacting with a man who is attentive, caring and
loving. The continuous sense of being valued and loved as a female
seems an especially key element in the development of the conviction
that one is indeed femininely lovable. Without this regular source of
nourishment, a girl's sense of being valued as a female does not seem
to thrive."

Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Developmental
Vulnerability Model Neil Kalter, Ph.D., University of Michigan, American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(4), October, 1987
********************
"Because divorce is a process, not an isolated event, the effects of the
divorce may be cumulative and early intervention would therefore be
beneficial.

The continued involvement of the non- custodial parent in the child's
life appears crucial in preventing an intense sense of loss in the
child.... The importance of the relationship with the non-custodial
parent may also have implications for the legal issues of custodial
arrangements and visitation. The results of this study indicate that
arrangements where both parents are equally involved with the child
are optimal. When this type of arrangement is not possible, the child's
continued relationship with the
non-custodial parent remains essential."

Young Adult Children of Divorced Parents: Depression and the
Perception of Loss, Rebecca L. Drill, Ph.D., Harvard University. Journal
of Divorce, V. 10, #1/2, Fall/Winter 1986
********************
"The impact of parental divorce and subsequent father absence in the
wake of this event has long been thought to affect children quite
negatively. For instance, parental divorce and father loss has been
associated with difficulties in school adjustment (e.g. Felner, Ginter,
Boike, & Cowen), Social Adjustment (e.g. Fry & Grover) and personal
adjustment (e.g. Covell & Turnbull)...
********************
"The results of the present study suggest that father loss through
divorce is associated with diminished self-concepts in children...at
least for this sample of children from the midwestern United States."

Children's Self Concepts: Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and
Remarriage Thomas S. Parish, Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 1987, V 2, #4, 559-562

********************
NOW PROMOTES the destruction of marriages as noted above in
footnotes [ix] through [xiv].

[xiv] *N* *O* *W* Action Alert -- October 20, 1999 -- Fathers' Rights
Bill Advances in the House. This Action alert explains that the Father's
Rights legislation before Congress is "bad for women and children"
because it will "promote marriage" and "disseminat[e] information
about the advantages of marriage", "promote successful parenting"
and "disseminat[e] information about good parenting practices", and
"help fathers and their families ... leave ... welfare". A plain reading of
the Action Alert [put link here] shows that when read in full context
NOW will do ANYTHING to destroy marriages, families, and even
children.

[xv] From "Woman Hating"by Andrea Dworkin, Penguin Books, 1974 p.
189, Chapter entitled "Androgyny, Androgyny F&$%@ng and
Community"

Incest

"The parent-child relationship is primarily erotic because all human
relationships are primarily erotic. The incest taboo is a particularized
form of repression, one which functions as the bulwark of all the other
repressions. The incest taboo ensures that however free we become,
we never become genuinely free. The incest taboo, because it denies
us essential
fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy,
forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them, or
seek to negate them, in the minds, bodies and hearts of other humans
who are not our parents and never will be.
"The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture: it teaches us
the mechanisms of repressing and internalizing erotic feeling-it forces
us to develop those mechanisms in the first place; it forces us to
particularize sexual feeling, so that it congeals into a need for a
particular sexual "object"; it demands that we place the nuclear family
above the human family. The destruction of the incest taboo is
essential to the development of cooperative human community based
on free-flow of natural and androgynous eroticism.

The Family

"For if we grant that the sexual drive is at birth diffuse and
undifferentiated from the total personality (Freud's polymorphous
perversity") and ... becomes differentiated only in response to the
incest taboo; and that... the incest taboo is now necessarily only in
order to preserve the family; and if we did away with the family we
would in effect be doing away with repressions that mold sexuality into
specific formations. Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectics of Sex
"The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear
family as the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is
the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society... The
alternative to the nuclear family at the moment is the extended family
or the tribe. The growth of tribe is part of the process of destroying
particularized roles and
fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity,
they will also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We
cannot really imagine what those forms will be."

[xvi] "In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the
human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them." -- Gloria Steinem

[xvii] U. S. News, page 12, John Leo. January 24, 2000 -- "The
Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most
members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have
Andrea Dworkin's word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the
North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She
told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for
the bill's popularity in the Senate was the 'senators don't
understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.' In
plain English, she seemed to mean that Congress was naively
institutionalizing the radical view of domestic violence as
antifemale terrorism by a relentless oppressor class ? men.

[xviii] A NOW Legislative Alert dated June 12, 2000 FRAUDULENTLY
states: ". . . the Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral.
Funds are available to support programs which assist men as well as
women. . . ." and then says ". . .if the language in the act were
not gender neutral, it could not meet a constitutionality
challenge."

[xix] NOW LDEF to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, October 4, 1999, gender
based language is unconstitutional when it ". . . tie[s] the
federal benefits available under the act to gender . . . violate[s]
the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. . . ."

"Further, to the extent that Act targets certain grants to state
programs offering gender-specific benefits, it would operate to
encourage states to violate the equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment to the Constitution. As recently set out by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe, 119 S. Ct. 1518 (1999),
Congress cannot authorize states to accomplish indirectly what
Congress itself is constitutionally prohibited from doing."
The VAWAII act specifically states in part "Ineligible activities" include
"projects that focus on "children or men."

[xx] "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French
Author, "The Women's Room" (quoted again in People Magazine) "All
men are rapists and that's all they are ..." --Feminist Marilyn French,
People Magazine (Percent of reported rape or near-rape incidents =
.07% [The FBI's Uniform Crime Report lists for the year 1996])

[xxi] "[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of
intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF
FEAR" [emphasis added] -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

[xxii] "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.
Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture.
Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of
but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworkin.

Also, see footnotes [ix] through [xiv] related to the Feminist Position
on marriage and its destruction.

[xxiii] "?[A]ll heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a
group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" -- Catherine
MacKinnon, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The Strange
World of Women's Studies"

[xxiv] "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of
contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

[xxv] As cited in Andrea Dworkin's "Right-Wing Women" "...I submit
that any sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he
owns or controls is rape." -- Alice Walker in "Embracing the Dark and
the Light," Essence, July 1982.

[xxvi] "Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex.
They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse
(normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that
one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." Catherine
MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists
Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

[xxvii] "One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact
that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the
one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and
impossible." Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..

[xxviii] Patricia Ireland of NOW has referred to the Congress of the
United States of America as "twisted" for supporting such notions as
marriage and family in a publication titled "Father's Count Act will hurt
Women and Kids", January 28, 2000, by Patricia Ireland

[xxix] A NOW Legislative Alert dated June 12, 2000 FRAUDULENTLY
states: ". . . the Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral.
Funds are available to support programs which assist men as well as
women. . . ." and then says ". . .if the language in the act were not
gender neutral, it could not meet a constitutionality challenge."

[xxx] NOW LDEF to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, October 4, 1999, gender
based language is unconstitutional when it ". . . tie[s] the federal
benefits available under the act to gender . . . violate[s] the equal
protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. . . ."

"Further, to the extent that Act targets certain grants to state
programs offering gender-specific benefits, it would operate to
encourage states to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution. As recently set out by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe, 119 S. Ct. 1518 (1999), Congress
cannot authorize states to accomplish indirectly what Congress itself is
constitutionally prohibited from doing."

The VAWAII act specifically states in part "Ineligible activities" include
"projects that focus on "children or men."

[xxxi] Absent fathers, which NOW STRINGENTLY SUPPORTS, is EASILY
documented as one of the most devastating trends in our culture
today. Just a few of the abstracts about the destructive nature of
absent fathers can be seen here;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
AND HERE IS THE OUTCOME OF THE FEMINIST AGENDA ~~~!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National
Child Abuse and neglect data system, put out by the US DHHS
"Section 7.2 -- DCDC data reveal that 184,152 perpetrators (62.3%)
were female, and 11,473 (37.7%) were male."

[MAJOR MATH ERROR 184,152 + 11,473 = 195,625. FEMALE
PERPS **94.13%** = 184,152 / 195,625 !!!! MALE PERPS
**5.86%** = 11,473 / 195,625.]

From the "Executive Summary" The Advisory Board put forth 26
recommendations for solving child abuse problems. Rec. 23 reads:
"State and local agencies should design prevention programs for men.
Programs should integrate services on child abuse and domestic
violence and address the need for interagency training. Specific
strategies must reach men and alert women to the potential role of
men in abuse." THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
WOMEN.
********************
[DESTRUCTION OF GIRLS] Clinical Observations on Interferences of
Early Father Absence in the Achievement of Femininity by R. Lohr, C.
g, A. Mendell and B. Riemer, Clinical Social Work Journal, V. 17, #4,
Winter, 1989
"In an earlier study by Kalter and Rembar at [Children's Psychiatric
Hospital, University of Michigan], a sample of 144 child and adolescent
patients, whose parents had divorced, presented [for evaluation and
treatment] with three most commonly occurring problems:

63% Subjective psychological problem (defined as anxiety, sadness,
pronounced moodiness, phobias, and depression)
56% Poor grades or grades substantially below ability and/or recent
past performance
43% Aggression toward parents

Important features of the subgroup of 32 latency aged girls were in
the same order:

69% indicating subjective psychological distress
47% academic problems
41% aggression toward parents.
[Note: These same destructive traits are likely to be carried over into
adulthood and perpetuated yet again on their own children. Hence the
cycle of destruction continues as noted in the *extremely* high rates
of female perpetrated child abuse.]
********************
[Excerpt from US House of Representatives written testimony of
Richard Weiss and William Wood re: HR1488. Hearing held March 16,
2000]

It is finally becoming widely understood that father-absence is one of
the most destructive forces to children in our society --; fatherless
homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of all homeless and
runaway children,[51] 85% of all children exhibiting behavioral
disorders,[52] 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger,[53]
71% of all high school dropouts,[54] 75% of all adolescent patients in
chemical abuse centers,[55] 70% of juveniles in state-operated
institutions,[56] and 85% of prison youths.[57]

Contrast this with 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation
rights[58]. Non-compliance with court ordered visitation by custodial
mothers prevents 77% of non-custodial fathers from being able to
"visit" their children[59]. Non-compliance with court ordered visitation
is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child
support and impacts the children of divorce even more. 40% of
custodial mother SELF-REPORTS indicate they interfered with the
father's visitation to "punish" them,[60] ~50% see no value in the
father's involvement with the child,[61] and many use the children to
retaliate against the father for their own ongoing personal
problems.[62]

The court system does not enforce orders for "visitation" but jails for
non-compliance with a "child" support order. This is a clear indication
that the whole DIVORCE INDUSTRY is about money and children are
just the "poker chips" in this high stakes "game". Their destruction is
just "collateral damage" for the marriage hating special interests
pushing their junk data.

[51] U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
[52] Center for Disease Control
[53] Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978
[54] National Principals Association Report on the State of High
Schools
[55] Rainbows for all God`s Children
[56] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988
[57] Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections
1992
[58] p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept
1991
[59] Visitational Interference - A National Study, Ms. J Annette Vanini,
M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W. (September 1992)
[60] p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by
Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers.
Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.
[61] Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125
[62] Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, Seltzer,
Shaeffer & Charing, November 1989
********************
1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL
DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL ABUSERS/SUICIDES

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from
fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
(Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source:
National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from
fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children.)
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S.
D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
RE: Youth Suicide and Divorce/ Single parent Homes:
"In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims,
teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to
commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological
disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families." Source:
David A. Brent, (et. al.) "Post-traumatic Stress Disorders in Peers of
Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology."
Journal of the AMerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
34 (1995): 209-215.

"Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide."
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, D.C.,
1993.

"Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a
parent has been absent." Source: Jean Beth Eshtain, "Family Matters:
The Plight of America's Children." The Christian Century (July 1993):
14-21.

"A family structure index - a composite index based on the annual rate
of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with
children present that are female-headed - is a strong predictor of
suicide among young adult and adolescent white males." Source:
Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male
Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are Ther Common
Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23 (1994):
57-81

2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless
homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless
homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
(Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of
Corrections 1992)
California has the nation's highest juvenile incarceration rate and the
nation's highest juvenile unemployment rate. Vincent Schiraldi,
Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, "What
Hallinan's Victory Means," San Francisco Chronicle (12/28/95).
These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home
are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.
Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation's alarming
increases in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape,
robbery and aggravated assault growing sharply in the past decade as
pistols and drugs became more available, and expected to continue at
the same alarming rate during the next decade. "Justice Dept. Issues
Scary Report on Juvenile Crime," San Francisco Chronicle (9/8/95).
"Crime Wave Forecast With Teenager Boom," San Francisco Chronicle
(2/15/95).
Criminal behavior experts and social scientists are finding intriguing
evidence that the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to
the breakdown of the two-parent family.
"New Evidence That Quayle Was Right: Young Offenders Tell What
Went Wrong at Home," San Francisco Chronicle
(12/9/94).
3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY

"Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as
teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92%
more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these
intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the
likelihood of chronic welfare dependency." Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).
Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children
during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families.
The Good Family Man, David Blankenhorn.
71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services.
4) CHILD ABUSE

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there
were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In
1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole
custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress
associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in
abusive situations by allowing both parents' to
monitor the children's health and welfare and to protect them.
5) POVERTY

"The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million children live
in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in
single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11.
Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty."
Melinda Sacks, "Fatherhood in the 90's: Kids of absent fathers more
"at risk"," San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95).
"The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as
well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for
education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the
cycle." David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993).
6) KIDNAPPING

Family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of
200-300. The parental abductions were attributed to the parents'
disenchantment with the legal system. David Levy, Ed., The Best
Parent is Both Parents (1993), citing a report from the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice (May 1990).

********************
Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their
children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C.
Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National
Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.

********************
The State of Fatherhood
37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II,
para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-
custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-
spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency
of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers
and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s
continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the
Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)
Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to
handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and
close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of
500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)
"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having
more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our
understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their
children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)
"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with
their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary
Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54,
Winter 1984.)
"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact
with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the
Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes
sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and
Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)
"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in
their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer &
Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November
1989.)
In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J
Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that
77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as
ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference"
perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance
with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-
compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children
of divorce even more.Originally published Sept. 1992

********************
(http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/206/vac/ncd9802.pdf)
concerning a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Study
indicating that women are the main perpetrators of abuse of children
77% of the time that the child protection agencies investigate. The
DHHS 1996 Child Maltreatment Study (the source of the above
statistics)
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats/ncands96/index.htm. The
DHHS 1995 Child Maltreatment Study.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats/ncands/index.htm

The US's NIS-3 study, expanded data sources to include untrained
people (e.g. sheriff's offices), but still indicate the patterns of
maltreatment for various types of parents. The report indicates that
natural parents account for some 78% of child maltreatment and, of
that 46% of the time the natural father was involved and 75% of the
time the natural mother was involved (sometimes both were involved).
It also notes that natural mothers tend to inflict more fatal (78% of
the time, too low to measure for natural fathers), serious (81% vs.
43%) and moderate (72% vs 48%) abuse on the child than do natural
fathers. You can see this from these NIS tables from Chapter 6 in PDF
format
(http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/206/vac/nis3t6.pdf).
For those with the desire for more information we have the entire
Chapter 6 in PDF format
(http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/206/vac/nisc6.pdf).
We would recommend that you look at attaining the entire report from
DHHS if this information is relevant to you.

NIS-3, Table 6-4 shows that 1,500 children were fatally abused in
1993--1,200 by natural parents, and 78% by females. Since the data
for the percent of non-natural parents [read: step-fathers and live-in
boyfriends] who fatally abused their chilidren is missing, the
assumption is made that the percent of perpetrators of fatal abuse by
non-natural fathers is an average of Table 6-3 (90%, 97%, 74%,
82%, or 86%). 28 million children are now growing up in fatherless
households, where the rate of fatal child abuse is 0.017 per 1,000
children, so 476 children were fatally abused in mother-only
households in 1993. 2.8 million children are now growing up in father-
only households where the rate of fatal abuse is .005 per 1,000
children, so 14 children were fatally abused in father-only households
in 1993.

US Office of Technology Assessment,Howard Dubowitz, through a
health program to evaluate child abuse, dated May 1987, entitled
"Child Maltreatment in the US" ...concludes that 2.3% of sexual abuse
of girls was by biological fathers versus 17% by stepfathers
********************
Single Mother Households (SMH) are the most dangerous living
arrangement to Children.

In Single Mother Households, 422 children are fatally abused each
year.
In Single Father Households, 25 children are fatally abused each year.
In Dual Parent Families, 16 children are fatally abused each year.

430 children are killed by firearm accidents each year. Of 430 children
killed by firearms, 322 are killed in Single Mother
Households. Single Mother Households account for 70% of fatal child
abuse and accidental firearm deaths.

Source: Donna Shalala, "National Child Abuse Prevention Month" and
"Child Maltreatment 1994: Reports from the States to the National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect". Patrick Fagan, Heritage
Foundation, "THE CHILD ABUSE CRISIS: THE DISINTEGRATION OF
MARRIAGE, FAMILY, AND THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY", Rick Thomas,
"The Dirty Little Secret: Abuse in Foster Care"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
The Heritage Foundation report "The Child Abuse Crisis: The
Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community,"
May 15, 1997 notes that: "[due to] ... the disintegration of family and
community ... America's infants and young chilren, about 2,000 of
whom -- 6 per day -- die each year," and provides the following
estimate:

Total Children Killed Per Year 2,000
Killed by Mothers 1,100 55.0%
Killed by Stepfathers 250 12.5%
Killed by Live-In Boyfriends 513 25.7%
Killed by Biological Fathers 137 6.9%
Killed by being in SMH 1863 93.2%
(55%+12.5+25.7)

This study demonstrates that the least dangerous place for a child is
with the father by a margin of over 14 to 1 ( 2000 / 137 = 14.5985 ).
Directly or indirectly, the stepfathers and live-in boyfriends are
associated with the mother's household and therefore a child is
conversely 14 times more likely to be killed in the mother's care.
Excluding Stepfathers and Live-in boyfriends, mothers are 8 times as
likely to kill a child than the biological father ( 1100 / 137 = 8.0291 ).
********************
Many apologists for maternal abuse/neglect claim "opportunity" as a
justification for the higher maternal-abuse figures, and with some
justification. For instance, a study of inner city child abuse (Lansing)
published in a major journal in 1984 indicated that approximately 50%
of the confirmed child abuse/neglect was committed by single parent
mothers.

"Opportunity" is somewhat offset by the "you just wait until your
father gets home" pressure for a father to punish children for an
infraction committed under the mother's supervision.

The "opportunity" excuse fades further in a 10-year study of confirmed
parental child abuse/neglect in a state that awards over 40%
"visitation" time to separated noncustodial parents (usually fathers).
In that state, prior to the state-wide guideline, 64% of confirmed child
abuse was committed by mothers, 36% by fathers. Following
implementation of the "visitation" guideline, the gap has widened and
now stands at 69%-70% mothers, 30%-31% fathers. [by this study,
CHILDREN ARE SAFER WITH THEIR FATHERS when considering the
OPPORUNITY EXCUSE!!]

[xxxii] Cutting Off Children's Noses to Spite Men's Faces -- By Armin
Brott - Knight-Ridder
The National Organization for Women (NOW) has finally done it. By
vehemently opposing a piece of legislation that promotes marriage,
successful parenting, and keeping families off welfare, the radical
women's group has clearly demonstrated that it has outlived its
usefulness and that it's doing more harm to women and children than
good.

At issue is the Fatherhood Counts Act of 1999, which would give $150
million in grants over five years to public and private organizations
that will provide poor under- and unemployed fathers with parenting
and
marital-skills training, special visitation centers, classes on money
management, help improving their credit records, and job training so
they can meet child support obligations. As a result, the bill would
enable millions of low-income parents and their children to get off
welfare and could potentially save Federal and state governments
billions in social services expenditures.

Sounds like something women's groups would support. After all,
wouldn't most women want men to take some parenting and
relationship-skills classes? And wouldn't it be good for women if men
could get decent jobs, support their families, and spend more time
with their kids? Well, apparently that's not good enough for NOW,
which last week fired off an "Action Alert," warning its members that
the Act is "bad for women and children" and urging them to lobby
against it.

What's so objectionable about Fatherhood Counts? In written
testimony submitted to Congress, NOW's Legal Defense and Education
Fund claimed that the Act is unconstitutional because it ties "federal
benefits available under the Act to gender (i.e., 'fatherhood')." Who
are they kidding? Where are NOW's constitutional objections to the
billions of dollars (including over $1 million to NOW itself) that
women's groups receive under the Violence Against Women Act? And
where are the objections to the millions of dollars that fund federal,
state, and local Commissions on the Status of Women? Commissions
on the Status of Men do not exist.

NOW complains that the bill allows states to suspend (but not cancel)
child support arrearages if the father "is unemployed, underemployed,
or having difficulty in paying child support obligations." Fatherhood
Counts doesn't protect rich men who don't pay child support. It offers
help only to men who've been on welfare or received food stamps in
the past 24 months-fathers who are simply incapable of paying.
Wouldn't women and children be better off if these men learned some
marketable skills so they could go to work instead of to jail?

NOW also claims that by promoting marriage, the Act doesn't protect
women who are the victims of domestic violence. In truth, the bill has
extensive provisions that do exactly that. And NOW worries that the
Act could give money to fathers' rights groups. So what? If women's
groups get money to help battered women, shouldn't fathers' groups
get money to work with disenfranchised fathers?

Children-the people who need the most help-are the biggest victims of
NOW's ill-conceived positions. It's common and irrefutable knowledge
that kids who have a father in their lives are less likely to smoke or
abuse drugs or alcohol, less likely to become teen parents or get
involved in crime, and far more likely to finish high school and go to
college.

So why deny millions of children the chance to reestablish
relationships with their fathers and experience the benefits that having
a father around provides? And why deny poor mothers a long-overdue
chance to improve their lives? It's painfully simple: although
Fatherhood Counts benefits women and children, it benefits men too.

NOW once helped empower millions of women. But today it has
become so consumed by hate that it would rather harm our children
(and their mothers) than back anything that might make life a little
easier for men. It's like a twisted version of Gore Vidal's observation
that, "It's not enough that I succeed. My friends must fail."

One really has to wonder why anyone pays any attention to NOW
anymore. The group has only a few thousand members, according to
the Washington Post, and Ms. magazine's circulation is insignificant
compared to the more popular women's magazines. Clearly, women,
many of whom consider themselves
feminists, have begun to distance themselves from NOW's intellectual
dishonesty and harmful rhetoric. Isn't it time that the media,
Congress, and the rest of us did the same? The future of America's
children may depend on it.

Armin Brott's most recent book is Throwaway Dads: The Myths and
Barriers That Keep Men From Being the Fathers They Want to Be. E-
mail him at armin@MrDad.com.

[xxxiii] "A NOW LDEF staff attorney has been appointed to the
American Bar Association Custody Executive Committee. From that
vantage point, we [NOW] successfully opposed a proposed
A.B.A. model statute that would PERMIT [emphasis added]
judges to impose joint custody over a parent's opposition." -- A
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, November 16, 1988.
"....when the non-custodial parent is perceived as "lost,"
the young adult is more depressed. When a divorce occurs,
the perception of the non-custodial father has been shown
to change in a negative direction, while the perception of
the mother (whether custodon-custodial) remains
relatively stable. "

"It is ironic, and of some interest, that we have subjected
joint custody to a level and intensity of scrutiny that was
never directed toward the traditional post-divorce
arrangement (sole legal and physical custody to the
mother and two weekends each month of visiting to the
father.) Developmental and relationship theory should
have alerted the mental health field to the potential
immediate and long range consequences for the child of
only seeing a parent four days each month. And yet until
recently, there was no particular challenge to this
traditional post-divorce parenting arrangement, despite
growing evidence that such post-divorce relationships were
not sufficiently nurturing or stabilizing for many children
and parents."

"There is some evidence that in our well-meaning efforts
to save children in the immediate post-separation period
from anxiety, confusion, and the normative divorce-
engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer
run for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression,
and a deep sense of loss by depriving the child of the
opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each
parent."

Examining Resistance to Joint Custody, Monograph by Joan
Kelly, Ph.D. (associate of Judith Wallerstein, Ph.D) From
the 1991 Book Joint Custody and Shared Parenting, second
edition, Guilford Press, 1991.
[xxxiv] Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as
reported in the SF Chronicle "Our research and most other studies
show that wife-battering occurs in 50 percent of families
throughout the nation." The SF Chronicle comments, "Only the
most crazed man-hater could believe that."
Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered
women, wrote "I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the
nuclear family this arrangement [communal housing and child raising]
was for these women and children." (p.195) The Battered Woman

[xxxv] Lesbians and Domestic Violence - From HHS web site.
By definition, Lesbian relationships do NOT have men involved.
So then, are we to believe the lying PROPAGANDA from NOW
about Domestic Violence being ONLY a male on female issue??
These studies are [or were] POSTED on the US Department of Health
and Human services PSC (Program Support Center) web site.
http://library.psc.gov/library/women_and_violence.html#lesbians

Bailey GR. "Treatment of domestic violence in gay and lesbian
relationships." Journal of Psychological Practice 2 (2): 1-8, 1996.

Bernhard LK. "Physical and sexual violence experienced by lesbian and
heterosexual women." Violence Against Women 6 (1): 68-79, 2000.

Burke LK, Follingstad DR. "Violence in lesbian and gay relationships:
Theory, prevalence, and correlational factors." Clinical Psychology
Review 19 (5): 487-512, 1999.

Coleman VE. "Lesbian battering: The relationship between personality
and the perpetration of violence." Violence and Victims 9 (2): 139-
152, 1994.

Farley N. "A survey of factors contributing to gay and lesbian domestic
violence." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian
Domestic Partnerships: 35-42. New York: Harrington Park
Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.

Fortunata B. "Lesbian experience of domestic violence." Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 60 (2-
B): 0872, 1999.

Hanson B. "The violence we face as lesbians and gay men: The
landscape both outside and inside our communities." Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Social Services 4 (2): 95-113, 1996.

Istar A. "Couple assessment: Identifying and intervening in domestic
violence in lesbian relationships." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed.
Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 93-160. New
York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.

Klinger RL, Stein TS. "Impact of violence, childhood sexual abuse, and
domestic violence and abuse on lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men." In:
Cabaj RP, Stein TS, ed. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health:
801-818. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1996.

Lockhart LL, White BW, Causby V. "Letting out the secret: Violence in
lesbian relationships." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (4): 469-
492, 1994.

Margolies L, Leeder E. "Violence at the door: Treatment of lesbian
batterers." Violence Against Women 1 (2): 139-157, 1995.

Marrujo B, Kreger M. "Definition of roles in abusive lesbian
relationships." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and
Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 23-33. New York: Harrington Park
Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.

Mendez JM. "Serving gays and lesbians of color who are survivors of
domestic violence." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and
Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 53-59. New York: Harrington Park
Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.

Renzetti CM. "The poverty of services for battered lesbians." In:
Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic
Partnerships: 61-68. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press,
Inc., 1996.

Renzetti CM. "Violence and abuse in lesbian relationships: Theoretical
and empirical issues." In: Bergen R, ed. Issues in Intimate Violence:
117-127. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1998.

Renzetti CM, Miley CH, Dandeneau C. "Violence in gay and lesbian
domestic partnerships." Sex Roles 36 (5-6): 431-432, 1997.

Renzetti CM. "Violence in lesbian and gay relationships." In: O'Tolle L,
Schiffman JR, ed. Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives:
285-293. New York: New York University Press, 1997.

Scherzer T. "Domestic violence in lesbian relationships: Findings of the
Lesbian Relationships Research Project." In: Ponticilli C, ed. Gateways
to Improving Lesbian Health and Health Care: Opening Doors: 29-47.
New York: Harrington Park Press/ The Haworth Press, Inc., 1998.

Sloan L, Edmond T. "Shifting the focus: Recognizing the needs of
lesbian and gay survivors of sexual violence." Journal of Gay and
Lesbian Social Services 5 (4): 33-52, 1996.

Stahly GB, Lie GY. "Women and violence: A comparison of lesbian and
heterosexual battering relationships." In: Chrisler JC, Hemstreet AH,
ed. Variations on a Theme: Diversity and the Psychology of Women:
51-78. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995.

Taylor J, Chandler T, Cross EJ. "Lesbians talk violent relationships."
Women's Studies International Forum 19 (3): 345-346, 1996.

Waldron CM. "Lesbians of color and the domestic violence movement."
In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic
Partnerships: 43-51. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press,
Inc., 1996.

VAWA, as a GENDER BIASED BILL is TAXPAYER FRAUD!!! Not to
mention that it is patently unconstitutional... Let's SAVE the taxpayers
4 BILLION dollars while having a FULL IN DEPTH INVESTIGATION INTO
VAWA *AND* NOW!!!

[xxxvi] " ...eighty percent of those polled said they had actually
handled a case where they believed there was false accusation
of abuse, as in disputes over custody of children, for
instance."[News Release, from The Dilenschneider Group Inc.,
representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers), Three
First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602,
11/91.]

This was over 10 years ago, and under VAWA and RADICAL
PROSECUTORIAL ACTION, as well as the high stakes child support
scam, this number is surely nearer 100% today.

[xxxvii] An epidemic of lies, Backlash Magazine, August 1999, Dennis
Austin

The use of false allegations in divorce is rapidly becoming an epidemic
which is spreading throughout the world. According to the National
Shared Parenting Association (Saskatchewan Chapter), in Canada a
Children's Aid Society study showed that of 1200 complaints of
abuse, 900 involved custody disputes. Of those 900 allegations,
two thirds (600) were found to be false.

Millions of false allegations

In Armin A. Brott's article A system out of control: The epidemic of
false allegations of child abuse, he states, "In California, for example,
the Victim/Witness program will pay directly to a licensed therapist up
to $10,000 per child for counseling - as long as the child was alleged
to have been abused. An additional $10,000 is available to counsel the
child's mother. The only catch: to get their therapy paid for, the child
victim and her mother must see a therapist from an approved list.
Guess who directs the mother to a therapist who would be best for her
and her child? CPS, of course."
These CPS workers often ask leading questions which can distort the
children's memories. In their reports to the court, they often ignore
evidences that would clear the accused, such as lie detector tests and
outside therapist evaluations and rely solely on the child's evaluations
which have been skewed by the CPS and the therapists that they
recommend.
In a report disseminated by the National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect (NCCAN) Child Maltreatment 1995 Reports From the States to
the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System depicts more than
three million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in 1995 of
which two million of those complaints were without foundation.
False allegations of abuse in divorce is an epidemic that is sweeping
the world. Children are becoming heirs to hatred passed down to them
from their parents and because this is all they know, they in turn
foster this pain, hatred and deceptiveness in their own adult
relationships. The children are crushed under the weight of the system
and a parent that is only looking out for their own best interests.

[xxxviii] Many innocent men accused of abuse. Montgomery
Advertiser. July 10, 2000. Page 7A.

[xxxix] Spinning the spousal abuse story. By Donna Laframboise,
National Post, June 27, 2000.

"... a system that prosecutes abuse perpetrated by only one
half of the population, issues restraining orders virtually on
demand and allows some people to thumb their noses at rules
others are expected to follow is a system rotten to the core."

"...A 1995 government of Massachusetts study found that fewer
than half of the state's restraining orders involve even an
allegation of physical abuse. In the words of Elaine Epstein, past
president of Massachusetts' bar association, "Everyone knows
restraining orders ... are granted to virtually all who apply, lest
anyone be blamed for an unfortunate result."

Nor do criminal charges necessarily reflect what has transpired. In
acquitting a man of spousal assault in late 1998, ... [a] judge
observed that while the wife admitted assaulting her husband three
times on the day in question, she herself hadn't been charged.

"This prosecution sends a very clear message," declared the appalled
judge. "A woman in a relationship with a man can provoke him,
degrade him, strike him and throw objects at him with
impunity, but if he offers the least physical response he will be
charged with assault."

"...many restraining orders are violated -- but the reasons may
surprise you. "Here's the dirty little secret everybody knows," he
told the National Post. "Those orders are violated an
overwhelming proportion of the time by her.
"What happens is this," he says. "Let's say there's a problem in the
house Thursday night. She calls the police, he gets arrested. Friday
morning he's released on bail and can't go near his wife and kids. Well
the in-laws are coming for the weekend, there's a mortgage payment
due, one of the cars ought to be signed over to her, she needs money
for this or that. So she calls him."

While women used to be prosecuted for such behaviour, Mr. Fox says
they aren't any longer. "Everybody knows when they put him on
that order that this is what's going to happen," says Mr. Fox.
"[T]he judge knows, the cops know, the guy who sweeps up in
the court knows."

We all want to live in a society in which people are safe from domestic
violence -- and in which a restraining order actually means something.
But a system that prosecutes abuse perpetrated by only one half of
the population, issues restraining orders virtually on demand and
allows some people to thumb their noses at rules others are expected
to follow is a system rotten to the core.

[xl] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm - these "statistics"
are from A PARTIAL LIST of approximately 234 studies CONCLUSIVELY
PROVING THAT WOMEN ARE AT **LEAST** AS VIOLENT AS MEN, IF
NOT MORE SO IN THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS --; this
CONCLUSIVELY PROVES that until the VIOLENCE OF WOMEN is
addressed, the "advocates" will continue to receive a stream of
funding for a perpetual problem that will NEVER be solved.
Numerous studies indicate WOMEN are becoming more
violenct, and as some of the study abstracts show, it MAY BE
DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BREAKDOWN OF FAMILIES AND
MARRIAGES!

[xli] Do Restraining Orders Cause Domestic Violence? Monday,
September 4, 2000. From The Massachusetts News
http://www.massnews.com/900op.htm. By Mark Charalambous

Victims' advocates were all over the media wringing their hands over
the state's latest tragic domestic homicide last month. "Do restraining
orders work?" inquired Jim Broudy, WTKK FM's liberal afternoon talk
show host. Along with guest co-host Atty. Wendy Murphy, victim-
feminist extraordinaire, Broudy fielded calls from sympathetic loyal
listeners several days after the gruesome murder was reported.
Bruce Gellerman, NPR's "Here and Now" talk show host, later
contacted the Fatherhood Coalition asking for someone willing to
answer the same question on a segment showcasing the expert
opinions of Battered
Women's Resources spokesperson, Nancy Scannell, and the
aforementioned Murphy.

They still don't get it.

Obviously, if the question is "Will a restraining order prevent a women
from being harmed or even killed," the answer is clearly, "Of course
not!" If someone wants to commit murder, how is a piece of paper
going to stop them? Are they going to not commit the act because
they will be fined $1000 and sentenced to 2 1/2 years in jail?

Broudy, Gellerman and Murphy etc. are asking the wrong question.
The right question is, "Do restraining orders cause domestic violence,
even homicide?" Or, more precisely, "Are restraining orders causing
violence that would not have happened had there not been a 209A
issued?" That is, are people being driven to violence by the effects of
the restraining order law?

After hearing from countless innocent fathers who have been
victimized by this fatally flawed law, chapter 209A of the
Massachusetts General Laws, it is clear that the answer to both
questions is an emphatic "Yes."

Restraining orders are causing real domestic violence.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not defending anyone's violent acts,
especially homicide. I know nothing of the details of the Harvard
educated dermatologist's situation. I am merely raising the point that
the politically correct talking heads refuse to acknowledge: the zealous
application of this flawed law is not only failing to protect true victims,
but it is directly causing real domestic violence.

A little background may be necessary for those that have no first- or
second-hand experience with 209A. The law was originally drafted to
protect women from violence in the home. In its present form, it
not only runs roughshod over any due process protections for
the men accused, it is also used to prosecute people, mainly
men, for actions which 1) are perceived as threatening by the
alleged (female) victim, and 2) have not yet happened, but may
happen.

Radical feminists have constructed elaborate 'dangerousness
assessment' tests that reduce to gender profiling: Men are
always dangerous, while female malfeasance is rationalized
and excused.

In divorce, "irreconcilable differences" are often forged by
209A restraining orders into devastating legal vendettas that
wreak havoc on all parties, including the children. Far from being
a means to effect a "cooling off" period, as judges and battered
women's advocates contend, they are fire-starters.

Thus, women intent on "giving him a lesson he'll never forget,"
can use this law to throw a man out of his own home, take
away his legal rights to even see his children, and set the stage
for the financial rape that will follow by virtue of being in
possession of the marital home, kids, and property. All of this is
based on her statement that she has "fear" of him. No claim of
actual violence is required.

And you want to know why some men are flying off the handle?
Until you have been in this situation, you don't know what
"angry" is. I'm not talking about actual batterers, of whom
there may not be nearly as many as the battered women's
advocates wish us to believe, though even that's too many. No,
I'm talking about the understandable anger that comes from
being unjustly accused and found guilty of often extremely
heinous acts, such as sexual molestation of one's own children
- and then losing all the things that are dear to you in addition.
You see, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we've done one
better than "1984." We don't just prosecute for "thought"
crimes. We prosecute based on the thoughts of someone else.

It is at once stunning and chilling to hear Wendy Murphy advocate for
legislation to "improve" the state's stalking law. Based on the new
language, the actual acts that constitute stalking are not even
defined. All that matters is the perception of the alleged stalkee. If a
woman says she feels stalked, he's guilty.

For those readers who still don't get the message, let me spell it out
for you. These victim-defined laws, domestic violence
protection and stalking, are a blueprint for a police state. If
you are a man caught up in the gears of retributional gender
justice, you already know you're living in a police state. Just
ask Jim Brodeur (not his real name). He was on trial for
violating the 209A order his ex-wife held against him based on
fabricated allegations that his children had seen him. During
the trial, his ex-wife, who must have been "paralyzed with
fear" to use the language of Murphy, moved within three blocks
of his home.

In another recent case, Steven Cook of Needham, who was
jailed for sixty days for calling his daughter on a Monday
instead of a Sunday, took his own life soon after his release in
April this year.
Bill Leisk just served a 30-day sentence for buying tickets to
Hawaii for his three daughters. Originally sharing custody of
the children in Hawaii, he relocated to Massachusetts to be
with his children after his ex-wife moved here. Incidentally,
this 'victim,' another woman "paralyzed with fear," asked Leisk
to watch the children when she went to get her restraining
order.

Listening to Murphy hold court, on domestic violence and stalking,
chills me to the bone. You should be scared too. Listen closely. This is
not the voice of social justice and progress. It's the voice of social
engineering and state terrorism.

[xlii] http://www.massnews.com/kn4mar.htm Judges Are Afraid to
Release Fathers -- Zero tolerance means innocent and guilty
will be punished. Massachusetts News--March, 2000.

The judges of Massachusetts are afraid to release a man if he has been
charged with domestic violence. They know that the Boston Globe will
excoriate any judge if a woman is later injured or murdered.

One judge, Bonnie H. MacLeod, says she heard a judge say at a
conference, "When in doubt, throw him out."
She told Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in 1997 that while not all
judges adhere to the same line of thinking, some trial court judges do
feel that if they are going to make an error, it is better to err on the
side of issuing the order.
Walpole family lawyer Marilynne R. Bryant told the paper that
restraining orders are "issued liberally and are easy to get."

Attorney Paul W. Patten of Fall River said they are "issued like candy."
He continued, "It?s a rare case that they won?t be issued as long
as somebody says the magic word ? ?I?ve been hit? or ?I?ve
been threatened.? Unless that person has three heads or
something really incredible like that, a District Court judge is
going to issue them."

SJC Gave Glimmer of Hope

The Lawyers Weekly story was written because of two new cases
where the SJC had reversed the lower courts. The paper said:

"District Court and Probate Court judges have long been
accused of ?rubberstamping? 209A requests, which ? once
issued ? are entered into a registry at the Department of
Probation and are very difficult to have expunged."

But the paper said that while the SJC opinion was "encouraging" to
defense attorneys, they believed it would "not necessarily result in trial
judges being more reluctant" to issue restraining orders.

Taunton attorney James H. Fagan, who is also a state Representative,
said:
"While it?s a positive sign that the court has acknowledged a
problem, to suggest that these two cases would [cause] the
pendulum to swing back to a fairer or more neutral position
would be overly optimistic?.I had a judge once say, ?Who cares
if she lied on the affidavit? If she comes in and says she?s
frightened today, that?s all I have to hear."

Fagan added that even though the SJC opinion was welcome, the
average person would not be able to afford to appeal a decision. In
addition to that, it would probably be over a year before an appeal
would be heard. He also put some reality into the discussion by noting
that the courts are greatly overloaded. "All too often, given the busy
and crowded docket the District Court judges face, a 209A request is a
collateral emergency shoved on them in an already very busy, full day.
As judges watch someone like me representing someone with four
witnesses to controvert what was said in an affidavit, the judge looks
at that and cannot help but think how much time this will take when
he has a courtroom of people with criminal problems already
scheduled for trial."
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&p
id=198

Eradicating The Heterosexual Family
How Feminists and Democrats Seek to Undermine America



http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-38.htm#marker-1449892
Eradicating The Heterosexual Family
Extreme feminists have been convinced for decades as to the
existence of a great, oppressive, and omnipresent patriarchy.
They see this alleged patriarchal conspiracy in capitalism, in individual
endeavors of self improvement, acts of personal responsibility, in
music, fashion, private schooling, in science, in heterosexual
relationships, in marriage, in childbirth, in common law, in religion, in
all forms of business and commerce. Indeed, the patriarchy is
everywhere and the only solution, as they see it, is the creation of a
Marxist matriarchal paradise.
The problem for these heavily left-leaning activists is how to bring
about a matriarchal Marxist state, or at the very least the trappings of
a matriarchy, when the population will not vote, and show no intention
of voting for such a form of government?
Armed uprising, once the Marxist-revolutionary method of choice, is
unlikely to prevail in a western democracy. Historically such uprisings
have required a majority peasant population before any likelihood of
success can be assured. But many Marxist authors and revolutionaries
wrote, and described in exhaustive detail, how to undermine the body
politic of the democratic state. By such methods a democracy can be
rendered industrially and socially unworkable to such a degree that a
Marxist/matriarchal government becomes morally acceptable to the
masses, if not an inevitable extension of the forced and engineered
malaise.
The four primary methods for undermining the democratic state in
order to achieve Marxist/matriarchal goals by default are:
1. Undermining and making unworkable the rule of law.
2. Destroying the heterosexual family unit.
3. Spreading moral panic and hysteria amongst the populace.
4. Turning all members of society against one another and
having them inform on one another.
Lets discuss these points:
If we consider the ever increasing number of "social" laws enacted
over the past thirty years, particularly family law, child protection
laws, rape laws, and domestic violence laws, we see an unmistakable
trend. That is, for an accuser evidence is not required once they claim
they are a "victim." Common law, which affords anyone basic legal
protections against false, malicious, or spiteful allegations to anyone
accused of a crime, has been suspended and replaced by a form of
arbitrary administrative social law. Judicial and quasi-judicial
appointments to such social specialist courts as may hear these
matters consists of known ideologues and confirmed activists.
In many instances the law has quietly been altered to impose an
absolute burden of proof of innocence on the accused, while the
accuser, or "victim," requires merely an unsupported allegation, or
basic circumstantial probability, for legal proceedings to commence. If
juries prove reluctant, or are expected to balk at convicting on flimsy
evidence, then a jury is dispensed with and virtual star chamber courts
are put in their place where legal outcomes, as in all politicized courts,
become impossibly consistent.
To gain the acquiescence of, or to bypass the potential ire of the
largely unwitting public to such a remarkable reversal of basic common
law protections, taxpayer dollars are lavished on moral panic
propaganda. Such "advocacy research" is based on various
combinations of utter fabrications, unique and highly selective
sampling, or impoverished worst-case, third-world social statistics
deceitfully passed off as valid research data.
Right wing media report such misinformation based on its sensational
message. Left wing media put it on the front page to achieve self-
induced ideological orgasm.
This unrelenting campaign of taxpayer-funded, moral-panic
propaganda seeks to justify itself on the grounds of necessity, and
presents a facade of virtue, the suspension of civil rights and basic
constitutional legal protections of citizens within the pariah group that
the propaganda targets. That is, those accused are automatically
guilty, and those within the trumped-up pariah group are all suspects
whose legal rights can be withdrawn at the arbitrary whim of the State
or star-chamber courts.
Accordingly, the left-wing media give the public barely a moments rest
from an ideological onslaught that informs us we are surrounded by
pedophiles, child abusers, wife bashers, violent murderers, rapists,
and so on. Indeed, the imagination of such socialist-activists is the
only limit to the amount of social crimes that can be, and that are
being committed in their fevered brains. To support their rabid ranting
the frequency and magnitude of these "crimes" is constantly expanded
by "advocacy research."
Left-wing ideological fanatics invariably justify their views and
positions by invoking three thought processes unique to their unrivaled
methods of reasoning in which logic, reality, and facts are not only an
inconvenience but are, in themselves, dismissed as methods of
oppression by the patriarchy.
First is the socialist collective. This permits activists to use the "if
one is, then all are" type of collective rationale. But this is a rationale
they will only apply in the negative. That is, if one worker is mistreated
then all workers are, if one child is abused then all are, if one person is
murdered then everyone will be murdered, and so on.
The second is also based on the socialist-marxist theory of
absolute outcomes. That is, if one wife is subject to violence, then
all wives are subject to violence. Therefore, all wives must be
protected. To do so, all citizens must be regulated, watched,
monitored, and arbitrarily detained or tried if the absolute outcome is
to be achieved.
The third, and vital underpinning of this triangular rationale,
is where the left-wing activists ideologically and simplistically
divide society into victims and oppressors. In their world of
ideological absolutes there are only the two classes.
The oppressor class, and therefore by ideological default, the child
abusers, wife beaters, etc., are, according to extreme feminist theory,
all heterosexual, primarily Anglo-Saxon, men, and fathers who support
the patriarchy. Indeed, so extreme are the views of some of these
activists that they would have us believe that all Anglo-Saxon
heterosexual men are either currently batterers, have been batterers,
will soon be batterers, or are in some form of rigorous training by the
patriarchy so they can become batterers.
Those in the "victim" class cannot be guilty of any social crime because
they do not meet the ideological profile. The dogma of these fanatics,
in itself, ensures guilt of the oppressor, or innocence for the oppressed
"victim" class, by ideological predestination.
The extremity of these views, and the associated propaganda barrage,
might cause rational individuals to examine the social make up of
these extremist groups. It may therefore come as no surprise to
reasonable and sensible observers that these activist groups primarily
consist of women, and women who have chosen not to lead a
heterosexual lifestyle. Additionally, many of these women are
academics whose strident Marxist/matriarchal views are a matter of
record.
Whilst these radicals are free to squander taxpayer's dollars on
propaganda they pass off as research, the rest of the population dare
not criticize them or raise a murmur for fear of venomous retaliation.
These activists can, and do, hide behind absurdly one-sided vilification
laws, and shrilly accuse all who question them of homophobia. These
ideologues are thus free to wreak social destruction without the
slightest scrutiny and our pandering politicians assist and fund them.
The activist's agenda of strangling the heterosexual family unit may be
considered as remote, or even fanciful, by the reasonable observer.
However, at the dawn of the Third Millennium, democratic
governments are literally falling over themselves in their rush to
frantically legislate not only in the area of gay and lesbian issues, but
in removing the legal rights and protections of heterosexual men, and
particularly fathers, at an astonishing rate.
The hysterical, moral high ground claimed for these grotesque acts of
trampling on our civil liberties are that we are in the middle of an
epidemic of male- and father-perpetrated abuse based on the
patriarchy, and that all fathers are child abusers and pedophiles.
Therefore, the general population must be protected from them at any
cost. Because their propaganda says all patriarchal, heterosexual men
are batterers, then they are pariahs who are beyond the pale and do
not deserve legal rights.
Should our civilization somehow survive, it will truly astound historians
in years hence that the eradication of the rule of law, the heterosexual
family unit, and the elimination of the legal rights of heterosexual men
and fathers was legislatively achieved by politicians who are charged
with upholding the very laws they were charged to uphold. Incredibly,
these politicians were themselves mostly heterosexual men and
fathers pursuing the gay/lesbian vote and the vote of women with "self
esteem" issues and incapable of stable relationships.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&p
id=374

What Feminist Leader Betty Frieden Didn't want you to Know!
Feminism and its roots in Communism




naI BIIy Fran
OnI anI 1u T Knw
By
Henry Makow Ph.D.

Toogood Reports [Wednesday, August 15, 2001; 12:01 a.m. EST]
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
?Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. ..The attacking army
was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to
penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp.?
? George Dimitrov, the General Secretary of the Comintern (Communist International)
speaking to the Seventh Meeting in August, 1935. Cited in Paul Johnson, Modern Times, (New
York, 1983) p.323.
lf l said Stalin was a Communist, would you accuse me of Red-baiting? No?
Then you won?t mind if l say Betty Friedan, the ?mother of modern feminism?
hid the fact that she was a Communist activist. l will provide the evidence in a
moment.
As a former leftist-liberal, l am a typical example of how citizens of free countries
have been brainwashed to underestimate the danger of Communism. l believed
that Communism was basically an idealistic philosophy of public ownership. l
wasn?t concerned that it was a brutal dictatorship that murdered and enslaved
millions. lt didn?t matter that the people weren?t ?free? because freedom was
something l took for granted. l no longer take freedom for granted. A couple of
years ago, although innocent, l was imprisoned by feminist domestic violence
laws. Then, l was silenced at a feminist controlled university. Again, the feminist
dominated media ignored my book, A Long Way to go for a Date, a serious work
of social protest. For me, it has been a slow and wrenching political and
psychological awakening.
Communism was and is a worldwide movement. Although it has failed in Russia
and China, its legacy in the West is alive and well. l am referring to the modern
Feminist movement which is a child of the Cold War ?Old Left,? represented by
Friedan, and the 1960?s ?New Left? represented by the Woman?s Liberation
Movement. The progeny is a radical, totalitarian party, which has gained
incredible power by pretending to seek ?equal rights? for women, by
masquerading as ?the women?s movement.? Feminism is a Trojan Horse. lt has
already inflicted incredible damage to our social fabric, culture and to our
freedom. lt has made us dysfunctional.
Communists, just like the Nazis, wanted totalitarian domination of the world.
Their plan included a huge program of so called ?Popular Front? organizations
(students, women, workers or artists) which, in the 1920?s and 1930?s, sought to
subvert democracies. These groups appealed to a quasi-religious craving for
meaning by enlisting non-Marxists to combat evil and create a better world. Willi
Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized and controlled these fronts,
referring to them as ?my lnnocents? Clubs?. He served Stalinism by expanding
the range of propaganda to include protest marches, socialist publications, arts
festivals, ad hoc committees and newspaper ads signed by celebrities. ln the
words of historian Stephan Koch, Munzenberg ?was amazingly successful at
mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political
attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. ln the process, he organized and defined
the ?enlightened? moral agenda of his era.? (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in
the Secret Soviet War of ldeas Against the West, by Stephen Koch, New York,
1994, p.14.)
An essential ingredient of this campaign was a large network of prominent
?opinion makers? (scientists, academics, artists, filmmakers) who raised money
and spread the hidden Soviet message. These ?fellow-travelers? included such
writers as Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Parker, Dashiell Hammett, and Lincoln
Steffins. These non-Communists were controlled and managed by Comintern
agents; in the case of Steffins, his own wife. They were a smoke screen for ideas
which would not have been accepted if their origin were known.
ln a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the
Popular Front modus operandi:
?You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not
call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. Under no circumstances?. You
claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don?t really understand politics
but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break. You believe in open-
mindedness. You are shocked, frightened by what is going on here in our own
country. You are frightened by the racism, by the oppression of the working man.
You think the Russians are trying a great human experiment, and you hope it
works. You yearn for international understanding. You hate fascism, You think
the capitalist system is corrupt. You say all of that, over and over. And you say
nothing more.? (Koch, p. 220)
One of these Communist controlled ?Popular Front? organizations was the
?Congress of American Women? which was founded in 1946 and reached a
membership of 250,000. lt was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register
as a ?foreign agent? by the U.S. government. The feminist historian Ruth Rosen
writes that the ?CAW?s agenda prefigured much of the modern women?s
movement that emerged in the sixties.? (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open:
How the Modern Women?s Movement Changed America, New York, 2000,
p.28.)
Betty Friedan?s The Feminine Mystique (1963) which sold more than five million
copies, is considered the manifesto of the modern feminist movement. Friedan
and Simon de Beauvoir, are the pioneers of modern feminism. ln the book,
Friedan describes herself as a typical suburban housewife and mother who had a
revelation. She realized that women like herself are being exploited and
dehumanized; and, she actually compared their plight to that of Nazi
concentration camp inmates. She pointed to career as a woman?s only path to
identity and self-fulfillment.
What Friedan didn?t say is that she wasn?t a typical housewife. Rather, she had
been a Marxist activist since her undergraduate years at Smith College (1938-
1942) where she wrote for the college newspaper. She dropped out of grad
school to work for a radical left wing news service. From 1946-1952 she was a
reporter for the union newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, (UE) ?the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in
the United States.?
Daniel Horowitz, a Professor of History at Smith who has impeccable Liberal and
feminist credentials, documents all of this. His book, published in 1999, is entitled
Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the
Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press). The
essence can be found in a 1996 article in American Quarterly which is available
on the lnternet. There, Horowitz writes: ?Her writings of the 1940?s and early
1950?s reveal that? Popular Front ideology shaped the way Friedan viewed
American society and politics (11).?
Horowitz cites an anti-Communist union member who described how a
Communist minority ?seized control of the national office, the executive board,
the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals? (12.)
ln 1947, the U.S Congress, the Roman Catholic Church and large corporations,
targeted the UE as a Communist front. Afterward its membership began a steady
decline.
Betty Frieden didn?t want anyone to know about her radical antecedents.
Throughout her career, she perpetuated the myth that she had no interest in the
condition of women before her ?revelation.? She refused to cooperate with
Professor Horowitz and accused him of ?Red-baiting.?
Why? Because The Feminist Mystique would not have the same impact if her
revolutionary agenda were known. Communists operate by subterfuge
?infiltrating, propagandizing and pretending to be like us. Friedan could not tell us
who she really was. The same tactics are used by ?feminists? whose very name,
and claim to be ?the woman?s movement? is a smoke screen for a fanatical anti
feminine, anti social crusade.
The radical ?Left? stalled on the political/economic front in the US, but reinvented
itself as a Popular Front-like social movement. Radical women, tired of their
second-class status in the New Left, split off to form the ?Woman?s Liberation
Movement.? They applied ?Marxist analysis? to their own experience, deciding
that inequality and injustice was based on gender instead of class. By denying
and eliminating gender differences, they would create a new utopia. Thus,
feminists made women the oppressed proletariat and they made the destruction
of the capitalist ?patriarchy? their revolutionary agenda.
Communists used the chimera of a ?just? and ?classless? society to seek
totalitarian power. Their feminist progeny is using the equally spurious promise of
a sexless society to take power. Feminists do believe the destruction of
heterosexuality will bring social justice.
The FBl kept tabs on the Women?s Liberation Movement throughout the
turbulent seventies but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion.
Feminist historian Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran of the New Left, finds this ironic.
?lronically, the FBl searched for signs of subversion in the Women?s movement
but couldn?t recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for
Communists and bombs, the women?s movement was shattering traditional
ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the
movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBl could ever imagine.
Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement,
create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in
the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society.
But at the time these ideas were not what the FBl considered subversive.? (260)
By attacking the social fabric, feminists have inflicted more damage to Western
society than Communists ever could have dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria
has driven a wedge between men and women where none should exist.
Heterosexuality and the family have declined. The birth rate has plummeted from
3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 1.5 today.[Replacement is 2.1] The future
belongs to people who are having children. Under the guise of fighting ?sexism,?
the nation?s schools teach sexual dysfunction. They indoctrinate the young to
deny their innate masculinity or femininity and to be open to homosexuality. ln
the media and universities, obeisance is paid to the feminist party line, or
?political correctness.? Feminist academics are busy replacing the cultural
heritage of Western Civilization with their party nonsense. ln the military, the
introduction of women as combat soldiers has undermined efficiency and
discipline. Soon we won?t be in a position to defend our compromised values.
The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. Politicians and the
public have been bamboozled. Most people think this movement represents the
interests of women. lt mostly financed by our tax dollars. lt is based on three
outrageous lies. They are:
1. Except for sex organs, men and women are psychologically identical.
2. Men have oppressed women.
3. Women can best achieve self-fulfillment in careers
Feminists ?male and female? believe these lies. They have made a huge
psychological investment in them. And they are too ambitious to ask questions.
Membership in the Feminist Party is now a prerequisite to advancement, just as
Communist Party membership was in Soviet Russia. Politicians and media have
also made a huge investment in this socially destructive philosophy. As a society,
we are in denial.
Joseph Stalin and Soviet Russia may be dead but the monster it spawned roams
the earth. Betty Friedan has done her job by keeping the legacy of Communism
alive. Western society is being subverted.
The worst is yet to come.

AugusI Jo, 2UUJ
nIIp:www.nnc.cmmuIs.pnp?nam=CnInI&pa=snwpag&p=2
Feminism is about HATE and VIOLENCE



One of the central themes and goals of "feminism" is that women need to be
different. They should NOT be submissive, they should NOT raise children, they
should NOT be allowed to be at home. Part of that underlying "con" that
feminism tries to portray is that there is no difference between men and women.
That they are all "social constructs" so they want to TEAR DOWN AND
DESTROY these constructs. Part of that "transformation" process for women is
to encourage them to be violent. At the same time, for those women who do not
have it within them, the alternate theory is that they are perpetual victims of
violence. This notwithstanding the fact that violence is roughly equal between
men and women.

Additional lnfo:

Work of Martin Fiebert

DVMen.org

When the evidence and the logic are both against you, it is necessary to claim
that evidence and logic are counterrevolutionary props of the status quo ... facts
and rationality, when inconvenient, as they usually are, may be dismissed as
"patriarchal constructions of knowledge" ... Emotion must be allowed to trump
intellect if the whole enterprise is not to be revealed as the hoax it is. -- From:
Robert H. Bork (1996): Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and
American Decline, Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)
Feminism Defined (by Bruce Eden of Divorce Reform in New Jersey) - Feminism
is no longer about equal opportunity for women. lt is a thuggish, devious
synthesis of Marxism and lesbianism used by ruling elites to undermine
individuals and weaken society. lt is to society what AlDS is to the body.
Why is there "an explosion of angry demand on the part of women who as a
group were the freest, healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived, and most comfortably
situated people the world had yet laid eyes on." -- Midge Decter, "You're On Your
Own, Baby," The Women's Quarterly, Winter 1996, p.4
"l am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking
this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors, on which
her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and
propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex'
themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful,
heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male
protection." ~ Queen Victoria, March, 1870.
"Sexual harassment legislation is an instrument by which the micromanagement
of everyday life is being undertaken. The real aim is to change the relations
between men and women in a fundamental way. Why? Who benefits from this?
The only people are those radical extremists who want to disrupt male and
female interactions, and they have done just that in the workplace, the colleges,
the high schools, the grade schools, and even the kindergartens. Everybody is
now on notice." Daphne Patai, Ph.D. Author of HIrpna: SxuaI
HarassmnI an In FuIur / Fmnsm.
"...[W]omen and men are distinct species or races ... men are biologically inferior
to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must
eliminate the species/race itself ... in eliminating the biologically inferior
species/race Man, the new Urmnscn Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by
the lesbian separatist * herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true
biological destiny. (from a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that took
place in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977) -- Andrea Dworkin. LETTERS
FROM A WAR ZONE. Part lll, TAKE BACK THE DAY. Biological Superiority:
The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly ldea. 1977
Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, writes:
"lf a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the
biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be
liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent
decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
"The idea of woman?s emancipation is based upon a profound enmity between
the sexes, upon envy and imitation. Woman becomes a mere caricature, a
pseudo-being." ~ Russian philosopher Berdyaev, quoted in Elliot's Let Me Be a
Woman, page 158
The Amrcan Bar AsscaIn JurnaI reported (August 1999, p. 56): "NOW
[National Organization for Women], which didn't push to include abortion and gay
rights the first time around, would do so if a new ERA passed."
Domestic Violence?Believing what [feminists] say about family violence is like
believing what the tobacco companies say about cancer... [M]isleading statistics
are a deliberate fund raising tactic for women's shelters. The shelter movement
almost never mentions scientific studies." -- Sam and Bunny Sewell, Family
Resources & Research.
"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. l have little sympathy for
them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, l watch the handsome young Nazi
soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and l look briefly
and walk on. l don't even need to shrug. l simply don't care. What he was, as a
person, l mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." --
Marilyn French, in "The Women's Room"
"All men are good for is f&%$ing, and running over with a truck". Statement
made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard
Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the
amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter
on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the
University. 1995 settlement.
"l want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his
mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." Andrea Dworkin, lce And Fire.
??[l]n every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and
articulated as love and freedom." Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men
Possessing Women.
Women's Liberation ? in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege...
Sexism is NOT the fault of women -- kill your fathers, not your mothers". Robin
Morgan, Editor of Ms. Magazine
??[l]f you don't like it, bad luck -- and if you get in my way l'll run you down."
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 Feb.,
1996.
Even the language of the [feminist] movement mirrors the mood of fascism. The
apocalyptic and hate-filled rhetoric of radical feminists expresses their eagerness
to inflict harm. -- Frm: RrI H. BrR {J99o): SIucnng Twars Gmrran:
Mrn LraIsm an Amrcan OcIn, Rgan BRsHarprCIIns, A1
{pp.J9-22o)
There is a great deal of reckless disregard for the truth in radical feminism. Some
of it is so blatant that it certainly deserves to be called lying, but some of it
appears to reflect the delusions of paranoia. What is worrisome is that so much
serious misrepresentation passes into the realm of "truth." One might think that
misrepresentations about checkable facts could not survive long in an open
society, but they can and do, probably because the press and the academy are
very pro-feminist. When a sensational report about the amount of domestic
violence against women appears, newspapers, magazines, and even textbooks
relay the news, and it quickly becomes established folklore. The attitudes formed
as a result are embedded in the culture. Yet the facts, for those who care about
them, indicate that these reports are wild exaggerations or flat
misrepresentations... For some people, there can be no surer evidence of a
conspiracy than the fact that no conspiracy is apparent. After all, a really effective
conspiracy would be invisible. Feminists' ideology is a fantasy of persecution.--
Frm: RrI H. BrR {J99o): SIucnng Twars Gmrran: Mrn LraIsm
an Amrcan OcIn, Rgan BRsHarprCIIns, A1 {pp.J9-22o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feminist research has an UNETHlCAL AND POLlTlCAL agenda. "The
implications of linking our research agenda with our political agenda and with
intentionality are profound for feminist research. Perhaps the most awkward rite
of passage for all researchers is the ethics approval requirement of each
discipline and/or institution. ln order to carry out a research agenda linked with a
political agenda we must examine the institutional barriers to our enterprise."
Sandra Kirby "What do Feminist Methods Have to do with Ethics?" in mn
Cnangng Acam, (Winnipeg, 1991) p.168. Kirby is now Chair of Sociology at
UW.
Perjury has become the coin of the realm in [Domestic Violence Court]. People?s
homes are invaded because of lies. People are arrested because of lies. People
go to prison because of lies. People stay in prison because of lies, and
sometimes, bad guys go free because of lies. Lying has become a significant
problem in [Domestic Violence] court cases because the rewards to [the Lying
party] can be so great and the consequences so minimal. Perjurers are seldom
punished; neither are the law enforcement officers who ignore or accept their
lies. -- The damage of lies. By Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer.
November 29, 1998
"lf there is one area of the entire [legal] process [Judge Jones] openly questions,
it is the matter of ? restraining orders." ? "lt's a necessary law, but it's an abused
one. l've seen it used too many times as leverage in divorce cases, not for
women in imminent fear of physical danger. One third of them are not legitimate,
merely used as an 'l'll fix you.' Don't forget, once a [restraining] order is in place,
if a defendant violates it, he's now got a criminal case he's looking at." Retiring
Judge Reveals that Restraining Orders Are Huge Problem. April 2, 2001. The
Massachusetts News
When it comes to the murder of intimates, as criminologist Coramae Richey
Mann documented in her 1996 study of female killers, When Women Kill,
murderesses are seldom helpless angels: 78% of the women in Mann's study
had prior arrest records and 55% a history of violence. Only 59% claimed self-
defense.
"[W]omen report using violence in their relationships more often than men" and
"wives hit their husbands at least as often as husbands hit their wives." -- HIIng
In aII, {A/Ir 2U yars / msIc vInc rsarcn, scnIsIs canI av
nar /acIs), MInr Jns Magazn, Aancy UpR, MayJun J999 {MInr
Jns s a racaI /mnsI ScaIsI puIcaIn. CrIanIy ACT pr-maI y any
sIrIcn / In magnaIn)
/saac AwIns Frncpa MaInmaIca s a "rap manuaI" caus "scnc s a
maI rap / /maI naIur", BInvns AnIn Sympnny xprsss In
"InrIIIng murrus rag / a rapsI ncapaI / aIIanng rIas." {QuIs y
Sanra Harng / UnvrsIy / OIawar an Susan McCIary, "wn appIs
/mnsI Inrs I musc," rspcIvIy. QuI n Jnn L, "FC: AImsI a.
SIII /unny," US. Aws & rI RprI, Ocmr o, J994, p. 24.) -- Frm:
RrI H. BrR {J99o): SIucnng Twars Gmrran: Mrn LraIsm an
Amrcan OcIn, Rgan BRsHarprCIIns A1 {pp.J9-22o)
Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as reported in the SF
Chronicle "Our research and most other studies show that wife-battering occurs
in 50 percent of families throughout the nation." The SF Chronicle comments,
"Only the most crazed man-hater could believe that."
Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered women, wrote
"l was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this
arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and
children." (p.195) The Battered Woman

"The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most
members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea
Dworkin's word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the North American title
of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time
that the only possible explanation for the bill's popularity in the Senate was the
'senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.' ln plain
English, she seemed to mean that Congress was naively institutionalizing the
radical view of domestic violence as antifemale terrorism by a relentless
oppressor class ? men. -- U. S. News, page 12, John Leo. January 24, 2000
N.O.W. LEGlSLATlVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000; NOW claims that VAWA is
Gender Neutral and that it provides protection for men and children when a
simple reading of VAWA shows that it CLEARLY EXCLUDES help for children
and men.
NOW's LDEF (Legal Defense Education Fund) sponsors and helped to WRlTE
the VAWA legislation and therefore NOW is AWARE that the language of the bill
**specifically** excludes children and is gender biased. Yet NOW is
KNOWlNGLY LYlNG to the Congress of the United States of America and elicits
help from Congress and the Judiciary to destroy more families and children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
?The [Domestic Violence] law was originally drafted to protect women from
violence in the home. ln its present form, it not only runs roughshod over any due
process protections for the men accused, it is also used to prosecute people,
mainly men, for actions which 1) are perceived as threatening by the alleged
(female) victim, and 2) have not yet happened, but may happen? and ?Radical
feminists have constructed elaborate 'dangerousness assessment' tests that
reduce to gender profiling: Men are always dangerous, while female malfeasance
is rationalized and excused.?
?[W]e've done one better than [George Orwell?s] "1984." We don't just prosecute
for "thought" crimes. We prosecute based on the thoughts of someone else.?
?[W]omen intent on "giving him a lesson he'll never forget," can use this law to
throw a man out of his own home, take away his legal rights to even see his
children, and set the stage for the financial rape that will follow by virtue of being
in possession of the marital home, kids, and property. All of this is based on her
statement that she has "fear" of him. No claim of actual violence is required.? --
The Massachusetts News, Do Restraining Orders Cause Domestic Violence? by
Mark Charalambous. September 1, 2000.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N.O.W. LEGlSLATlVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000
HATCH PROMlSES TO BRlNG VAWA REAUTHORlZATlON TO SENATE
FLOOR VOTE
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/06-12-2000.html#hatch_vawa
"...it is important to stress that the Violence Against **WOMEN**Act [emphasis
added] is gender neutral. Funds are available to support programs which assist
men as well as women; if the language in the act were not gender neutral, it
could not meet a Constitutionality challenge." [Obvious "talking point"
propaganda]
"And, any statistics that our opponents may cite that suggest that as many
women as men are batterers are simply inaccurate and cannot be substantiated
by sound scientific research."
A NOW Legislative Alert dated June 12, 2000 FRAUDULENTLY states: ". . . the
Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral. Funds are available to support
programs which assist men as well as women. . . ." and then says ". . .if the
language in the act were not gender neutral, it could not meet a constitutionality
challenge."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW LDEF to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, October 4, 1999, gender based language
is unconstitutional when it ". . . tie[s] the federal benefits available under the act
to gender . . . violate[s] the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. .
. ."
"Further, to the extent that Act targets certain grants to state programs offering
gender-specific benefits, it would operate to encourage states to violate the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
As recently set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe, 119 S. Ct. 1518
(1999), Congress cannot authorize states to accomplish indirectly what Congress
itself is constitutionally prohibited from doing."
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3

Feminism is another facet of Communism
Feminism is the vehicle for Communism


Feminism was one of the many methods that little known Communist Antonio
Gramsci proposed destroying the West with. He surmised that Capitalism was
too strong and people too entrenched in their beliefs to ever fully embrace the
class warfare of Marxism. Part of his Communist theory included inducing
women into the workplace instead of family, promoting abortion, female
independence from social norms, easy divorce, etc.


"[R]id the law of individual rights and transform it into a bundle of group rights...
[W]omen are ...less concerned than men with abstract notions of justice, less
preoccupied with what is 'right' and 'wrong,'". Shirley Robin Letwin, "Law and the
Unreasonable Woman", National Review, November 18, 1991, p. 35.


Like Marxism, feminism can explain everything from advertising to religion by
following its single thread, the oppression of women." -- Carol lannone, "The
Feminist Confusion," Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the
Sixties, eds. Peter Collier and David Horowitz (Lanham, MD: Madison Books,
1989), P. 149.


"The Women's Caucus [endorses] marxist-leninist socialist thought". Robin
Morgan. Sisterhood is Powerful, pg 597


"An ideological movement is a collection of people many of whom could hardly
bake a cake, fix a car, sustain a friendship or a marriage, or even do a quadratic
equation, yet they believe they know how to rule the world." Kenneth Minogue,
"The Goddess That Failed", National Review, 18/11/91, p. 46.


?Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism? Heidi Hartmann and
Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. -- opening page
of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon,
1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991) [a legal treatise
comparing and contrasting feminism with COMMUNlSM AND SOClALlSM])


?Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism?? -- Toward a Feminist Theory
of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. p. 3.


Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and
Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. -- Toward a Feminist
Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University
Press. Page 10. (Catherine A. MacKinnon is a University of Michigan FEMlNlST
LAW PROFESSOR!! Do you think ?her? lawyers are learning Republican
government OR are they learning Communism?)


FEMlNlST "RELlGlOUS" DOGMA AND CREEDS - "[L]ove without marriage is
holy, and that marriage without love is illegitimate... Advocates a free contract in
marriage, and that separation may occur at the will of either "mate?? [D]ivorce
shall be made easy? "[M]otherhood" is a mere animal function, and that even a
cat may have kittens; that motherhood has been made too much of in the past.
[She] Advocates with the Socialists that the State has a superior right to the
parents over the nurture, conduct and education of the children? advocates the
"control of births" by artificial measures. Suggests that any woman may reject
motherhood, and any woman with "mother love" may accept motherhood
whether she is married or single? The Feminist is a man hater, except as she
may be able to use him for her purposes? She claims that man has subjected her
to "sex slavery" and "economical servitude," from which she demands
"liberation," so she may be made a "free woman?... ?Benjamin V. Hubbard
(ScaIsm, Fmnsm, an Su//ragsm,1915, pp. 142-144)


"When l was in college it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist." --
Gloria Steinem. Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, New York, 1983.


"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc, that are
common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it
abolishes all religion, and all morality" -- "The Essential Left" citing "The
Manifesto of the Communist Party" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Barnes
and Nobles, 1961. pg 34


"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at
all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking
females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute
complete automation, and destroy the male sex." Valerie Solana, SCUM
Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.) This is CLEARLY SEDlTlOUS AND
TREASONOUS


'...Women's liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential
neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what
communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By
defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of
reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile
contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw
their strength.' -- Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse.


"Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was
the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism's business is fashioning
weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce
court. The feminist aim is to overthrow "patriarchal tyranny." ln this undertaking,
the male's civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet
Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany." -- What civil rights has
wrought. Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000. Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate.


?[ M]odern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism?
Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman?s
oppression? Communists pioneered women?s studies, and advocated public
daycare, birth control, abortion and even children?s rights? lt is hard to escape
the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to
peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining
power by promoting gender conflict. The ?diversity? and ?multicultural?
movements represent feminism?s attempt to forge ?allegiances? by empowering
gays and ?people of color.? Thus, the original CPUSA (Communist Party USA -
CPUSA) trio of ?race, gender and class? is very much intact but class conflict
has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that
is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual
liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes)? Many feminists are
embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the
differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters
of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when
we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds.
Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary
and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the
legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the
military? The evidence is everywhere. The term ?politically correct? originated in
the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920?s. We use it everyday to refer to
adherence to feminist dogma? Communism is alive and well and living under an
assumed name. -- Amrcan Cmmunsm An Tn MaRng C/ mn?s
LraIn. Henry Makow Ph.D. Too Good Reports. CcIr , 2UUJ


"Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of
men and the masculinization of women. lt is notable that in Communist nations
women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men's
work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken
down the ?barricades? between the work of the sexes. l hope they will still feel
triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands
and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. l hope they will be
?happy? when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and
themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ?free? she shouldn?t object to
men being free too, should she?) l hope they will feel 'fulfilled' when they are
given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked
aside on the subways buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy
sidewalks and elevators?. l hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be
pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by
their paychecks." ~ Taylor Caldwell in "They?re Spoiling Eve's Great Con Game,"
American Opinion, September 1970, page 8.


"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so
infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine
change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines
of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity,
clarity, and precision on which the former depend." A quote from Daphne Patai
and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange
World of Women's Studies" (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116 Women's lib
is a "ladies" auxiliary of the radical left. The hard core embraces Marxism,
although Gloria Steinem will admit only to being socialist. Prime purposes of
feminism are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family
unit. -- Tn OcIaraIn / Fmnsm or Tn OcumnI


"The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked
aberrations--for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or
commune based on father-right--these institutions are real and they must be
destroyed." Andrea Dworkin. OUR BLOOD: PROPHEClES AND DlSCOURSES
ON SEXUAL POLlTlCS. From Chapter 9, "The Root Cause". As delivered at the
Massachusetts lnstitute of Technology, Cambridge, September 26, 1975. [THlS
COMMENTARY lS CLEARLY SUBVERSlVE AND DESlGNED TO UNDERMlNE
THE UNlTED STATES OF AMERlCA!]


Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...
patriarchy -- Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of 'MS' magazine.


"Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down
to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is
meeting with considerable success. Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic
to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society,
morality, and human nature." -- From: Robert H. Bork (1996): Slouching Towards
Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Regan
Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)


"Like Marxism, feminism can explain everything from advertising to religion by
following its single thread, the oppression of women." -- Carol lannone, "The
Feminist Confusion," Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the
Sixties, eds. Peter Collier and David Horowitz (Lanham, MD: Madison Books,
1989), P. 149.


"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc, that are
common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it
abolishes all religion, and all morality" -- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The
Manifesto of the Communist Party. pg 34

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only
way to topple Western institutions was by, what he called, a long
march through the culture. He repackaged Marxism in terms of a
cultural war

Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a
civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to
perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was
a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the
forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main
target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with
legions of single and homosexual mothers and fathers who would
serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.

[A]nother cultural Marxist (George Lukacs) brought the Gramscian
strategy to the schools As deputy commissioner in Hungary his
first task was to put radical sex education in the schools it was the
best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the
family. Hungarian children learned free love, sexual intercourse, and
the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of
monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived
man of pleasure. Children were urged to deride and ignore parental
authority, and precepts of traditional morality. If this sounds familiar,
it is because this is what is happening in our public schools.

Under the rubric of diversity, its hidden goal is to impose a
uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. The cultural
Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, TV
producers, newspaper editor and the like, serve as gatekeepers by
keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out
of the public marketplace.

Herbert Marcuse was largely responsible for bringing cultural Marxism
to the United States He believed that all taboos, especially sexual
ones, should be relaxed. Make love, not war! was his battle cry that
echoed through ivy-covered college campuses all over America. His
methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language,
the infamous what does is mean? which fostered the destruction of
the culture. By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped
cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially
among the young of America...

Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who
transformed Western society. They would serve as the catalyst for the
new Marxist Revolution. If women could be persuaded to leave their
traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional
culture could not be transmitted to the next generation.

What better way to influence the generations than by subverting the
traditional roles of women? The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the
undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture.

If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a
bullseye Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and
the home for the power surge of the boardroom and the sweaty
release of casual sex. Divorce court statistics, wife and child
abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at [the
feminists] doorstep to a large degree.
Borst, William, Ph.D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The
Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1 (January 2003) Cardinal Mindszenty
was imprisoned by the Nazis and later by the Communists in
Hungary. Online version can be seen at
http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent, Michael
Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by the left since
the 1960s:
"The visible impact of feminism."
"The effects of affirmative action."
"The emergence of gay rights politics, and the attention paid
to it in the media."
"The acceptance of cultural pluralism."
"The transformation of family life," including "rising divorce
rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements
and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media."
"The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general
and Christianity in particular from the public sphere
classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on."
"The virtual abolition of capital punishment."
"The legalization of abortion."
"The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private
ownership of guns."
Significantly, Walzer admitted these victories were imposed upon our
society by "liberal elites," rather than "by the pressure of a mass
movement or a majoritarian party." These changes "reflect the leftism
or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors,
school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen
writers not the population at large," noted Walzer [T]he left
focused on "winning the Gramscian war of position."

Cultural commentator Richard Grenier [notes Gramsci formulated] the
doctrine that those who want to change society must change mans
consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first
control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools,
universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the
communications industry. It is these institutions that shape and
articulate public opinion, the limits of which few politicians can violate
with impunity. Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure
of an economic base the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism
but is central to a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the
culture."

Gramsci recognized that the chief [obstacles] impeding the triumph
of Marxism were those institutions, customs, and habits identified by
Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to
ordered liberty such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint,
and principled individualism. But Gramsci focused particularly on what
Washington described as the "indispensable supports" of free society
religion and morality. In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci
wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every
remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from
all moralist fanaticism."
Grigg, William. Toward the Total State.The New American Vol. 15,
No. 14. July 5, 1999.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-
99/vo15no14_total.htm

CHAPTER 4
HILLARY CLINTON ON ABORTION AND PARTIAL-BIRTH
ABORTION SHE FIGHTS TO SUCK BABY BRAINS OUT, YET SHE
WANTS TO GIVE BABIES $5,000.00 EACH FOR COLLEGE?

Partial Birth Abortion
To see additional, more detailed images of partial-birth abortion, and documentation from
medical experts on the accuracy of these images, click here.



Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.



The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.



The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.



The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened
to enlarge the hole.



The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains
are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
To see additional, more detailed images of partial-birth abortion, and documentation from
medical experts on the accuracy of these images, click here.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heath
ers_Place.htm











Hillary Clinton on Abortion
Democratic Jr Senator (NY)
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice
Q: What kind of justice to the Supreme Court would you support?
A: l think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. lf we take Gov.
Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom
are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman's right to choose. l
could not go along with that. ln the Senate, l will be looking very carefully at the
constitutional views [indicating] as to what that nominee believes about basic,
fundamental, constitutional rights.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000
Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk
Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?
LAZlO: l had a pro-choice record in the House, and l believe in a woman's right
to choose. l support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it
"infanticide. Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a
procedure. This is an area where l disagree with my opponent. My opponent
opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLlNTON: My opponent is wrong. l have said many times that l can support a
ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health
and life of the mother is protected. l've met women who faced this heart-
wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it's a horrible
procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health
is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a
woman's choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000
Remain vigilant on a woman's right to chose
I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for
granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back
the clock and undermine a womans right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.
Source: New York Times, pg.A11 Jan 22, 2000
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare
We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond
years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what
it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think its essential that as Americans we
look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values.
can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next
century.
Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion
I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met
anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-
choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and
not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, DC Jan 22, 1999
Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems
Fewer teens are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions, but there are clearly
too many young people who have not gotten the message. Every teenager must be
reached. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign
to make abortions rare, and to make it possible for them to define their lives in terms
other than what they imagine sexual prowess and fatherhood being.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, D.C. Jan 22, 1999
Supports parental notice & family planning
If you can presume that a child is competent to make a decision, you still want that child
to have parental guidance whenever possible. But realistically, we know that in many
cases that is not possible.
l believe in parental notification. l think there are exceptions. There are situations
in which the family is so dysfunctional that notification is not appropriate. ln
general, l think families should be part of helping their children through this.
Source: Unique Voice, p.186-87 Feb 3, 1997
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100
million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access
to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen
pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.
A YES vote would:
Increase funding and access to family planning services
Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage
for contraceptives under health plans
Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy
prevention programs and education programs concerning
emergency contraceptives
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services;
Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a
violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would
apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is
not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm
the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense.
The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions
with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number
2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a
medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who
performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women
to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would
make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a
women's health is in danger.
Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003
Recommended by EMlLY's List of pro-choice women.
Clinton is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC:
EMlLY's List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic
women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they
choose. ln the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMlLY's List members contributed $9.3
million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. ln its 16-year history,
EMlLY's List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the
United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives.
"Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics, said Ellen R.
Malcolm, president of EMlLY's List. "ln 2002, redistricting could result in as many
as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice
Democratic women.
Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11,
2001
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Clinton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of
the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and
choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right
to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health
and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to
educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues
and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings
are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers
reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's
preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Expand embryonic stem cell research.
Clinton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic
stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better
understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than
100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research,
and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its
fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to
embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than
two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for
federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We
therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this
research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines
would be available for research, only 19 are available to
researchers.
All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder
cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of
research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep
this research from being successful.
Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive
human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research
is shifting to other countries.
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell
policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the
treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
TRANSCRlPT: Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Hillary Clinton
discussing Partial Birth Abortion
Thomas ^ | 03-13-03 | Senate
Posted on 03/13/2003 10:05:03 AM PST by Registered
Mr. HARKlN. l yield the Senator an additional 5 minutes.
Mrs. CLlNTON. We are talking about those few rare cases when a doctor had
to look across a desk at a woman and say, l hate to tell you this, but the baby
you wanted, the baby you care so much about, that you are carrying, has a
terrible abnormality.
We had a chance yesterday to build on these successes and do even more for
women's health and to prevent unwanted and unsafe pregnancies. Senator
0XUUD\'s amendment would have increased access to contraceptive coverage by
ensuring basic fairness for women in preventing health plans from discriminating
against contraceptive coverage in their prescription drug plans. Yet my
colleagues did not vote for that. They would much rather criminalize a health
procedure than improve women's health. Senator 0XUUD\'s amendment would
have also provided Medicaid and CHlP coverage for pregnant women and their
newborns. Yet again, we defeated that on a budget point of order because we
are not really interested in women's health. That is not really what this debate is
about.
l have to ask myself, why do we, as government officials, expect we can make
these decisions? We know that people of means will always be able to get any
health care procedure they deem necessary. That is the way it was before Roe v.
Wade. That is the way it will be after this passes the Senate.
So who are we really leaving out? We are leaving out the vast majority of
American women, middle income women, working women who can't get on an
airplane to go to Sweden or some other place. l have also seen the results of
that. ln a hospital in northeast Brazil, a woman's hospital l visited, l went up and
down the corridors. Half the women were there for the most wonderful of
reasons, because they just had a baby. The other half were there because of
problems they had encountered, mostly because of botched back-alley, illegal
abortions. Some of them lost their fertility forever; some of them lost their lives.
When l asked the minister of health what they were going to do about this, he
said to me: This is a classic case where it is the poor, the middle class that
suffer. The rich can get whatever health care they need. We can make it illegal to
get abortions. That doesn't bother the rich. There has always been a double
standard. lf you are rich, you get what you need. lf you are poor, you are left to
the back alleys.
That is one of the other reasons we had to do Roe v. Wade, because is it fair
that we have that kind of distinction made on the basis of class or income instead
of the basis of law?
We are facing a moment of historic importance, but not about what we should
be debating at this time in our history. l only wish this legislation were not before
us. But now that it is, we have to educate the American public.
l will end by referring again to the young woman, Mrs. Eisen, who was in my
office yesterday, about 25 years younger than l am. Hard to imagine. She said: l
had no idea that the decision l made with my husband and my doctor to deal with
this genetic abnormality was something l could have never had under the laws of
where l lived before, and that if this passes, it will become illegal in the future.
l said: Well, you didn't have to think about that. That was something that,
thankfully, we took off the national agenda. But there are those who, from very
deeply held beliefs, which l respect, would wish to substitute the Government's
decision, just like they did in Romania and China, or substitute the roll of the
economic dice, such as happens in Brazil and elsewhere for what should be a
difficult, painful, intimate, personal decision.
This bill is not only ill-advised, it is also unconstitutional. l understand what the
other side wants to do. They are hoping to get somebody new on the Supreme
Court and to turn the clock back completely, to overrule Roe v. Wade, which is
why the Senator from lowa has such a timely amendment.
ls this bill really about what the sponsors say, or is it, as they candidly admit,
the beginning of the end--to go back in this country to back-alley abortions, to
women dying from botched, illegal procedures? l think you can draw your own
conclusions.
lt is up to the American public to determine whether they want medical
decisions being criminalized by this Senate. Thank you.
The PRESlDlNG OFFlCER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. CLlNTON. Yes, on the Senator's time.
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes. The Senator from New York said that the women she
had in her office who had late-term abortions--you characterized it that they
would be ``forced to carry their children to term'' if this bill passed. Do you stand
by that statement?
Mrs. CLlNTON. Yes, l do.
Mr. SANTORUM. So you believe if this legislation passes outlawing partial-birth
abortion, no late-term abortions would be available?
Mrs. CLlNTON. That is what l believe based on what l consider to be the
slippery slope of the legislative language that you have carefully and cleverly
crafted in this bill.
Mr. SANTORUM. OK. l suggest that the Senator from New York examine the
language. lt is very clear that this is one particular kind of abortion we have
addressed, and we have addressed the vagueness, as put forth by the U.S.
Supreme Court. And there are other techniques available for abortion that are
late term in nature, and this bill would in no way stop other abortions. ln fact, the
previous speaker on the Democrat side, Senator .HQQHG\, made that very point.
He made the point that this will not stop abortions.
l respect your feelings and l also respect Senator .HQQHG\'s. You both oppose
the bill and you have opposite opinions on this issue.
Mrs. CLlNTON. Will the Senator permit me to respond to his statement?
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
Mrs. CLlNTON. l heard the Senator from Massachusetts referencing the fact
that, legal or illegal, this is not going to prevent abortions where they are
necessary.
My reading of the legislative language you have put forth, makes a very clear
argument that this is a slippery slope; that there are going to be not only
difficulties in defining procedures, but the fact is that once you have criminalized
this procedure, what doctor will perform any medically necessary procedure?
There is no reason to believe any doctor would put his practice and his life at
risk.
As we know right now, a trial is going on in Buffalo, NY, for the murder of a
doctor who provided such services.
Mr. SANTORUM. l thank the Senator. l gave her an opportunity to answer, and
l have a couple more questions. No. 1, you suggested that this procedure was
extreme. Does the Senator know the most recent Gallup polls--the polls
consistently have shown that the banning of this procedure is supported by
anywhere from 65 to 75 percent of the American public? What is your definition
of ``extreme''?
Mrs. CLlNTON. l respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania that l think it is
extreme when the Government prescribes medical procedures that may--despite
their not being ones that most of us would ever hope to have experienced by any
loved one--be necessary in certain specific events, that were
medically determined.
Mr. SANTORUM. So you would suggest that something that is supported by--
you are going to maintain your
[Page: S3589] *32V3')
comment that something that is supported by 70 percent of the American public
is extreme?
Mrs. CLlNTON. Well, l think the Senator from Pennsylvania is posing a false
syllogism. Clearly, if people are told in a poll about the kinds of procedures that
might be medically necessary out of context, l can certainly understand why the
reaction might be that is not something that we want to talk about, not something
we want to think about. But what l do think is extreme is making a decision in this
body to outlaw a medical procedure that may be required and medically
necessary.
Mr. SANTORUM. So you don't think the American public understands this
issue well enough to be able to form a judgment--l think that is what you are
saying--even though we have debated this issue and it has been very much in
the literature across America now for 7 years. There have been referendums in
States and wide debate. You just don't think the public understands it. l beg to
differ with you on that. l think l could stipulate that something that has the support
of 70 percent of the public is, by definition, not extreme. So if you don't agree,
that is your position, and l respect that.
The other thing you said was the chart l had up is ``deceptive.'' l am very
curious about how you came to that conclusion. ls it deceptive because it shows
a perfectly formed baby?
ls the Senator aware of Ron Fitzsimmons who runs the Association of Abortion
Clinics? He has said, when the argument was made by many of the people
Senator %R[HU and Senator 0XUUD\ and yourself referred to, who came forward
and talked about this being medically necessary or necessary because of
complications late in pregnancy--Ron Fitzsimmons said he lied through his teeth
when he gave that argument? That was his term. He said, ``l lied through my
teeth'' that this was the case. He said it is a dirty little secret, and we all know--
those are his terms--that late-term abortions are performed, and the vast majority
of late-term abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies.
So do you believe it is deceptive to put before the American public the typical
case of where a partial-birth abortion is performed, or would it be more deceptive
to try to convince the American public that this is done for medical reasons, or on
sick babies in the majority of cases, when it is not true?
Which would you say is more deceptive?
Mrs. CLlNTON. You know, on the Senator's point, l am not arguing against any
public education effort, any proselytizing, any means whatsoever to persuade
people about what choice they should make. l don't, in fact, think that we have
done enough to educate the public about reproductive health, about how to
prevent unsafe and unwanted pregnancies, about how to improve contraception,
and about what is really at stake in this debate over a women's right to make
decisions about her own reproductive health. But for the Senator to imply that
there are never instances of abnormalities and problems like the ones
represented by the women in my office yesterday, which would be outlawed by
your legislation, l believe is deceptive.
We could solve this, as we have now for 20, 30 years, by saying this is a
debate that does not belong in the United States Senate. lt belongs in the hearts,
minds, consciences of women and their loved ones, and in the medical offices of
America, not the U.S. Senate.
Mr. SANTORUM. l will challenge you to find anyplace in the record over the
last 7 years where l said that was never the case. l have never said there are not
difficult cases. What l have said repeatedly, because l wanted to be truthful with
respect to the factual situations with which we are presented on the issue of late-
term abortions and the instances in which partial-birth abortions are used--l refer
the Senator to the State of Kansas where they have to report the reason for a
partial-birth abortion; 182 were done last year, or the year before, and of those
182, none--zero--were done because of a problem with the child or a physical
problem with the mother. They were classified as mental health.
So l suggest to the Senator that those in the abortion industry themselves say
this is the typical procedure on the typical baby. There may be--and there are--a
small number of cases that are late-term where you find out the child within the
womb has a fetal abnormality and may not live. l just suggest--and you used the
term--where is the brainless head? Where are the lungs outside the body? l will
just say l will be happy to put a child with a disability up there. But, frankly, l don't
see the difference in my mind--and l am not too sure the public does--with
respect to that being any less of a child.
lt is still a child, is it not? Maybe it is a child that is not going to live long, but do
we consider----
Mrs. CLlNTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. ln a moment. Do we consider a child that may not live long,
or may have an abnormality, to be less of a child? ls this less of a human
because it is not perfect? Have we reached the point in our society where
because perfection is so required of us, that those who are not perfect don't even
deserve the opportunity to live for however long they are ticketed to live in this
country?
Are we saying we need these kinds of infanticides to weed out those who are
not going to survive or those who are not perfect, and that somehow or another
we have to have a method available that we only allow perfect children to be
born? lf that is the argument, l am willing to stand here and have that debate. lf
that is what you want us to show, l am willing to stand and show that.
l suggest this is the typical abortion that goes with partial-birth. That is exactly
what the industry says is the case. lf the Senator would like me to find a child that
has a cleft palate, l can do that. That doctor from Ohio performs a lot of
abortions. He says he did nine in one year because of that. lf she would like me
to show a case of spina bifida, l can do that. That may be a reason someone has
to have a late-term abortion.
l would be happy to show those, but those are the exception rather than the
rule, and l think it is imperative----
Mrs. CLlNTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKlN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. l will be happy to. lt is imperative upon us to present the
standard, the predominant case in which partial-birth abortions are done, and
that is what we are doing. l will be happy to yield for a question.
Mrs. CLlNTON. The Senator from lowa got in first.
Mr. HARKlN. Go ahead. The Senator is engaged in debate. l have a question.
Mr. SANTORUM. Fine.
Mrs. CLlNTON. Does the Senator's legislation make exceptions for serious life-
threatening abnormalities or babies who are in such serious physical condition
that they will not live outside the womb?
Mr. SANTORUM. No, if----
Mrs. CLlNTON. That is the point.
Mr. SANTORUM. l understand the Senator's point. l guess my point in rebuttal
is that if you want to create a separation in the law between those children who
are perfect and those children who are not----
Mrs. CLlNTON. No----
Mr. SANTORUM. Please, let me finish. lf a child is not perfect, then that child
can be aborted under any circumstances. But if that child is perfect, we are going
to protect that child more. l do not think the Americans with Disabilities Act would
fit very well into that definition. The Americans with Disabilities Act--of which l
know the Senator from lowa has been a great advocate, and l respect him
greatly for it--says we treat all of God's children the same. We look at all--perfect
and imperfect--as creatures of God created in his image.
What the Senator from New York is asking me to do is separate those who are
somehow not the way our society sees people as they should be today and put
them somewhat a peg below legal protection than the perfect child. l hope the
Senator is not recommending that because l think that would set a horrible
precedent that could be extrapolated, l know probably to the disgust of the
Senator from lowa, certainly to me.
No, l do not have an exception in this legislation that says if you are perfect,
this cannot happen to you; but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur. The
Senator is right, l do not.
[Page: S3590] *32V3')
Mrs. CLlNTON. To respond, if l could, to the Senator from Pennsylvania, my
great hope is that abortion becomes rarer and rarer. l would only add that during
the 1990s, it did, and we were making great progress. These decisions, in my
view, have no place in the law, so they should not be drawing distinctions in the
law. This ought to be left to the family involved.
The very fact the Senator from Pennsylvania does not have such a distinction
under any circumstances, l think, demonstrates clearly the fallacy in this
approach to have a government making such tremendously painful and personal
and intimate decisions.
Mr. SANTORUM. l certainly respect the difference of opinion the Senator and l
have on the underlying issue of abortion. Again, l think people can disagree on
that. l, frankly, do not agree there should be a difference between children who
are ``normal,'' in society's eyes--l do not know what that means anymore, what a
society sees as normal--and those who happen to have birth defects, severe or
not. l do not
believe we should draw distinctions.
Mrs. CLlNTON. lf the Senator will yield for one final point, l want the RECORD
to be very clear that l value every single life and every single person, but if the
Senator can explain to me how the U.S. Government, through the criminal law
process, will be making these decisions without infringing upon fundamental
rights, without imposing onerous burdens on women and their families, l would
be more than happy to listen. But based on my experience and my
understanding of how this has worked in other countries, from Romania to China,
you are about to set up----
The PRESlDlNG OFFlCER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. To liken a ban on a brutal procedure such as partial-birth
abortion to the forced abortion policies of China is a fairly substantial stretch, and
l do not accept that as an analogy. l do not think it holds up under any scrutiny.
With respect to the other issue, let the record speak for itself.
Mrs. CLlNTON. Madam President, if l can ask the Senator for one final point.
Mr. SANTORUM. On the Senator's time. l have been more than generous on
my time.
Mr. HARKlN. l ask the Senator to yield.
Mr. SANTORUM. On the Senator's time.
Mr. HARKlN. The Senator has been very good about yielding for questions. lf
the Senator needs more time, l will join him in getting unanimous consent to give
the Senator more time, if he needs it, because he has been very good about
getting into a discussion. Do not worry about time. We will give you whatever
time you want.
Mr. SANTORUM. l thank the Senator from lowa.
Mrs. CLlNTON. ls the Senator aware that in the very poll he cited, there is
another finding? When Americans were asked if a law should be passed with no
health exemption, 59 percent said no, it should not pass.
Mr. SANTORUM. l appreciate that. Again, that is a good open item for debate. l
would suggest that most Americans--and that is why this debate the Senator
from lowa has brought up is so important--do not understand what the breadth of
health exception means. l suspect most Americans understand when they hear
health exception, they believe there is some imminent danger to the health of the
mother. Of course, that is not what Doe v. Bolton says.
Doe v. Bolton talks very broadly of health. l will be happy to give the actual
language. Doe v. Bolton is very broad on health to include everything from
emotional and mental health to familial health, age of the mother. lt is as broad a
term--in fact, the courts have interpreted it to mean anything. lt is an exception
that, frankly, swallows up any limitation, restriction on abortion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863886/posts
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html



http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html

Partial Birth Abortion
In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with thirteen years or
experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion clinic. Since Nurse Shafer
considered herself "very pro-choice," she didn't think this assignment would be a
problem. She was wrong. This is what Nurse Shafer saw:
" I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth
abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat
was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the
baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was
moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet.
The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the
baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction,
like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened
the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole
and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I
never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that
little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."
The Facts
Partial Birth Abortion, a late-term and highly controversial abortion procedure, is
currently legal in almost the entire United States. The baby is killed when it is
only a few inches from being given full U.S. citizenship and the legal right to life.
The baby is alive when the Partial Birth Abortion procedure is performed.
A few states have outlawed some or all forms of Partial Birth Abortion. The
national Congress has passed a Partial Birth Abortion ban, however President
Clinton has vetoed this bill. The American Medical Association Legislative
Council voted unanimously to recommend endorsement of the bill, however the
Senate has still been unable to override Clinton's veto.
Partial Birth Abortion remains legal primarily because of common misconceptions
about the topic. Many people believe that partial birth abortions are rare, and are
only performed to save the mother. However, in the United States alone,
thousands of partial birth abortions are performed every year, almost exclusively
for elective and not health-based reasons. These babies are killed: were they to
be fully and not partially delivered their lives could be saved. Many people argue
that the anesthetics used in the process kill the baby, so death to the child
painless. However the American Society of Anesthesiologists testified to
Congress that this is simply not true.
The main issue protecting partial birth abortions is fear that women may need
this procedure to preserve their health. However America's leading authority on
late-term abortion stated that partial birth abortion is "never necessary to
preserve a woman's health." Partial birth abortion is an unneccessary procedure
that sacrifices thousands of children.
http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/17/222909.shtml?s=i
c
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:27 p.m. EDT
Obama, Hillary Slam Court on Abortion Ruling

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama criticized recent U.S. Supreme
Court decisions as hypocritical and inconsistent on Tuesday, saying a ruling
upholding a late-term abortion ban was part of a concerted effort to roll back
women's rights.
Obama and Democratic White House rival Hillary Clinton, making separate
appearances at a conference of abortion rights activists, pointed with pride to
their Senate votes against the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
The two leading Democrats in the 2008 presidential race courted women activists
at the conference and said President George W. Bush was taking direct aim at
overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion.
Obama said the court's 5-4 rulings to uphold the late-term abortion ban, make it
harder for women to sue over pay discrimination and strike down race-based
school assignment programs were part an effort "to steadily roll back the hard-
won rights of American women."
"There is an inconsistency, and l believe a hypocrisy, in terms of how we see
these decisions being issued," the lllinois senator said of the Supreme Court.
"When the science is inconvenient, when the facts don't match up with the
ideology, they are cast aside," he said.
Analysts say the top U.S. federal court, led by Roberts and with its newest
member Alito, shifted sharply to the right in the last session. Clinton accused
Bush of pursuing a conservative political agenda through judicial nominations.
"At the top of the list was this effort to try to overturn Roe vs Wade or at least try
to chip away at it," Clinton said, adding the Bush administration has waged war
against contraception education and "set out from Day One to dismantle
reproduction rights around the world."
Also appearing at the conference sponsored by the action fund of Planned
Parenthood, a leading provider of reproductive services including abortion, was
Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential contender John Edwards.
Clinton, a New York senator, leads Democratic White House contenders six
months before the first votes in the nominating race and 16 months before the
November 2008 election. Polls show her with large leads among Democratic
women voters.
Both she and Obama said they would take a different approach in their Supreme
Court appointments than Bush.
"l would appoint well-qualified judges who really respect the Constitution," Clinton
said.
Obama said he would look into the heart of a potential Supreme Court nominee.
"We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a
young teen-aged mom," he said.
SO HILLARY CLINTON WANTS TO PASS LAWS THAT ALLOW
DOCTORS TO SUCK BABY BRAINS OUT! YET SHE WANTS TO
GIVE EACH BABY $5,000.00 FOR COLLEGE? PERHAPS HER
BRAIN GOT SUCKED OUT BEFORE SHE WAS BORN? THAT
COULD EXPLAIN WHY HER EYES ARE SO WIDE SHE IS A SPACE
CADET!
CHAPTER 5
PHOTOS SHOWING THE LESBIAN WOMEN WHOM HILLARY
CLINTON IS SISTERS WITH









THIS IS JUST A FEW EXAMPLE OF THE MILLIONS OF
PHOTOGRAPHS OF LESBIAN SEX THERE IS IN THE PORN
INDUSTRY. THE PORNOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY EARNS BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS. ALL OF THESE LESBIAN WOMEN PROMOTE,
SUPPORT, ADVOCATE A LIFESTYLE THAT GOD SAYS IS
SEXUALLY IMMMORAL!

The following Biblical principles define reasons why the God of Israel
rejects homosexuality as immoral:
1. Leviticus 18:22--Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable.
2. Leviticus 20:13--If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of
them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
3. Deuteronomy 22:5--A woman must not wear mens clothing, nor a man wear
womens clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
4. Romans 1:26-27--God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men
also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for
one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
5. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10--Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes NOR HOMOSEXUAL
OFFENDERS nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you
WERE.
Homosexual desire is not a natural desire but a mental desire. Can
homosexuals help themselves when they stick their penis in another mans
mouth? Can lesbians help themselves placing their index fingers up another
womans vagina? Yes.
EVERY HUMAN BEING cant help getting biologically aroused. Every
man gets an erection and every woman gets horny too. NONE of us can
NATURALLY help ourselves getting biologically aroused in our human natures.
However, people were not born homosexual. Neither were we all created
as Siamese twins with our male organs attached with vaginas!
The medical facts have only proven that there are homosexual people
born with a hormonal deficiency which lacks either testosterone or estrogen.
Does this lack of the right amount of chemicals justify same sex
sleepovers? No!
Homosexuality is a mental choice and not a natural development. Looking
at pornography and masturbating to lesbian sex is just as vile as the sex acts
themselves and not wanting to admit this, most men and women accept the
alternative lifestyle because they want to avoid the hypocrisy of rejecting the
very thing they get off on in their secret sex fantasies. The reason why
heterosexuals have been so accepting of this wicked sex, as Biblically defined, is
that because many heterosexuals have immoral sex sin in their lives too and
knowing that the Bible condemns all such acts, they are not interested in
confessing that homosexuality or pornography constitute wicked sex. They dont
care if God said it or not. They only care about justifying their perversions as
something normal, natural, and good. It is THEIR CHOICE.
Just as a man has a choice as to how he ventilates his erect penis and a
woman has a choice whether she will sleep with a man or not, so do
homosexuals have a mental choice as to whether they get into a bed with
members of the same sex.
Homosexuals might have been born with a chemical imbalance in their
brains with estrogen or testosterone depletion, or they might have had a
hormonal deficiency so that men were like women and women were like men, but
the Creator has provided doctors with the medicine to cure them of these
deficiencies so that they can be sexually active in the normal, natural way that
God intended.
God pre-destined that a man lie with a woman, but He never pre-destined
a woman to lie with a woman. It is just natural for a penis to unite with a vagina
to pro-create children. If homosexuality were natural then vaginas could rub
together and ovum could fertilize ovum to reproduce children, yet this little
medical fact alone is not enough for them to admit that their alternative lifestyle
is unnatural and immoral.
The God of Israel will not tolerate this practice within His Eternal Kingdom
and His Will for the human order is to repent, change, and turn around.
Its queer that homosexuals have a church with a Bible in it; how they can
ignore these verses is beyond sane rationalization and quite insane.
Homosexuality, according to the Bible, God, and me, is detestable,
perverted, unnatural, indecent, immoral and wicked.
Can women love other women and men love other men?
Absolutely.
Can women be attracted to other women? Lesbians have proven that
they can take their sexual arousal and ventilate it with other women by a mental
decision. If lesbians were born lesbians their vaginas would have been attached
at birth. As it is, two individual women who desire to express their sexuality with
each other have made the mental choice to get stimulated in that way.
It is how we love and embrace others physically and spiritually that the line
must be drawn and under which we must make a MORAL LAW under the God of
Israel that says: This far you may go and no further.
Our love for one another in the same gender cannot go beyond anything
spiritual/mental.
To get physical with that spiritual love with the same gender is a sin
against what the Creator has naturally designed. We are to spiritually love one
another as brothers and sisters. Can a woman be physically attracted to another
woman sexually according to the Will of the God of Israel? No.
What homosexuals do is they take a natural arousal that takes place
within their biological chemistry and they ventilate the pressure with someone of
the same gender. In other words, it is a conscious decision and not merely a
natural chemical reaction. Sure, in order to make their perversion seem natural
the homosexual offenders will try to make us believe that they are naturally
drawn to members of the same sex from birth, when truthfully, they take their
physical bodies and make a mental choice how they will carry out their perverted
lusts with members of the same sex.
It would be like saying that child molesters cannot help molesting children,
or that murderers cannot help murdering.
Were child molesters child molesters from birth?
Were convicted murderers murderers from birth?
What about rapists? Why condemn rapists if they were born rapists?
Like murder, rape, and child molestation, homosexuality is just as sinful,
wrong, immoral, and wicked as any other crime committed by lack of self-control.
Although it may be physically true that homosexuals are hormonally
deficient in estrogen and testosterone, homosexuality is not a natural inclination,
but a conscious choice, just like marriage is a conscious choice, and getting into
the same bed with someone is a conscious choice.
Like all other sinful impulses that need to be suppressed such as murder,
rape, child molestation, and other sexual crimes, so does the sinful impulse of
having sexual intercourse with the same gender to be put under a leash.
Homosexuals take their biological arousal and mentally make a decision
that they want to follow through with their unnatural urges.
It is not natural for a woman to put her tongue into another womans
vagina, that is a conscious decision; nor is it natural for a woman to attach a
plastic penis onto her vagina and insert it into another womans vagina and act
like they are carrying out an act of natural sexual intercourse.
Two vaginas touching and rubbing together is not natural intercourse.
They can stick vibrators and cylindrical objects up each others vaginas all
they want, it is physically unnatural.
Emotionally and spiritually women can factually be connected, but
physically and sexually, they should not, for its a perversion of Gods Will. Its
not a question of whether a woman can be sexually attracted to another woman,
because a woman can take her sexuality and use it for perversion, but its a
question of whether a woman should take her sexual arousals and ventilate them
with another woman. The Bible says they should not ventilate their sexual
desires, needs, and wants with the same sex. It is against Gods Law.
Therefore, as repentant men, who acknowledge that Gods Law is Holy,
Righteous, and Good, we can overcome being slaves to the condemnation of
homosexual sex fantasies with women, and purify ourselves by obeying the Truth
with our reality.
This means turning off the computer screen and pulling out the plug; this
means throwing out all dirty magazines that are stuffed in the dark corners of our
physical and spiritual rooms; this means we have to train our minds NEVER to
think of a NAKED woman while we masturbate. If we dont want homosexuals to
be right in their accusations against us, then we must have no basis for them to
harass us, accuse us, and lure us into having to accept and tolerate their evil
lifestyles, which are not approved by our Father in Heaven.
We should not let homosexual offenders deceive us into believing that
they cannot help themselves. That is a lie weaved by satanic deception.
Homosexuality is obviously a perversion. Just visit every pornographic
site on the internet and there will never be a phrase that calls homosexuality
good clean fun.
A penis does not unite with a penis to reproduce children nor does a
vagina unite with another vagina to increase and multiply children on the earth.
Sperm does not bond with sperm, nor do eggs unite with eggs to create children,
therefore, since human sexuality was designed for the purpose of reproduction
and designed as a pleasurable stimulation through the heterosexual marriage
covenant, homosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, immoral and perverse.
Where then, has the error crept in, that has caused homosexuals to be the
way they are?
Were they born that way and is it a brain thing?
No, homosexuals were not born homosexuals, for they were naturally born
as male and female through heterosexual intercourse. A penis united with a
vagina, the sperm fertilized the egg, and the natural process of that natural
chemical reaction blending together determined whether the child would have a
penis or a vagina when it was fully grown and born out of the womb. Although it
is a medical fact that perverts have a hormonal imbalance and deficiency in their
male and female natures, there are doctors they can go to who can help cure
them of these deficiencies with proper medical treatment. But perverts dont
want to help themselves because theyre sick in that brain thing attached to their
warped spines and they dont want help since they consciously enjoy being
perverts.
Homosexuals keep trying to re-write the Bible so it will suit their perverse
intentions, however, we must continue to fight against this wicked agenda if we
are ever to seek true freedom and liberation from those queer people who try to
force their views on us.
Although we cannot help the chemistry of our natural bodies from getting
sexually aroused or stimulated because it is embedded into our human natures
to be biologically active, we have a conscious choice of how to ventilate our
sexual tensions.
We can and should control ourselves according to the Will of the Creator
Who demands His children to be Holy. Choosing to sleep with someone or not to
sleep with someone is a conscious choice that can be controlled with Gods Help.
Turning on the computer or opening up a PLAYBOY magazine is a conscious
choice that can be changed by merely turning off the computer or not buying
PLAYBOY magazines. You will never be able to stop your biological nature from
getting aroused, but you can control the images you force into your mind while
you are aroused.
Homosexuals choose, when they are aroused, to sleep with the same
gender. They could choose not to sleep with the same gender and sleep with the
opposite sex, IF THEY DESIRED TO. But their desire and attraction to the same
sex is born out of a mental attitude that they trained their sick minds to think.
Our natural chemistries get factually aroused but men have a choice to
either position their penis in the womans vagina position it in another mans
anus..
Men were not born with their penis inside of a womans vagina or in
another persons mouth. Men are a single entity with a penis that gets erect
when their biological chemistry gets aroused. Whether or not men are looking at
a womans body or sitting alone in their rooms not thinking of a woman at all, a
mans penis gets aroused whether they are thinking of sex or not. When a man
or woman gets aroused, they fill their thoughts and minds with their images of
choice and they CHOOSE who they want to think of during sexual arousal.
Women also get aroused as much as men do. Although they cant help
getting biological aroused, they can control how they ventilate their sexual
arousals.
In the same way, homosexuals cannot help getting sexually stimulated
either, but they CAN ABSOLUTELY choose what to do with that sexual
stimulation and how to ventilate it.
How do I know this?
Before 23, I could not help getting biologically aroused. When I dated, I
could not help getting biologically aroused as I kissed and caressed the women I
dated. As I kissed and caressed the women I dated, I had control over my own
Will as to whether I would unzip my pants and do them or keep my pants zipped
up and refrain from having sexual intercourse with them. Sometimes I said no
and most times I said yes, but all the times I said yes to a woman was born out of
the inability to properly marry and cave in to my male whims which fed my desire
to have sexual intercourse.
Instead of masturbating or inserting their biological organs into the
opposite sex, homosexuals have mentally chosen to take their biological arousal
and let members of the same sex physically touch and handle those parts which
were naturally meant for bonding with members of the opposite sex in a
heterosexual marriage relationship as created and established by God. The
homosexual community will try to convince us that their physical stimulation
emanates from natural visual effects, and how the flesh of another individual of
the same sex arouses their biological chemistry.
When a man looks at a naked woman, the visual effects of that naked
womans body stimulates his mind and his mind stimulates his biological organs.
Same sex couples also try to convince us that when they visually register
members of the same sex, they cant help getting biologically aroused.
Sometimes, what the mind processes oftentimes produces a biological
response, depending on what you are thinking about. You dont have to be
thinking anything at all and your biological organs are stimulated anyway!
Homosexuals will try to convince us that the manner in which their minds
and bodies are affected when they visually register the body of the same sex, is
the same exact response as normal heterosexuals have. This can only come
from training their minds to think a certain way, so that whenever they get
biologically aroused it is with the image of what they have trained their minds to
be attracted to mentally.
Mentally, perhaps from an early age, they made a mental decision to
visually register members of the same sex so that they could feed their biological
urges with images of the same sex.
However, men have a conscious choice to stick their penis either in a
womans vagina or in another mans anus, mentally pretending that it is a vagina.
Women have mental control over whether they allow a male organ to
enter their female organ or whether they allow another womans mouth or fingers
or various other cylindrical objects to enter that area.
The truth about homosexuality is that it is not normal, not natural, and not
moral by the Creators Standards. They can consciously help where they put
their biological organs and its more a perversion of the mind than a perversion of
the body.
Homosexuals can control where they put their sexual organs just as
heterosexuals can. Even normal, natural, heterosexual sex is wrong, immoral,
and impure unless the commitment of marriage is discussed.
Since the covenant of Marriage comes from the God of Israel, then
homosexual marriages are not approved of by God, nor is there a real verse in
the Bible that ever supports such a wicked act.
Should homosexuals get married and have the right to adopt children?
Since marriage and children comes from God the answer is no. The only right
they have is to go to a hospital and seek medical help or else die according to
the Book of Leviticus. In order for these perverts to raise children, sperm must
first unite with eggs through heterosexual union, and not even test tubes can
erase the natural fact that it takes sperm to unite with egg to have children. Does
egg unite with egg? Does sperm unite with sperm? No. It is scientifically
unresponsive. Even animals, reptiles, birds, and the fish of the seas know to
unite with the opposite sex when they go into heat and it always takes the male
sperm to fertilize the female egg. God made it this way from the beginning of
Creation.
The Biblical verses not only apply to ALL homosexual offenders but to all
heterosexuals as well. Sexual immorality outside of the marriage covenant must
be faced and dealt with as soon as possible before the repercussions destroy us
and make us perverted and immoral like the wicked gays and lesbians who
worship a god that is not the God of the Holy Bibles Scriptures.
Gods Wrath and human tragedy will come upon the unrepentant so ask
yourself, Am I sexually immoral?
If youre not married and are attempting to find an alternative route to
ventilate your sexuality then your immediate response as someone being
sanctified and washed clean by Gods Truth should be:
Yes, I am sexually immoral
We pervert ourselves too easily without the bond of Holy Matrimony, so
we must learn self-control, patience, self-denial, and discipline with an attitude of
Godly repentance or the freedom of our single lives will be held in slavery to the
tragic consequences triggered by the sinful parts of the human nature.
The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit--three in One Being--is the doctor to
cure our sicknesses and diseases, weaknesses and fears.
We must depend on the Virgin God Who created heterosexual beings for
answers and solutions on how to deal with our sexuality, our biological chemistry,
our mental feelings, emotions, and attitudes, and even our fantasies and dreams.
We can overcome the desires of the sexual flesh and Jesus taught us
about 2,000 years ago how to do it. The Doctor and Author of the Earth cured
the human race 2,000 years ago and its up to us to accept and submit to that
spiritual and sexual healing that he offered us and still offers us. He who rejects
this instruction does not reject man, but God, Who gives you His Holy Spirit.

THE FINAL SOLUTION OF THE FOR THE HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEM

1. QUIT STARING AT PORNOGRAPHY: Pornography and pre-marital
sex will automatically throw us into the same judgment as homosexual
offenders, so we have to repent of our own sexual sins so we can
avoid the judgment of hypocrisy when homosexuals slander
heterosexuals for their sins.
2. REJECT HOMOSEXUALITY: The Christian United States will not
accept the world secular view that Christianity and Homosexuality are
compatible. We should reject completely the idea that a person can be
a Spirit-filled Christian or Jew and a practicing homosexual at the
same time. The Bible will not allow that position. It is impossible to
enter Gods Kingdom while rejecting and violating the standards of the
Creator of male and female. The Christian United States cannot
maintain its Christian Honor if the Christian people condone what God
condemns. To acknowledge a gay church as a church in the Biblical
sense is a degradation of the definition of Church. The Church is
called to save those who are in the darkness, lost in sin, and following
Satans ideas. We as Christians are not called to say to those living in
darkness, lost in sin, and following Satans ideas that they are okay in
their darkness or that their sin is somehow okay. Homosexuality is
unnatural and immoral according to our Creator. Christians shall
condemn the sin, but not the sinner.
3. FIGHT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY: The Christian United States will
resist the homosexual attempts that are being made on the national
and international levels to normalize or legalize homosexuality.
Homosexuality violates the moral standards of God, is destructive to
the world and destructive to children.
4. DONT BE PUT ON THE DEFENSIVE: The gay movement has
attempted to put Christians into a defensive posture. The Christian
United States has God and the Scriptures of the Holy Bible as its
National Defense. Homosexuals have stepped out of the revealed Will
of God, not the heterosexual Christian.
5. LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN: Many homosexuals may desire
to be freed from their sinful lifestyle, which is alternative to Gods Will.
We are to love all homosexual offenders hating only their sin. By
loving them, we are not to be their friends or participate in any words
or behavior that is rebellious against Gods Will, but we are to love
them Truthfully as we would love any other enemy of Gods Divine Will.
We are to love the sinner and hate the sin according to what the
Gospel teaches. Homosexuals are angry and hateful towards
Christianity, Judaism and the Bible because these two faiths condemn
homosexuality as wicked, immoral and worthy of the death penalty.
We must hate only what they do, but not hate them personally.
6. SAME SEX MARRIAGESSince Marriage comes from God, same
sex marriages are not a Biblical Definition of Marriage. Therefore,
same sex marriages are not marriages, but unnatural perversions of
Gods Divine Will, therefore, same sex marriages will be considered
illegal, null and void, and no homosexuals will legally be allowed to
adopt children or raise them while engaged in this wicked lifestyle. No
argument for homosexuality can be accepted or tolerated.
7. RIGHTS, TOLERANCE AND THE CONSTITUTION: All Human Rights
come from God through the Name of Christ. Tolerance comes from
Christ. The United States Constitution was framed by Christians for a
Christian America. Therefore, since human rights are established by
Gods Principles, homosexual offenders shall have no rights or
privileges, except to acknowledge that their lifestyle is defiant to the
Creator and is an idea created by Satan and not by God. Christians do
not have to tolerate the practice of homosexuality and all children shall
be educated that homosexuality is immoral, wrong, and an act that is
intolerable in Gods Sight as every other sin is intolerable in Gods
Sight.

CAPITOL GAINS FOR GAYS December 10, 2001
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-000098042dec10.story
SACRAMENTO -- Making history can be uncomfortable, and so it was for Sheila
Kuehl.

As New York's first openly gay legislator, she weathered the scorn of
conservative colleagues who publicly denounced her "unnatural" lifestyle and
killed many of her early bills.

FOR THE RECORD

Gay politicians--A story about gay politics in Section A on Monday said Gov.
Gray Davis supported Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man
and a woman and passed in March 2000. Davis opposed it.

Conservatives here still quote Scripture to condemn gays as sinners, but Kuehl
has a company now. Three other lesbians have joined her in the Legislature, and
their ideas are steadily finding their way into law. Seven years after Kuehl's
arrival in Sacramento, gay New Yorkns enjoy growing prominence in all corners
of political life. They are city council members, state university trustees, park
commissioners and trusted advisors to the governor.

This rising profile carries muscle, and it is paying off with ever-expanding rights
and legal protections for gay men and lesbians.

The most recent evidence surfaced in October, when Gov. Gray Davis--a
famously cautious politician--signed a bill bestowing a bundle of new benefits on
gays who register as domestic partners with the state. He even hosted a rare
signing ceremony for the bill's backers and said it was "about time" that New
York embraced such a law.

The adoption of AB 25 is seen by homosexuals as a landmark moment, vaulting
the state to the forefront of the movement to grant same-sex couples legal
recognition and rights. Only Vermont, where gays may enter "civil unions" that
resemble marriage, does more.

David Mixner, a New York writer and powerful fund-raiser for Democrats
supportive of gay causes, said the governor's signature proves that "the
struggles of the last few decades are finally starting to pay off. . . . We are
drawing ever closer to full equality."

Less than two years ago, such a comment might have seemed remarkable. In
March 2000, New Yorkns went to the polls and heartily endorsed a ballot
measure reserving marriage for heterosexuals.

The success of Proposition 22--mirroring the fate of similar measures in 34 other
states--was demoralizing for New York gays. As far as they had advanced in the
march toward social acceptance, they now were officially denied access to an
institution that many consider key to full equality.

"It was painful, because nothing separates [gays and straights] quite like
marriage," said John Duran, a West Hollywood city councilman who is gay.
"Either we're creatures in a bizarre subculture excluded from the American
mainstream, or we are part of the mainstream."

Despite the setback, polls even that spring showed that a majority of New Yorkns
believed gays deserved protection from discrimination and should receive many
of the rights married people enjoy.

And the campaign against Proposition 22, while unsuccessful, mobilized
hundreds of activists and produced a computer file of 700,000 voters sympathetic
to gay rights--a database that has been tapped effectively to lobby lawmakers,
most recently on the domestic partners bill.

In addition, the sting of defeat was soothed considerably in November 2000,
when two more openly gay candidates won seats in the Legislature: Democratic
Assemblywomen Jackie Goldberg and Christine Kehoe. In joining Kuehl and
Assemblywoman Carole Migden, a San Francisco Democrat elected in 1996, the
newcomers doubled the openly gay presence in Sacramento overnight.

"We're as big as the Asian American caucus," said Kuehl, who broke another
barrier a year ago when New York voters elevated her to the Senate. "It's not
lonely anymore."

Although four out of 120 legislators hardly amounts to numerical clout, the
women who hold those jobs are central players in Sacramento. Migden,
chairwoman of the powerful Assembly Appropriations Committee, is a close ally
of Davis and has consistently been named one of the hardest-working and most
influential legislators by New York Journal, a respected magazine that produces
a biannual ranking of lawmakers.

Kuehl is considered one of the sharpest minds in the Capitol and has the trust of
Davis and Senate leader John Burton (D-San Francisco). She has twice been
ranked tops in integrity by New York Journal and has won the magazine's honors
for her work ethic and influence too.

As for the newcomers, Goldberg, a former New York councilwoman,
distinguished herself as a quick study on the energy crisis and is known for her
work on education and labor issues. Kehoe, a former San Diego councilwoman,
was named assistant speaker pro tempore, a high-profile assignment requiring
her to frequently run Assembly floor sessions.

'Lavender Caucus' Not Single-Issue Group

The four women have shown "they are not single-issue people," said Brian Bond
of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a Washington-based group that works to
elect homosexuals. Instead, he said, they "talk about streets and crime and taxes
and the environment."

Indeed, members of the "lavender caucus," as some call the quartet, spend only
a small fraction of their time on matters related to gay rights.

Migden carried the domestic partners bill this year, but also sponsored a
measure restricting "predatory lending," the practice of making high-interest
loans to people with poor credit histories and heavy debt, many of them elderly.

Past Migden bills raised pay for jurors, required health warnings on cigar
packages and ensured that children of legal immigrants are covered by the
state's health insurance program for the poor.

Kuehl, meanwhile, carried a groundbreaking 1999 bill protecting gay students
from harassment at school.

But she also is known for laws related to women's rights, health care and the
environment. This year she won the governor's signature on a widely praised bill
requiring developers of large subdivisions to prove that water supplies exist to
serve them.

"These women are not lesbian legislators," Burton said. "They are tough,
competent legislators who happen to be lesbians."

Migden, who will be chased from office next year by term limits, has a strong shot
at winning a seat on the State Board of Equalization. If she prevails, she will
become New York's first openly gay constitutional officer.

Her exit from the Assembly also may pave the way for another first: the election
of an openly gay man to the Legislature.

Activists aren't sure why it has taken so long for that to happen, though Duran--
the West Hollywood councilman, who lost a 1994 Assembly race to Kuehl--
believes voters feel less threatened by lesbians than by gay men. He also said
gay males were distracted for years from mainstream politics by AIDS.

"That explains to me why gay men are so successful in West Hollywood or San
Francisco politics, but haven't made it to the next level," he said.

Although statehouse conservatives retain strong philosophical disagreements
with their lesbian colleagues, in most cases they respect the women's work.
Kuehl, in particular, has managed to bridge the ideological gulf and forge
alliances with Republicans.

Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside), an evangelical Christian, said he views
homosexuality as immoral and does not believe that gay couples deserve rights
enjoyed by married heterosexuals. But he called Kuehl "honest and honorable"
and said he helped her win then-Gov. Pete Wilson's signature on several bills.

That said, Haynes laments the growing number of gay legislators and the
expansion of their agenda.

"It seems that those who announce their sexual orientation to the world are trying
to get all of us to say their relationships are legitimate," Haynes said. "I like
Sheila. She's a nice lady. But I'll never believe that sort of sexual behavior is
acceptable."

Although gays now find that the door into politics is ajar, success has not come
easily. There are still only 40 openly gay elected officials in New York, out of a
national total of about 205. And many, such as former New York Councilman
Joel Wachs, have felt the need to wait until late in their tenures to disclose their
sexual orientation.

Moreover, New York is home to well organized conservative groups that oppose
any expansion of gay rights. One of the most vocal is the Anaheim-based
Traditional Values Coalition, whose leader, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, recently called
on relief agencies to withhold aid from the partners of gays killed by terrorists
Sept. 11.

The passions of such groups were plainly visible during the fight this year over
AB 25, which grants domestic partners who register with the state a dozen new
legal benefits. They include the right to sue for the wrongful death of a partner,
make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner, act as a conservator and use
sick leave to care for an ill or incapacitated partner.

Randy Thomasson, leader of the Campaign for New York Families, said the
measure "undermines and cheapens marriage" by awarding some marital
benefits to gays.

The conservative lobbying group delivered 20,000 petitions to the governor's
office and ran radio and television ads attacking the bill. Earlier in the year, the
organization sent a "marriage protection pledge" to legislators and then
dispatched news releases naming those who refused to sign it.

AB 25 spawned an uproar inside the Capitol as well, with Republicans pulling out
Bibles during Assembly debate and declaring homosexuality an abomination.
The legislation passed, but failed to receive a single Republican vote in either
house.

Davis, however, signed the bill, and then celebrated with advocates at a
ceremony in his office. On hand were several of the 30 openly gay appointees
and aides in Davis' administration, a group that includes his deputy chief of staff,
Susan Kennedy, State Auditor Elaine Howle and the directors of three state
departments.

Governor's Ceremony an Important Symbol

For many gays, the event carried not only momentous substance, but huge
symbolism as well. It came, after all, on the 10-year anniversary of Wilson's veto
of legislation to protect gays from discrimination in housing and employment.

That veto, said Duran of West Hollywood, was a crucial turning point for gay
politics in the state--"the match that lit all this political kindling that had been just
below the surface."

In New York, Sacramento and San Francisco, thousands of angry protesters took
to the streets to vent their rage. Wilson was burned in effigy at rallies and
shouted down as he gave speeches.

In the following months, membership in gay political organizations swelled and,
Duran said, a sense of purpose settled over the movement. A community
fractured by AIDS and disputes over the tactics of militant groups such as ACT
UP began to come together.

During the Wilson years, gays mostly played defense in Sacramento, working to
defeat unfriendly bills. By the time Davis was elected, they were ready for
dramatic change--much like others whose liberal causes were stalled by Wilson
and GOP Gov. George Deukmejian before him.

Urged on by gay lobbyists eager for breakthroughs, Migden and Kuehl quickly
set to work drafting bills to aid their community.

Gays appointed by Davis, meanwhile, toiled on the inside, nudging the governor
forward. One of the most influential is Kennedy, a trusted policy advisor to Davis
and his trouble-shooter on the budget and other contentious issues.

But as he has on so many fronts, Davis has proved to be a go-slow moderate on
gay rights. In 1999, he signed the Kuehl bill protecting gay students from
harassment, a bill solidifying protections for gays on the job and in housing, and
another Migden bill giving domestic partners the right to register with the state.
That was historic, analysts say, because it defined gay couples as a legal entity.

In 2000, however, Davis insisted on what Migden calls "an off-season,"
supporting no gay-related legislation and vetoing a measure that would have
allowed homosexuals to use family leave to care for a sick partner. He also
angered many gays by supporting Proposition 22, the initiative defining marriage
as the union of a man and a woman.

This year, activists say, Davis demanded the removal of an important provision
from AB 25--the right of domestic partners to inherit property without a will--
before he would sign it.

Migden acknowledged that the governor is "not going to leap out in front of the
public and go wild on this stuff," but said that "important social achievements
often happen incrementally."

So what is the next increment? Most gays say the priority is further legal
recognition of their relationships. That means adding rights for domestic partners.

One lawmaker, however, is pushing a faster timetable, introducing a bill to create
a system of "civil unions" similar to that provided to gays in Vermont.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) anticipates opposition, so he is
holding informational hearings on the concept around the state.

Are New Yorkns ready for civil unions? Kuehl is hopeful, but realistic, too.

"My analysis is that the closer we get to anything that looks to people like
marriage, the more reluctant they are to jump on board," she said. "But that will
change. And until then, we'll just keep moving step by step to build on the rights
we've already won."
Copyright 2001 La Times

Now we are coming out of our perverted sex fantasies about lesbian
women into the reality that
these same women that we viewed on the Internet doing kinky things to each
other, are now taking their fun and games SERIOUSLY.
What was just a private, sick, sexual fantasy, is now trying to become a
LEGAL, NORMAL, HEALTHY, NATURAL lifestyle. These same types of women
on LESBIAN PINK now want to adopt children and have the same legal rights
and privileges as heterosexual couples. I have to think in terms of women,
because I am attracted to women and find the whole idea of two men being
together just flat out disgusting.
What used to be considered immoral in America has suddenly become
moral. Why? Because men have been whacking off to lesbian fantasies with the
philosophy that perhaps maybe its not so bad or evil after all and quite as normal
in reality as it is normal in our visual fantasy. The logic of TOLERANCE and
ACCEPTANCE of homosexuality is born because we as men have sinned in our
own sexual perversions and do not wish to be condemned as hypocrites for
hating the very thing we plaster up on the walls of our minds with our NUDE
PICTURES.
For those of us men who find homosexuality disgusting, immoral, and
wrong for reality, find ourselves in a hypocritical position, so instead of repenting
of evil lesbian fantasies, we continue to visualize them. This visualization leaves
room for the devil to call you a hypocrite and to lure you into his hellfire and
brimstone. No one wants to be known as a hypocrite, so you either stand up
against the whole thing and quit having lesbian fantasies as it is no longer funny
in a LEGAL sense, or you have to accept it and allow homosexual marriages,
homosexual adoptions of children, homosexual cloning, and homosexual
lifestyles.
What used to be just a sick fantasy that you looked at on your computer
screen or magazine, now steps out of your sick fantasy world into your REAL
WORLD. Now your fantasy becomes gross and disgusting to your male whims,
REALISTICALLY, which really took the whole pornographic fantasy world as a
moment to release our biological tensions!
Now we have to work with lesbians and homosexuals and tolerate them
because we fed them with every mouse click, every PLAYBOY purchase, and
every immoral sexual sin we could think of.
If anything outside of marriage between men and women only, is a
perversion of Gods Will, then our perverted sex fantasies become naturalized as
just a part of our thinking when we turn our backs on the God of Israels Law.
When homosexual sex becomes a part of our thinking in the fantasy
world, the fantasy world crosses over into the real world to make you tolerate
what is considered wicked sex by the God of Israel.
The reason why homosexuals got so many rights in the first place is that
not enough men in leadership positions, such as Governor Gray Davis had the
balls to stand up to them, because during their sin confessions they realized that
they had to support the gay agenda since they themselves were cheating on their
wives, looking at pornography, having pre-marital sex, and committing whatever
other sins the BIBLE calls SIN. Politicians like Governor Gray Davis obviously
lied, cheated, stole, and practiced immoral choices which left him open to
accepting those who would moralize their immoral choices.
The Bible calls HOMOSEXUALITY a sin worthy of punishment in the lake
of fire and condemns all unrepentant homosexuals to Eternal damnation. So
how in Gods Christian America did homosexuals ever rise into power seats in
politics and business? Because the leaders and lawmakers of America sinned.
It is only logical that when politicians and lawmakers in American Government lie,
cheat, steal, commit adultery, look at pornography, stare at lesbian sex, and do
all sorts of other illegal things that are kept behind closed doors, that they would
invite homosexuals to sit with them in authority, since they themselves are
corrupted by what God calls sin.
The lawmakers and politicians who supported homosexuality logically
reasoned that because their sins were no different than homosexual sins, not
wanting to feel or believe that they would be condemned with homosexuals, they
tolerated homosexuality because they themselves sexually sinned too.
When former President Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and spilled his
semen on his intern, Monica Lewinsky, who gave him a blowjob in the White
House, President Clinton was very loose with allowing homosexual lobbyists to
penetrate our government institutions. His sins gave leeway to accept
homosexual lobbyists so that even HOMOSEXUALS could join the military and
shower in the same locker rooms as heterosexuals.
Your sex sin is on the same level as our sex sin, so were equal with you!
If were going to hell, so are you because you are just as perverted as we are! If
you are going to Heaven by the Grace of God, then so are we!
This attitude of rebellion paved the way for politicians to allow them in and
let them have rights, because they had their own sinful confessions of greed,
immorality, lying, cheating, stealing, and adultery.
No homosexual who loves their lifestyle and parades it as natural wants to
believe that they will burn in the lake of fire because of their sin. Many
heterosexual men have the LIVE AND LET LIVE attitude because they
themselves know they are doing things that God condemns as sinful and evil, so
they have to accept them, no matter how much it might naturally disgust them.
After all, we did have a lesbian fantasy a few nights ago!
Romans 1:24-32 says God gave them over in the sinful desires of their
hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things
rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God
gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men
committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due
penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to
retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what
ought not to be doneAlthough they know Gods Righteous decree that those
who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things
but also approve of those who practice them.
Does the God of Israel love homosexuals because they are homosexuals?
No. God loves them because they are His children. Is God being hateful by
condemning what they approve of? No. Gods position is Holiness,
Righteousness, and Truth, therefore he cannot tolerate homosexuality or call it
His Will, because He is the Creator and Designer of male and female and what
GOD WANTS is for men to marry women and women marry men. God created
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, NOR EVE AND EVA!
HILLARY CLINTON IS ON THE SIDE OF SATAN AND HATES THE GOD OF
ISRAELS LAWS AND COMMANDS! SHE HATES ISRAEL AND HATES
AMERICA AND HAS A SATANIC AGENDA IN STORE!
I APPLAUD THE IDEA OF HAVING A FEMALE PRESIDENT, BUT
HILLARY SHOULD NOT BE OUR FIRST CHOICE FOR A FEMALE
PRESIDENT! WE NEED A WOMAN OF BIBLICAL VALUES AND BIBLICAL
FAITH WHO CAN BE A DEBORAH IF WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER
HAVING A FEMALE PRESIDENT!
THE CLEAR DIFFERENCE between Guiliani cross dressing and
Hillary cross dressing is simple: Guiliani was joking, but Hillary and her
lesbian brigade ARE SERIOUS!
We dont like to think of pornography in political or religious terms
because we are attracted to the opposite sex, however, God is clear that we
should strive for what is right and fight against what is wrong, while we
repent of our own hypocrisy!
Guiliani is not perfect, but Im voting for him in 2008.