Culture War Archives - Page 1063 of 1075

‘Kangaroo court’ convicts pro-life activist for holding a sign

March 4, 2014/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Must Read, News/by MassResistance

After having had phony charges against him dismissed several times, this was bound to happen eventually.
On Wednesday, Feb. 12, pro-life activist Peter D’Attilio was convicted by a jury on three charges stemming from an incident when he held a pro-life sign in front of a school in Brockton, Mass. on March 21, 2012. After a two-day trial in Brockton District Court, the six-person jury found him guilty of disturbing a school, trespass, and resisting arrest. MassResistance was present for the entire trial.

Brockton District Court in downtown Brockton, Mass.

Those verdicts came despite the fact that Peter’s lawyer (using testimony by the prosecution’s own witnesses) clearly proved that he did not commit any of those crimes. This was a monumental miscarriage of justice. In the end, the facts and evidence mattered very little.

Seemingly everything in this trial was stacked against him: (1) A hostile judge who was new to the bench. (2) A jury that appeared to be made up of several people who were strongly pro-abortion. (3) A young prosecutor who largely ignored the facts and focused on demonizing Peter personally in the eyes of the jury. And (4) a police report with blatant untruths.

In our opinion, it seemed this was meant to send a strong message to pro-life activists. By local standards, this was a “nuisance” case that would normally never have gone forward. In Brockton there is a backlog of actual violent crimes. And this one, on its face, had no substance. It did not involve injury, damage, theft, etc., but was more political in nature. Nevertheless, neither the judge nor the District Attorney’s office would relent.

Peter D’Attilio’s pro-life ministry

Peter D’Attilio is a pro-life hero in Massachusetts. He is a religious Catholic who runs a pro-life ministry called “Defenders of Women.” Its mission is to educate high school and college students about the true nature of abortion, versus what Planned Parenthood tells them in school. He usually carries a sign with diagrams about a baby in the womb, and passes out bookmark-like pamphlets.

Peter gives a pro-life talk at Boston City Hall Plaza to kids who had gathered there — while a Jimmy Fund event takes place behind him.

Carrying a video camera

Unfortunately, he has been viciously harassed and even beaten up by local police who don’t like his message. A few years ago the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that people have the right to video police who are confronting them. So Peter brings a video camera for protection. It has come in handy; he has documented several illegal harassments by police with YouTube videos, such as this example. He is often falsely charged by angry police. Until now, every charge against him relating to carrying a sign has been dismissed by a judge.

A few months previous to the incident in this case, Peter had an encounter at a different Brockton school with the same police officer. He was similarly not doing anything illegal. At that time, the police harassed him but did not arrest him.

In 2011 Peter got this black eye when beaten by the police in Franklin, Mass. But there were no witnesses who would come forward. After that he decided to carry a video camera with him when holding his sign.

What happened on March 21, 2012

The incident took place on March 21, 2012 in Brockton, Mass. (Shortly afterwards, Peter submitted a detailed description of what happened to MassResistance.)

Basically, this is what happened:

Peter had been holding his sign with his handouts at the Brockton bus terminal about 7:30 am. A high school girl walking to school spoke to him. She said she was pro-life, and offered to show him where the school was. They walked to the school together, which was a few blocks away. She went into the school with some of his materials to give to others.

Peter with the sign he was carrying on March 21, 2012. (It folded in the middle for easy carrying.) You can see a closer view of it here.

Peter started walking down the sidewalk next to the school. There were only a few students around.

Suddenly the school principal came out of the building and approached Peter, telling him that he was disturbing students. Peter pulled out his video camera and asked him to repeat what he said, but he turned around and walked back into the school. Peter continued to stand on the public sidewalk.

Almost immediately a police officer came and began to approach Peter. Peter pulled out his video camera and turned it on. Peter asked the cop what he had done wrong, and told him that he had the right to stand on a public sidewalk. The cop got very angry and demanded that Peter leave immediately. He reached out and pushed the camcorder, but Peter held on to it.

The cop got angrier and more threatening, so Peter decided to leave. He started walking away, crossing the street. The cop followed him and continued to yell at him, telling him to go home. Peter’s video camera was still on and pointed toward the cop. He was also holding his sign and his handouts.

As soon as Peter got to the other side, without any warning the cop tackled him to the ground. Peter then realized he was being arrested but did not know why. Peter went limp, and the cop quickly handcuffed him and put him into the patrol car. The cop took the video camera, but the sign and handouts were left behind on the ground. When Peter asked about his sign the cop refused to gather it. Normally, a police officer collects the person’s property when arresting him.

ABOVE: Peter was on sidewalk next to school. Principal came out red door near tree. Police officer confronted Peter on sidewalk in front of tree. Peter then crossed the street to leave the area.

RIGHT: Police officer followed Peter across the street and tackled him to the ground here.

Peter was doing full-time pro-life work and not being paid. Without that sign, he told us, he could not do his pro-life work. He could not afford to replace it, either. (At the trial, the police officer testified that the sign was “too big” to put in the car. In fact, all of Peter’s signs have been about the size of a regular poster-board.)

The arrest

Peter was taken to the station, but not taken inside immediately. They left him in the car for 20 minutes, which is unusual, before taking him inside. He was booked, fingerprinted, and charged with (1) disturbing a school; (2) trespass; and (3) resisting arrest.

Afterwards, Peter had to go back to the school to try to find his sign. A crossing guard said he had it, but told Peter that the officer would not let him give it back. Peter was able to contact the officer and persuade him to allow him to have his sign.

Peter was arraigned the next day in Brockton District Court.

The missing tape from the video camera

The officer’s police report included several statements which Peter strongly denied. It said that the officer observed Peter “filming the students and school officials” and that he “informed Mr. D’Attilio several times that if he did not leave school grounds that he would be placed under arrest.” It also said that Peter was “on school grounds” rather than on the public sidewalk.

Is that true? Was Peter taping kids? Did the officer actually say those things to him? The tape in the video camera would certainly reveal that, since his camera was on the entire time the police officer was at the scene.

After Peter’s arraignment, the police finally gave Peter back his video camera. But the camera had been broken open and the cassette tape was missing. Peter asked numerous times about getting the tape back. A clerk at the police station told Peter that the police officer confirmed to her that he had taken the tape out of the camera and that he had the tape, but that Peter couldn’t get it right now, though possibly later.

Peter’s broken video camera right after he got it back from the Brockton Police Department. The cassette tape had disappeared.

They kept stalling. After Peter’s lawyer sent a formal letter to the department requesting the tape, the police changed their story and said that the camera had never had a tape in it. That’s what the officer testified at the trial.

The trial begins

Over the next 22 months there were several hearings and postponements. But the District Attorney’s office insisted on prosecuting him. Finally, a jury trial was set for Tuesday, Feb. 11, in Brockton District Court. The trial lasted two days.

The judge was Cynthia Brackett. She was appointed by Gov. Deval Patrick last fall and had been a judge for less than four months. Before that, she spent her entire legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office. From the beginning, Judge Brackett seemed to be hostile toward the defendant.

In particular, she would not allow Peter’s lawyer to question the prospective jurors about their position on the abortion issue, if they had been involved with pro-abortion activism, or any questions involving abortion. She said that the subject of Peter’s sign (and his ministry to students) had no bearing on the case. So there was no way to tell how the jurors felt about that often very emotional subject.

Judging by the body language and looks on the faces of jurors during the trial, it appeared that a number of them had pro-choice sentiments to various degrees. And the prosecutor took full advantage of that.

To make matters worse, the police officer testified that the sign Peter was showing students “pictures of dead babies” and the slogan “say no to birth control.” That was not exactly true. Peter’s sign simply showed drawings of a baby in the mother’s womb during the abortion procedure. But the judge ruled that the jury may not be allowed to see the sign.

The judge also prohibited Peter’s lawyer from asking prospective jurors whether they accept the principle that citizens have a constitutional right to free speech, even if it may be offensive to others, or the right to disseminate information in a peaceful manner.

The prosecution had two witnesses: The principal of the school and the police officer. In several key instances, the eyewitness testimony of the principal was at odds with the police officer’s testimony. And in many instances the police officer’s testimony conflicted with the apparent facts. Peter was the only witness for his defense.

Debunking all the charges against Peter

During the two-day trial, the actual evidence against Peter was virtually non-existent. All three charges appeared to be thoroughly debunked.

** Charge #1: Disturbing a school

It appears that false statements were added to the police report to conjure up the idea of “disturbing a school” when in fact Peter simply walked by the school.

The statute: Ch 272 Sec 40:

Whoever willfully interrupts or disturbs a school or other assembly of people met for a lawful purpose shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one month or by a fine of not more than fifty dollars . . .

The claim: Blocking access to the school. The police report said that the principal stated that Peter was “on school grounds preventing students from entering the building. “At the beginning of the trial, the prosecutor told the jurors that Peter was “blocking the door of the school” and “trying to block students from going inside.”

At the trial: Both the principal and the police officer testified that they did not actually see Peter blocking anything, or impeding anyone in any way.

The claim: Videotaping students. The police report said that the principal stated that Peter “was interviewing and recording students.” The report also said that the police officer observed Peter “with a recording camera filming the students.”

At the trial: Both the principal and the police officer testified that they didn’t actually see Peter filming any students at all.

In addition, according to the testimony, no students had complained about Peter in any way.

** Charge #2: Trespass

The public sidewalk is legally considered public property, not “private property” or “school property.” That fact was not disputed in this trial.

The statute: Ch. 266, Sec. 120:

Whoever, without right enters or remains in or upon the dwelling house, buildings, boats or improved or enclosed land . . . after having been forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises, whether directly or by notice posted thereon, . . . shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or both such fine and imprisonment.

The claim: The officer claimed that Peter left the sidewalk and briefly stood on the school walkway leading to the door — and therefore was “trespassing.”

At the trial: Peter strongly disputed that, and stated he is always very careful only to stand on a public sidewalk or public street, and that he never had any reason to leave the sidewalk.

The principal also testified that he only saw Peter walking on the public sidewalk. This conflicts with the police officer’s testimony. The officer said he saw Peter on the school walkway. But the principal was present the entire time the police officer was in the area. (Note: Neither was in the courtroom while the other was testifying.)

** Charge #3: Resisting arrest

This appears to be another trumped-up charge which fell apart during the officer’s testimony.

The statute: Ch 268 Sec 32b:

A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:

(1) using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the police officer or another;
or
(2) using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to such police officer or another.

. . . Whoever violates this section shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both.

The claim: The police report says that when the officer was placing Peter under arrest that he “proceeded to grab his right arm several times in order to place him under arrest. Mr. D’Attilio pulled back every time” — and that that constitutes “resisting arrest.”

However, the claim does not reference any “physical force or violence” or “a substantial risk of causing bodily injury” to the police officer, as the statute requires.

At the trial: The testimony revealed nothing remotely approaching the legal threshold for “resisting arrest.” The police officer testified that Peter “pulled a little bit” but “it wasn’t much of a struggle.” The principal, who witnessed it, said substantially the same thing. Neither of them mentioned any fear of violence or risk of bodily injury. Peter testified that he simply went limp when the police officer tackled him.

The real question is why the police officer tackled Peter to the ground. Peter was not running away. He was merely walking across the street. His hands were full; he was holding his sign and the flyers with one hand and the video camera with his other hand. He had no idea the police officer meant to arrest him.

The principal also testified that Peter was walking across the street with his hands full. It’s clear to us that the arrest came out of the officer’s anger towards Peter, and that he charged him with “resisting arrest” for no good reason.

A phony “resisting arrest” charge is unfortunately a common tactic. In another case in February 2012, a District Court judge actually berated the prosecutor for pursuing a phony resisting arrest charge against Peter.

Prosecutor’s strategy: Ignore the facts and demonize Peter

At various junctures during the trial when it was very clear that the case against Peter had no legal substance, his lawyer asked for a dismissal. Every time the prosecution vigorously contested it, and the judge steadfastly refused.

Even with a terribly weak case, the prosecution insisted on continuing. In fact, the prosecutor’s strategy had very little to do with the facts or the evidence. Instead, she focused almost entirely on demonizing Peter personally. She basically aimed to make the jury believe he was a dangerous threat to children and should be convicted no matter what happened in this incident.

For her closing arguments to the jury, she had Peter’s arrest photo introduced as evidence. She walked over and showed the photo to each juror and said something to the effect of “this is who he really is.”

This was a particularly odious trick. The photo was taken by the police department camera soon after Peter was tackled without warning, arrested, and brought into custody, and didn’t know what was going to happen next. He was under extreme stress.

The prosecutor introduced this police mug-shot of Peter as “evidence” and showed it to each individual juror in the juror’s box.

She twisted the nature of his pro-life ministry to make him seem like a child predator. Using Peter’s testimony of how he had gotten to the school, she harangued the jury that Peter was simply a grown man who had “picked up” a high school girl at the train station, walked with her to the school, and tried to approach other children.

And she persuaded the judge to allow Peter’s sign to be brought into the courtroom, but showed only the blank side — not the front side — to the jury. Thus, the jury was led to believe that the police officer’s testimony that the sign showed pictures of dead babies and a “say no to birth control” message was actually true. But they couldn’t see the front!

The verdict

The case was handed to the jury just before lunch on the second day. It wasn’t too long before they came back with their verdict. The foreman gave it quickly and deliberately:

Disturbing a school: “Guilty”
Trespassing: “Guilty”
Resisting arrest: “Guilty”.

They all seemed very intent and not the least bit unsure of themselves.

Peter was sentenced on the Trespass to 30 days House of Correction, suspended for one year. On the other two, he was placed on probation for one year with administrative (i.e. unsupervised) probation. He has to pay a “victim/witness fee” of $50 (mandatory on any guilty finding) and a $50 administrative fee each month — a total of $650.

Left to right: Peter’s attorney Stephen Foley, Peter, and Brian Camenker of MassResistance in the courthouse.

Stephen Foley is a smart, passionate pro-lifer who has represented Peter pro bono — and has stuck with him through thick and thin. Unfortunately, he can’t take on the appeal.

What’s next?

From now on — unless this gets appealed — all of the enemies of the pro-life cause, including the various police departments, can now label Peter a convicted criminal and treat him accordingly. This is outrageous. He was simply exercising his Constitutional rights for the pro-life cause, trying to reach the young people who most need to hear the message.

Unfortunately, it’s estimated that an appeal costs a minimum of $5,000 just to prepare, and there is a very short time frame to do it.

Peter is currently trying to find an attorney to file it for him. We’ll keep you posted.

We need more – not fewer – people like Peter D’Attilio

A lot of people talk about being pro-life. Peter D’Attilio actually does it. He gave up a successful landscaping business to go into inner-city neighborhoods and educate young people on the truth about abortion. He has endured enormous abuse, been arrested several times, jailed, even been beaten up by police. How many people are willing to face that?

But he has had wonderful successes bringing the light of truth to hundreds of young people whose only other sources of information are Planned Parenthood and pop culture!

Right now he needs everyone’s support. You can contact his ministry Defenders of Women at: all.credit.to.god@gmail.com.

Freedom of Association is No Excuse to Target Gays by Casey Given

March 4, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, News/by Dr. Rich Swier

A recent spate of proposed laws protecting business owners’ right to discriminate against homosexuals has reignited a longstanding debate in the libertarian community. Under the guise of protecting “religious freedom,” 13 states have each introduced bills over the past few months preempting the State from forcing employees to service individuals if they believe doing so conflicts with their beliefs. While none of the bills specifically mention homosexuality, each one effectively only applies to gays since most other classes (e.g. race, sex, religion) are protected under the federal Civil Rights Act.

Many libertarians have cheered the proposed laws, citing the small-government principle that the State has no business interfering in individuals’ private contracts. LewRockwell.com’s Lawrence M. Vance voiced his support of Kansas’s recent attempt, while admitting it “doesn’t go far enough,” reasoning that “[i]n as much as the bill legalizes—if only in a small degree—the freedom to discriminate, such provisions in it should be welcomed.” Such an instrumentalist approach to protecting freedom of association is strategically flawed, as the current bills’ targeting of gays suggests bigoted motives that libertarians best not associate with.

Legally, businesses in almost all of the 13 states in question already have the right to deny gays service. As mentioned previously, sexual orientation is not currently a protected class in the Civil Rights Act. While 21 states have compensated for this federal gap by enacting LGBT nondiscrimination acts of their own, no state considering the current legislation is in the number except Oregon. Thus, these anti-anti-discrimination bills do not expand freedom of association but merely serve as redundant reassurance of the right to not serve gays—effectively targeting the LGBT community.

While almost every libertarian would defend an individual’s right to associate (and not associate) with whomever they choose, that’s not quite the issue with the current class of bills. Their implicit targeting alienates one demographic, making them look like not-so-subtle expressions of bigotry. The freedom of association issue looks like a red herring here.

As David E. Bernstein explained in a 2010 Cato Unbound essay, “I would be troubled if there was a sudden popular move to repeal antidiscrimination legislation, if it were unaccompanied by broader libertarian political trends, because it would suggest that opposition to such laws arose from hostility to minority groups, not from opposition to Big Government.” Granted, Bernstein is speaking about repealing antidiscrimination laws whereas the issue at hand is enacting laws that protect discrimination, but the underlying point is analogous. Namely, a libertarian push for protecting discrimination suggests its advocates are motivated by bigotry, regardless of whether it is the case or not. This point is only amplified in the present case. And perceptions matter.

Fortunately, the issue may be moot soon enough thanks to the massive public outrage that has accompanied these bills, prompting some of the most conservative state legislatures and governors to reject the measures. On February 18th, four bills in South Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, and Tennessee failed to pass their state legislatures. One week later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed another attempt that captured national attention.

Libertarians have a long history of being ahead of the curve on gay rights. The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971, decades before the two major parties dared to address the topic. Associating with an apparently homophobic push to protect the right to discriminate against gays that already exists would suddenly put the movement on the losing side of the question of LGBT equality.

ABOUT CASEY GIVEN

Casey Given is an editor and political commentator with Young Voices, a project aiming to promote Millennials’ policy opinions in the media.

The Crony Gap: Political Inequality is the Real Problem by Stewart Dompe, Adam C. Smith

March 4, 2014/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

When it comes to public discourse, inequality is immensely fashionable. Along with its featured position at this year’s Davos conference, it received top billing in President Obama’s recent State of the Union address. But most of this talk lacks merit.

Some inequality is in fact necessary; it provides the incentives for creativity and innovation. In other words, if inequality is a consequence of overall growth, then it’s a positive symptom. Apple revolutionized cell phone and tablet technology—fields littered with less profitable models—and very few would argue their profits were unearned, any more than they would argue that ordinary people have been made worse off by owning iPhones. If we can agree that some inequality is needed to incentivize wealth creation, the question becomes: What are the illegitimate sources of the inequality we see in the world?

Sources of Inequality

Inequality has emerged in the modern world for a number of reasons. For one, more money is currently accruing to capital than labor, as capital becomes scarcer in a regulated market. These returns to capital outpace that which goes to labor, and the divergence becomes significant over time.

The marketplace for labor has also changed, favoring those with unique skills in technology and finance. Those who are most productive in these areas are compensated handsomely. People who can put their skills to use in the new knowledge economy also often find increasing returns to their investment as compared with more traditional industries, which face diminishing patterns of growth.

President Obama’s answer is to spend more on education. His argument is that higher levels of education lead to increased productivity and better wages. But even if every dollar of additional spending was translated into human capital, this would be insufficient to prevent inequality. After all, many people eschew careers with high salaries because they want something different for their lives—think of art history majors. While these preferences may generate greater well-being, they will not necessarily alleviate income inequality; after all, engineers and computer scientists would see their productivity rise alongside their peers’.

So what about politics? Oxfam made waves at this year’s Davos World Economic Forum with a widely touted study of rising global inequality, “WORKING FOR THE FEW: Political capture and economic inequality.” What sets this piece apart from the virtual avalanche of recent anti-inequality manifestos is that it calls attention to an underreported, though fundamental, cause of economic inequality: political capture. Coming from Oxfam, which doesn’t exactly have the best record when it comes to economic assessment, it’s a welcome development.

The difference between political and economic causes of inequality is that political inequality is an artifact of government control, while economic inequality flows as a natural consequence of voluntary human action. Political inequality arises when the State controls access to markets or intervenes with largesse extracted from the market. It creates juicy prizes that only the politically connected can access and increases the value of otherwise expensive routes around the State.

The irony here is even when we properly diagnose the problem, we are just as likely to reinforce it as address it. So it is with the Oxfam report. While chastising the business community for putting its hands in public coffers, Oxfam cannot help but recommend policies that encourage only more political panhandling. Progressive taxation, greater public presence in education, health care and social protection, demand for a living wage, and stronger regulation of markets—each, in its own way, contributes to the very problem Oxfam ostensibly hopes to solve.

Take progressive taxation. On the face of it, this is a simple transfer from the rich to the poor. But if that’s the case, why does Warren Buffet pay so little in taxes in an already-progressive system? Or Mitt Romney? Steepening the tax curve only benefits wealthy accountants as the rich discover legal loopholes and tax shelters. Cayman Island accounts provide little in the way of “public benefit,” instead enabling such assets to go to greater capital investment. And greater capital investment only serves to widen the inequality gap, as we explained above.

Regulation of markets is another disturbing entry on the list. Regulation has long been a means for special interest groups to toy with the market process to further their own interests while burdening their competitors. Studies show there is a strong correlation between market regulation, political corruption, and an erosion of trust in public institutions. In other words, talented rent-seekers learn to rig the rules in their favor.

Furthermore, regulatory uncertainty can lead to capital scarcity as lenders will only invest in new ventures with a high enough rate of return to compensate for the increased risk. Firms also operate within a given capital structure that depends on the productivity of their employees. If well-intentioned regulation prices these employees out of the market, there might not be a viable substitute, in which case the productivity and return to that capital falls. Put another way, highly skilled workers are not always a substitute for unskilled workers if you have to radically alter the capital structure to accommodate them. So, say, if meatpackers are priced out of the market, their tools might not maintain their value; instead, the firm may hire an engineer to monitor and maintain a chicken de-boning robot. Ultimately, if regulation causes the existing capital structure to shift radically, existing capital might lose value—leading to far greater returns to what capital remains, increasing the divergence in income between those who hold the capital and those who don’t (e.g. computer coders vs. art history majors).

Finally, wage controls are probably one of the surest ways of undermining the efforts of the poor. It’s no wonder that unions are among the fiercest advocates for wage controls; they jump at any chance to push workers willing to accept lower wages out of the running for jobs. Even worse, those who are willing to work for less are usually the very poor who need the income most. It might not pay all the bills, but it’s certainly better than no job at all. This was indeed the finding of a recent CBO report indicating that current proposals to raise wage floors to $10.10 would result in the elimination of 500,000 jobs.

To competently address any justifiable concerns regarding income inequality, we have to maintain focus on the problematic features of society that lead to it. Simply decrying inequality itself clouds the issue. Political inequality is the sort that makes people worse off, and kudos go to those who are willing to admit this. But it takes more than acknowledgement. It takes an understanding of how wealth is created and how it is distributed to truly root out the illegitimate causes of wealth inequality. Considering just how political inequality operates to undermine the economic forces of wealth creation is therefore a useful lens in determining what makes our society less equal.

ABOUT STEWART DOMPE

Stewart Dompe is an instructor of economics at Johnson & Wales University. He has published articles in Econ Journal Watch and is a contributor to the forthcoming Homer Economicus: Using The Simpsons to Teach Economics.

ABOUT ADAM C. SMITH

Adam C. Smith is an assistant professor of economics and director of the Center for Free Market Studies at Johnson & Wales University. He is also a visiting scholar with the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University and coauthor of the forthcoming Bootleggers and Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics.

Dirty Dozen Sexual Exploiters of 2014 list includes Eric Holder, Verizon, Google and American Library Association

March 4, 2014/in Culture War, Featured, News, Policy, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Morality In Media (MIM) has released its 2014 Dirty Dozen LIst: 12 Leading Contributors to Sexual Exploitation. The top purveyors of pornography in America are:

Attorney General Eric Holder – Mr. Holder refuses to enforce existing federal obscenity laws against hard-core adult pornography, despite the fact that these laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively enforced by previous attorneys general.
Verizon – Verizon pushes porn into our homes now through hardcore pay-per-view movies on FIOS, smartphones and tablets and as an Internet Service Provider with insufficient filtering options.
Sex Week – Yale and other colleges and universities repeatedly offer Sex Week on campus. Porn stars are routinely invited to lecture, and pornography that glamorizes “fantasy rape” is screened.
Playstation – PlayStation’s live-streaming abilities are filling thousands of homes with live porn, and the PlayStation Store sells hundreds of pornographic and sexually violent games.
Facebook – Facebook has become a top place to trade pornography, child pornography and for sexual exploitation. Facebook’s guidelines prohibit such behavior, but the company is doing little to enforce them.
Barnes & Noble – This Fortune 500 Company is a major supplier of adult pornography and child erotica. They regularly put pornography near the children’s sections in their stores and provide free, unfiltered porn publications on their Nook e-reader.
Hilton – This hotel chain, like Hyatt, Starwood and many other top hotel chains, provides hardcore pornography movie choices. Porn channels are often the first advertisement on their in-room TVs.
American Library Association – The ALA encourages public libraries to keep their computers unfiltered and allow patrons, including children, to access pornography.
Google – Google’s empire thrives on porn. Porn is easily available, even to children, through YouTube, GooglePlay, Google Images and Google Ads.
Tumblr – This popular social media blogging site bombards users with porn. Users must only be 13, and the filters do not work.
50 Shades of Gray – This bestselling book series and upcoming movie are normalizing sexual violence, domination and torture of women. Oprah Winfrey Network, Broadway and other mainstream outlets have even promoted this abusive lifestyle.
Cosmopolitan Magazine – The magazine is a full-on pornographic, “how-to” sex guide, encouraging women to accept the pornified culture around them. They specifically market this content to teen girls.

ABOUT MORALITY IN MEDIA

Founded in 1962, Morality In Media (MIM) is the leading national organization opposing pornography and indecency through public education and the application of the law. MIM is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Currently, Morality In Media directs the War on Illegal Pornography coalition, an effort with Congress to pressure the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce existing federal obscenity laws.

MIM also maintains a research website about the harms of pornography and regularly directs national awareness campaigns to help the public understand the consequences of pornography and find resources to aid in their struggles. To see MIM other current efforts, click here.

Obama’s Queer Army on Display

March 3, 2014/in Culture War, National Security, News, Video/by Dr. Rich Swier

World Net Daily reports, “Almost seven decades after being the scene of one of the most ferocious and protracted battles of World War II – a site of legendary valor and sacrifice on the part of American soldiers – some U.S. service personnel stationed in Okinawa today are treating the world to another kind of display: “Gay” and lesbian service personnel performing in drag, to raise funds for their activities, to a sellout audience.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/z3eHX3xZGyw[/youtube]

As reported Sunday, openly homosexual service members at Okinawa’s Kadena Air Base took to the stage and performed as “drag queens” and “drag kings” Saturday “on a military installation in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender troops.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of World Net Daily and is of a U.S. Army soldier having makeup applied before performing in the cross-dressing show.

Oscar Winner Matthew McConaughey: “I want to thank God, He’s graced my life”

March 3, 2014/in Culture War, News, Video/by Dr. Rich Swier

“The delighted star was happy to accept the trophy for his part in ‘ Dallas Buyers Club‘ – in which he lost 50 lbs to play A.I.D.S. patient Ron Woodroof. He kissed his wife and hugged fellow nominee Leonardo DiCaprio as he went to accept the award,” reports Universal Free Press.

He said: ”First off I want to thank God, because he’s the one I look up to, he’s graced my life with opportunities which I know are not of my hand or any other human hand. He has shown me that it’s a scientific fact that gratitude reciprocates. In the words of the late [British actor] Charlie Laughton, who said, ‘When you got God you got a friend and that friend is you.’ ”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/deNAilnDY4I[/youtube]

Mathew then thanked his family, including his mother, Mary, his father, James, his wife, Camila Alves, and their three children, Levi, five, Vida, four and Livingston, 14 months.

EDITORS NOTE: Featured image courtesy of Universal Free Press.

Sex-change madness: DC says taxpayers must make dude look like a lady

March 3, 2014/in Culture War, Featured, Healthcare, News, Policy/by Allen West

The killer formerly known as Robert in 1990 & 1993 (Boston Globe photo)

There is bizarre and then there is just plain absurd. In another case of government telling the private sector what to do – this time in the area of healthcare – the absurdity knows no bounds.

As reported by the Associated Press, “Insurance companies in the District of Columbia have been ordered to stop denying coverage to transgender residents seeking gender-reassignment surgery. Mayor Vincent Gray says the new rules will end health-care discrimination against the transgender population. The district joins five states that guarantee such coverage.”

A bulletin issued Thursday by the city’s Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking says that gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition. It says the various forms of treatment for that condition, including sex-change procedures, are covered benefits.

So my immediate question is, will Medicaid be used to cover these treatments as well? Are American taxpayers now footing the bill for someone to have a sex-change operation? How does that get equal billing with cancer and diabetes?

This is yet another example of a different type of medical condition: liberal progressive mental disorder. Consider the Massachusetts case where a federal appeals court in Boston upheld a judge’s ruling that a transsexual inmate convicted of murder is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation as treatment for her (he is a dude) severe gender identity disorder.

According to Boston.com, in a ruling that was a first of its kind, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said courts must not shy away from enforcing the rights of all people, including prisoners. “And receiving medically necessary treatment is one of those rights, even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox,” the court said.

So now a taxpayer-funded sex change operation is a right?

The ruling came in the case of convicted wife killer Michelle L. Kosilek. Formerly named Robert Kosilek, she (he is a dude) struggled for years with feelings that she was a woman inside a man’s body. Kosilek’s wife, Cheryl, thought she could cure Kosilek, the court said. But Kosilek strangled her in Mansfield in 1990 and dumped her body in a car at a mall in North Attleborough. Mayor Gray says people with gender dysphoria, also known as gender identity disorder, “should not have to pay exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses for medically necessary treatment.”

So this is how it works folks, progressive socialists — and the gay special interest lobby — find complicit medical professionals to support their assertions. Since gender dysphoria has been declared a valid medical condition, it has to be treated.

The hormone treatments and elaborate surgical procedures are just another new healthcare insurance cost to be shared by others. This is right up there with the insanity in Texas when some rich kid who killed four people in a drunk driving accident was declared to be suffering from a medical condition called “affluenza.” Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!

I hear beard implants are now popular — could that be due to “duckdynastitis?”

If someone wants to alter the parts that God game him/her It is an elective surgical procedure which the individual should pay for themselves. Should the Medicaid and private insurance companies also pay for the change in wardrobe as someone awaits surgery?

Doggone, these liberal progressives just go along and make stuff up to achieve their demented agenda. In the progressive world, no one is responsible for anything. And everyone’s emotions and sentiments can be classified as some condition, which the government (read liberal progressives) must take care of — actually the hardworking American taxpayer must pay for.

If you’re a fella and not happy with being a fella, and want to be a girl, that’s your individual choice. You want to alter your body? Go right ahead and write a check.

And don’t give me all that special interest medical condition rhetoric. My taxpayer dollars should not be used this way. Nor should I have to assume the cost of this in my own private healthcare insurance plan.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Coach Dave Daubenmire: Nobody wants to talk about the sin part of the Bible

March 1, 2014/in Culture War, News, Video/by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

Coach Dave Daubenmire discusses his Christian faith and homosexuality in this interview with the ABC and FOX affiliates in Columbus, Ohio. Coach Dave–who recently was denied a football coaching job at Lakewood High School, his alma mater, after being targeted by a homosexual cyber-smear campaign–ably refutes the Big Lie that opposing same-sex sin constitutes “hate.” Here is the link to the Columbus FOX28 site with the interview; and click HERE to watch this on YouTube.

Click HERE for AFTAH’s background article on the Daubenmire non-hiring story and to get contact information for the Lakewood School Board that voted against him for the coaching job that the school had originally recruited him to fill. The FOX 28 write-up on the interview follows after the video (after the jump). To support Coach Dave, visit his Pass the Salt Ministries website.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/l-F29XJm29I[/youtube]

Columbus, Ohio FOX28 reports [Editor’s note: It is interesting that this report fails to mention the outside lobbying campaign against Daubenmire that ignited this controversy]

Controversial Former Football Coach Talks to ABC 6/FOX 28

Updated: Friday, February 14 2014, 08:45 PM EST

HEBRON, Ohio — (Maria Durant/Ken Hines) — A football coach known for his controversial conservative Christian views spoke out Friday about his hometown school board’s decision to deny him a coaching position on their high school football team.

Dave Dauenmire claims he was asked to apply for the job of head football coach at his alma mater, Lakewood High School. Daubenmire believes he was the right man to turn around the struggling team.

“I’m a builder of broken football programs,” Daubenmire said, “And there’s no program more broken than Hebron-Lakewood.”

The potential hiring of Daubenmire caused widespread concern among members of the Hebron community due to his outspoken criticism of homosexuality, a view which he has made public through YouTube videos.

“So when I look at the homosexual behavior, they say I hate them, I’m saying I hate what they’re doing,” Daubenmire said.

As for Daubenmire’s potential reaction to a homosexual player, he claimed he would “handle it the same way as if I had a drug addict on my team. I’d love him.”

Daubenmire says he does not plan to look for another coaching position, stating that it would take away from his ministry, Pass the Salt, which operates mostly online.

CDC: 94 to 95 Percent of HIV Cases among Boys and Young Men Linked to Homosexual Sex

March 1, 2014/in Culture War, Featured, Healthcare, News/by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

CDC funds “gay” activist groups like GLSEN that promote acceptance of behavior tied closely to HIV.

The following is a graphic from a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) online slide presentation, “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults” ^[1]– breaking down the incidence of HIV among young men ages 13-24. In 2011, an astonishing 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual (“male-to-male”) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases among young men ages 20-24 (more analysis follows graphic) were from “gay” sex:

With the incidence of HIV among men so closely tied to homosexual sex, shouldn’t the government and all concerned and compassionate adults be urging young men and teenaged boys NOT to engage in or experiment with dangerous homosexual behavior? And yet, the CDC and other pro-”gay” institutions (including many schools public and private) are doing exactly the opposite, as they focus instead on affirming “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” youth as a “sexual minority.”

Feds Fund ‘Gay’ Youth Activist Groups

Another CDC document, “HIV and Young Men Who Have Sex with Men” (June 2012), reports that in 2011, the CDC awarded funds to two homosexual activists groups — the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSAN) — “to assist CDC-funded public health and environmental changes to help schools and communities meet the health and medical needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.” See this CNSNews article on the CDC grant.

With HIV rates growing among YMSM (young men who have sex with men), the CDC’s focus on building self-esteem among LGBT youth and creating a “positive school climate” for homosexuals — includes forming “gay”-affirming clubs in schools — seems disconnected from reality. The aforementioned CDC report on HIV and YMSM states:

“Gay-straight alliances (GSAs) are one approach being used to create safe and welcoming school environments. Research has shown that in schools with support groups such as GSA’s, lesbian, gay and bisexual students were less likely to experience threats of violence, miss school because they felt unsafe, or attempt suicide than those in schools without such groups.”

In the same report, the CDC identifies the behaviors among young homosexuals that are causing the escalating HIV rates:

“A CDC analysis of data from 13 YRBS [Youth Risk Behavior Survey] sites found that sexual minority students, especially those who identified as homosexual or bisexual, were disproportionately likely to engage in many health risk behaviors, including sexual risk behaviors (such as having sexual intercourse for the first time at younger ages, having multiple sex partners, and not using condoms); tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use; and behaviors related to attempted suicide.”

Elsewhere in the CDC report it touts CDC funding for “school health professionals … to help them understand the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and shape behavioral messages accordingly.” But those behavioral messages apparently do not include discouraging students from engaging in homosexual sex.

Elephant in the room

The chasm between the obvious and extreme health risks associated with “gay” male sex and the CDC’s politically correct, pro-homosexuality mindset reflects public policy malpractice on an Orwellian scale. “Gay” activist ideology and assumptions — including intrinsic (many would claiminnate) “gay”/bi/transgender identities — go unquestioned at the CDC. Ironically, the most direct answer to the HIV-youth crisis — teaching young people NOT to practice unhealthy homosexual sex — is the one thing that is essentially forbidden.

All across America, “gay” activists and their straight liberal allies are advocating “gay”-positive lesson plans and strategies in response to anti-homosexual bullying. However, while everyone can agree that all bullying is wrong, many “anti-bullying” programs double as pro-LGBT affirmation programs. This is troubling because:1) bullying can be discouraged with neutral messaging that does not promote “out and proud” homosexuality and transgenderism; and 2) in the name of “safety,” educators and cultural elites are advocating a sexual lifestyle that has continually been shown to be dangerous, particularly for males.

Reference:

^[1] Produced by the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention, a division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. Data is for 2008-2011.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an edited version of the IPSF HIV/AIDS Campaign Logo created by Amrsobhy. The use of this image in no way implies endorsement of the author or content of this column. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

Miranda Barbour: “Satan’s Killer Girl”

February 26, 2014/in Culture War, News, Video/by Bill Finlay

Nineteen-year old Miranda Barbour is in jail for murder. Its time for the Christians of America to speak out against the culture of death.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/yOpj1mhy9JY[/youtube]

According to Thomas Jivanda from The Independent:

A woman charged with the murder of a man she and her husband lured to a meeting point after meeting him on Craigslist, has admitted to the murder and claimed she has killed over 20 other people.

Miranda Barbour, 19, of Pennsylvania said she killed at least 22 others across the US as part of her involvement in a Satanic cult.

Speaking to Pennsylvania’s Daily Item newspaper from jail, Barbour said: “When I hit 22, I stopped counting,” adding that she was coming clean now as she wanted to be honest.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Barbour and her newly-wed husband Elytte Barbour, 22, for the murder of Troy LaFerrara, 42, who they met through the classified advertisements website in November.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image “Devils Goat” is by Diablorex. It is a typical modern of depiction of satan (or the devil, lucifer, diabolos, etc.) in the likeness of a goat with horns and goatee. This image evolved from ancient depictions of the god pan. Diablorex does not in any way endorse the author, this video or the use of the work in this post. The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

Southern Poverty Law Center drops Nation of Islam from list of “hate groups”

February 26, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, National Security, News/by Jihad Watch

Image from the FBI monograph of the Nation of Islam (1965): Typical Front Pages of Cult Newspaper

The SPLC lists Jihad Watch, of which I am the director, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, of which I am vice president, and its Stop Islamization of America project as hate groups, and these classifications, unsurprisingly, have become a staple of every report from lazy Leftist journalists. None of them ever pause, and probably none of them ever wish to pause, to consider the question quis custodiet ipso custodes? — Who watches the watchmen? Why is fighting for the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people now classified as “hate”? An uncritical, uninformed public takes for granted that the SPLC is some kind of neutral observer, when actually it is a far-Left attack outfit, using its “hate group” classifications to stigmatize and demonize foes of its political agenda. But it classifies no Islamic jihad groups as “hate groups,” and has now dropped the racist, violent and paranoid Nation of Islam from its hate group list.

The cynicism and irresponsibility of this is obvious. Not that any mainstream media reporter will deign to report on it.

“Number of Ohio hate groups drops in 2013, report says,” by JoAnne Viviano for The Columbus Dispatch, February 25:

The number of hate groups in Ohio fell by about 17 percent in 2013, according to data released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The center counted 30 such groups in the state in 2013, compared with 36 in 2012.

Nationwide, the center says, the number of identified hate groups dropped by about 7 percent, from 1,007 to 939, the fewest number since 2009. Numbers had increased each year from 1999 to 2011, climbing from 457 to 1,018.

The report, titled “The Year in Hate & Extremism,” cited these factors for the decline: the co-opting of issues by mainstream politicians, an improving economy, law-enforcement crackdowns, same-sex marriage advancements, implementation of national health-care changes, Obama’s re-election, and little action on firearms and immigration laws.

“Those factors, along with the collapse or near-collapse of several major groups for a variety of reasons, seem to have taken some of the wind out of the sails of the radical right, leaving the movement both weaker and somewhat smaller,” says the report, which appears in the spring 2014 edition of the center’s Intelligence Report.

“But that has not dampened the violence and terrorism coming out of the movement.”

Remember when you read that about “violence and terrorism” that the SPLC lists no Islamic groups as “hate groups.”

The center said two hate groups are in central Ohio: ISD Records of Lancaster, in Fairfield County, is categorized as a racist-music group, and the Columbus-based Mission: America is categorized as anti-gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender.

On its website, Mission: America addresses the center’s claims against it on a “to our critics” page. It refers to its hate-group label as a “deliberate and puzzling smear campaign” and asks readers to “please take every accusation with a great deal of skepticism.”

“Mission: America is not a hate group, as claimed by the far-left SPLC,” the statement says. “In fact, based on how the SPLC has begun listing respected Christian conservative groups as if they could be compared with the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, it seems that the SPLC would qualify for this label itself by using such underhanded and invalid tactics.

The statement goes on to say that the organization is not racist and that “we … don’t ‘hate’ homosexuals. We simply object to homosexuality, the behavior, which is unnecessary.”…

No longer identified as hate groups are a Columbus-based Nation of Islam group, classified as “black separatist,” and a Chillicothe-based Crusaders for Yahweh, termed an “identity” group….

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam’s beginnings click here. Wallace Fard founded the Nation of Islam in the 1930s. Christianity was the white man’s religion, declared Fard.

Miami lawsuit disenfranchises Floridians who voted to affirm natural marriage

February 26, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by Dr. Rich Swier

MIAMI, Florida – Florida Family Action along with a diverse coalition of citizen groups crossing racial, political, and religious lines, today filed a Motion to Intervene in Pareto v. Ruvin, the lawsuit initiated by homosexual activists seeking to declare Florida’s marriage laws unconstitutional.

Liberty Counsel, founded and led by Mat and Anita Staver, is one of the premier First Amendment constitutional advocacy groups in the country are representing the parties seeking to intervene. Florida Family Action is a cultural action organization with thousands of members across the state, devoted to preserving and protecting the institution of marriage.

Florida Family Action lead the campaign in 2008, when 62 percent of Floridians voted to pass Amendment 2, amending their state constitution to reaffirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Amendment 2 was the first constitutional amendment to clear the heightened 60% threshold for voter approval, thanks to the largest grassroots effort on any ballot issue in Florida’s history.

Having lost in the marketplace of ideas, and having failed to convince the public to adopt their radical version of “marriage,” homosexual activists have now filed suit, asking Miami judge Sarah Zabel to throw out the votes of 8 million Floridians, and to judicially impose homosexual marriage upon all Floridians.

In addition to Florida Family Action, Liberty Counsel represents two other umbrella civil rights organizations who are seeking to intervene to protect both marriage and the voting rights of all Floridians. PEOPLE UNITED TO LEAD THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY is a civil rights umbrella organization consisting of 35 civic groups and representing thousands of African-Americans and other minorities. FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE is one of the leading Hispanic-led human rights organizations in Florida, with thousands of members throughout the state, many of which are registered Democrats. Each of these organizations was instrumental to the passage of Amendment 2, and all are uniting to defend natural, man-woman marriage, and to the right of every Floridian to have his or her vote counted.

John Stemberger, President of Florida Family Action, previously stated after the lawsuit was originally filed that, “The six same-sex plaintiff couples in this lawsuit appear to be very sincere and are certainly free to self-define themselves and have private civil commitment ceremonies. But they, and the activists who motivated them to file this suit, are not free to redefine a fundamental human institution which has served civilization since the beginning of time.”

According to Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, “This lawsuit threatens to disenfranchise millions of Floridians who voted to affirm natural marriage, and to supplant the clearly expressed will of a super majority of Florida’s voters with the radical vision of homosexual activists who cannot win at the ballot box,” added Horatio Mihet, Liberty Counsel’s Senior Litigation Counsel. “We are committed to provide a vigorous defense for marriage and voting rights,” concluded both.

Hollande government chokes on “Gender Theory”

February 25, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, News, Politics/by Nidra Poller

The French government’s attempts to have old-fashioned pink and blue sexual stereotypes replaced with a basket of new kinky stereotypes celebrating same-sex parents, homosexuals, transvestites and the like – have run into trouble.

France’s Socialist Hollande government, mired in unprecedented depths of unpopularity, was caught red-handed with its latest social engineering experiment: a pilot project in some 600 kindergartens based on gender theory. The issue had been stewing ever since the passage last spring of the same-sex marriage law that granted homosexuals the right to marry and raise children in wholesome families. Adoption rights are extended, children born in previous heterosexual relationships can be cuddled in recomposed matrimonially united 2-mother or 2-father families.

The implied promise of normalization of children brought into the world with the help of artificial insemination and womb rental and the eventual legalization of these methods in France rounded out the package. But widespread opposition to the indoctrination of male-female equality, starting with day care centers and kindergartens, has blocked the “social progress” momentum.

While tens of thousands of well-behaved citizens marched for five hours on February 2 in protest against the government’s “family phobic” measures, cabinet ministers, commentators and, for some reason, journalists, too, parroted government talking points: the demonstration was totally uncalled for. Neither womb-rental nor artificial insemination for lesbian couples is in the proposed Family Affairs bill. As for the decried gender theory, it doesn’t exist. Women’s Rights Minister & government spokesperson Najat Vallaud-Belkacem kept repeating: This demonstration is uncalled for, it’s based on fear mongering and vicious rumors, there is no such thing as gender theory, we are teaching male-female equality, helping children overcome stereotypes that lead to homophobia and violence again women while stifling their professional ambitions.

The Family Affairs bill is indefinitely postponed. Family values advocates are not reassured, the LGBT contingent is furious, and social engineering is alienating the Left’s Muslim clientele.

Farida Belghoul, who was in the forefront of the Beur [second generation Arab-Muslim immigrants] movement in the 1980s is back with JRE [journée de retraite de l’école]: Parents opposed to gender theory indoctrination keep their children home from school in a once-a-month boycott organized by Belghoul via her text message network. Farida Belghoul has forged an alliance with Alain Soral, France’s most unashamed National Socialist [= Nazi], 100 percent anti-Semite, and buddy-buddy with the comedian Dieudonné. Videos of her talks are posted on Soral’s Egalité et Réconciliation [Equality and Reconciliation] website, cheek to jowl with tirades against the “Jew-loving” Interior Minister Manuel Valls; the Minister of Education, Vincent Peillon, who is a Jew; and long winded exposés on the civilization Soral is defending… from the Jews.

Belghoul has no compunction about drawing French Muslims, including banlieue youths, into her coalition with Soral. A strong Catholic society, she declares, is the best protection for Muslims in France and worldwide. “If France falls, we all fall.” Her discourse and her physical appearance are frantic. Her plea for family reconciliation – husbands with wives, children with parents – seems to be fuelled by personal disappointments. She concludes her talks with a resounding “Vaincre ou mourir” [vanquish or perish]. Her claims about sexual indoctrination in the schools may be oversimplified and exaggerated, but when she displays a merry multiple family book that celebrates all combinations – mother & father + child, 2 mothers + child, 2 fathers + child, 1 female-female couple & 1 male-male couple + child, etc. – her exasperation is shared by multitudes outside of her unsavory movement.

Scores of titles were exposed in the aftermath of the February 2 demonstration. Opposition leader Jean-François Copé discovered “Tous à poil” [everybody strips]: everyone from the baby-sitter to the grandfather and including the postman, the teacher, the traffic cop is realistically drawn in explicit nakedness with full display of what used to be called the “private parts.” The publisher did a new print run of 2,000 to satisfy demand stimulated by the controversy. Vallaud-Belkacem said Copé is an Inquisitionist book burner.

Other titles emerged, celebrating same-sex parents, homosexuals, transvestites etc. via animals or human beings: Two male birds raise an egg deposited in their empty nest by an anonymous donor, a princess doesn’t like princes, a tomboy, a boy in frilly dresses, brother and sister toddlers playing tickly games in bed… in short, those silly old-fashioned pink and blue stereotypes are replaced with a basket of new kinky stereotypes. It turned into a game of ping pong: opponents of gender theory would display a title on official reading lists, national education authorities would deny it and simultaneously take it off the lists. The ABCs of Equality used in schools, they said, owes nothing to gender theory. It doesn’t exist.

Why do politicians keep lying in the old fashioned way when everything they ever said is available with one click of the mouse? Interviewed in August 2011 by the giveaway newspaper 20 Minutes, Belkacem is asked how “gender theory” can help change society. She replies: “By showing that the socio-cultural context is as much a factor as biology in determining ‘sexual identity’ gender theory raises the question of unacceptable, persistent inequalities between men and women, and homosexuality, and shows us how to educate on these subjects.” I noted Vallaud-Belkacem’s LGBT commitments in my profile [Dispatch International May 2013], and her intention to develop programs based on the findings of a commission she appointed to study sexual stereotypes. The report included an enthusiastic account of an experimental Norwegian kindergarten where the children were never identified as boys or girls.

Having copiously fawned over its Muslim clientele for decades – it is estimated that Francois Hollande got 80 percent of the Muslim vote to 14 percent for Sarkozy – the Left is alienating this electorate with its social engineering. On the other hand, voters attracted by the Left’s progressive agenda are drastically disappointed. The extent of the damage will be counted in the coming municipal elections (March 23 and 30).

Speaking of stereotypes, isn’t Najat Vallaud-Belkacem a sterling example of the use of feminine charm to defend anything and everything? Despite her boyish haircut and unisex style Vallaud-Belkacem is an attractive young woman with lovely eyes and French elegance. As befits her role, she speaks the words put in her mouth by the government, lies with disarming sincerity, attacks her opponents with a delicately sheathed blade.

As for President Hollande, he runs a full range of feminine attributes, from the fertility companion Ségolène Royal, mother of his four children, to Valerie Trierweiller, maturely glamorous journalist, to the sexy young movie star, Julie Gayet. And Najat asks kindergarteners why so few girls want to be stonemasons?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured picture is of François Hollande à Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire taken by Ludovic Lepeltier. The photo is under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Mainstream media in Massachusetts starts campaign to normalize transgenderism and sex-changes for schoolchildren!

February 25, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, News, Policy/by MassResistance

Pushing the transgender agenda to kids.These two men had a booth at the “Youth Pride” event in Boston last year. They were inviting middle school and high school students to a “Drag Gospel Festival”. [MassResistance photo]

MassResistance fights back on national radio.

This past year Massachusetts began to enforce its mandate that public schools fully accommodate the concept of “transgenderism” and cross-dressing by children. Now, a powerful campaign has been ramping up in the local mainstream media to normalize “transgenderism” and even sex-change operations for children in the eyes of the public.

As we reported last year and in our recent post on the “War on Children,” schools in Massachusetts are now directed to allow so-called “transgender” students — children who decide to “identify” as the opposite sex — to wear opposite-sex clothes to school, use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, and be called by an opposite-sex name. (California now has also mandated “transgenderism” in the public schools, and several other states are not far behind.)

This boy was marching in the state-supported “Youth Pride Parade” in Boston in 2013. This is what happens when homosexual and transgender adult activists are allowed to push their agendas in the schools.
[MassResistance photo]

But this has been happening relatively quietly. The general public still knows very little about it. But even in Massachusetts, seeing children involved in this makes people disturbed and outraged.

Thus the radical movement felt the need for a slick, effective PR campaign to change the public’s attitudes. In other words, the current stream of articles and radio spots is no accident or coincidence. Like similar homosexual-themed PR campaigns, this has the fingerprints of the well-funded and well-connected homosexual-transgender groups all over it. These groups have long worked hand in glove with their allies in the mainstream. Their activists and hand-picked “experts” appear in almost all of the articles.

Softening up the public

Not long ago this concept was considered so fringe and demonic that no even the homosexual newspapers would barely touch it. But the public is now being softened up to believe that this is an everyday occurrence — and even a “normal” part of life. There’s even the constant use of the opposite-sex pronoun (i.e., “he” when referring to a girl) to play not-so-subtle tricks with your mind.

Just a few examples over the last month:

A four-part series by National Public Radio in Boston about “Nate,” a girl who has decided she wants to be a boy:

* Jan. 22 – National Public Radio/Boston:
“Living Transgender – Part 1: Battling perceptions and pronouns.” Local NPR affiliate WBUR explores the “challenges facing transgender teenagers through the story of Nate, a 16-year-old transgender male” (i.e., a female).

* Jan. 22 – National Public Radio/Boston: “Living Transgender: Frequently Asked Questions, Resources” This is very frightening. It is mostly a collection of junk science, “queer theory,” and the opinions of radical “experts.” But it’s an example of what is being told to children as fact.

* Jan. 23 – National Public Radio/Boston:
“Living Transgender – Part 2: As A Transgender Teen, Nate Finds Acceptance At His School” The undertone is that normalizing transgenderism in schools is like integration and the Civil Rights movement.

* Jan. 24 – National Public Radio/Boston: “Living Transgender – Part 3: “Uncertainty Surrounds Medical Treatments For Transgender Youth.” A very distressing piece about medical procedures and body surgery to “change” a teenager from one sex to the other.

National Public Radio’s Boston affiliate, WBUR, did a four-part series celebrating this girl, who now calls herself “Nate” and dresses as a boy. She’s “uncomfortable” being a girl, and the radio report explores the “challenge” of getting people to call her “he.”
[Photo: WBUR]

* Feb. 9 – Boston Globe: “Transgender Revolutionary.” Article about a “male” teacher and coach at a boys’ private boarding school who is actually a woman with facial hair, who is “married” to a lesbian. She has written a book about a distant ancestor, a woman in the Revolutionary War who also dressed as a man, though later married and had children.

This woman, dressed as a man and taking testosterone to grow facial hair and lower her voice, coached the boys’ cross-country team at a private boarding school in Rhode Island. She is “married” to a lesbian, according to theBoston Globe article.
[Photo: Boston Globe.]

* February 18 – Boston Globe: “Transgender student takes national stage” One of three identical female triplets has taken hormones to grow facial hair in “his brave effort to become truly himself.”

The Boston Globe celebrates this girl’s so-called “transitioning” into a boy. This includes continually taking male hormones and an upcoming operation to have her breasts removed, according to the article.
[Photo: Boston Globe]

It’s also happening in California, which also passed a “transgender” school law:

* February 21 – San Gabriel Valley Tribune: (Also reported in the Los Angeles Times.) “Azusa High transgender student-athlete Pat Cordova-Goff attends first practice.” A boy who “identifies” as a girl is allowed to play on the school’s girls’ softball team, because of new California law.

A boy (right) who says he now “identifies” as a girl plays on the girls’ softball team, as mandated by California state law.
[Photo: Watchara Phomicinda]

A particularly disturbing aspect is the tone of all of these articles: They arecelebratory of this horrible situation, as if it were a great social triumph. They include no substantial opposing viewpoints. And they are completely dispassionate about the destructive nature of the medical procedures done to these kids to “improve” them. It is pure propaganda meant to normalize something that is profoundly abnormal.

Ignoring the damage

Unfortunately, the Left only thinks about its political agenda. It has no interest in the horrible trauma and sometimes suicidal feelings down the road when a person who went through “gender change” procedures realizes that he/she made a terrible mistake that may be unrecoverable. (Among other things, some of the medical procedures given to youth cause permanent sterilization.) It doesn’t “fix” the underlying problem of gender dysphoria, it only prolongs it. This has been documented at length by people like Walt Heyer and others who had hormone treatments and surgical procedures.

MassResistance fights back on national radio

On Monday February 17, Brian Camenker of MassResistance was featured on the national radio show “Crosstalk”, one of the most prominent Christian radio shows in the US. The show is broadcast on 97 radio stations across the country on the VCY America network.

The daily Crosstalk show is broadcast on 97 stations across America on the VCY America network.

Most people across America are completely unaware of the extent of the homosexual and transgender assault on children in the schools — particularly in the East Coast and West Coast where it’s at its worst. But Camenker laid it out for the radio audience. It was pretty shocking to a lot of people. Afterwards, MassResistance got a lot of emails from around the country with very emotional reactions.

Listen to radio interview with Camenker HERE (33 min.).

The propaganda will continue

Unfortunately, you can expect to see more of this in the mainstream media, even beyond Massachusetts and California. They understand that this is necessary for acceptance by the public. Like homosexuality itself, every generation normally finds these concepts unnatural and repulsive unless there is a heavy dose of propaganda and social pressure to conform. We’ve seen that the homosexual and transgender lobby is prepared to provide that.

Unquestioned acceptance by the liberal establishment

But in our observation, probably even more difficult and frightening for conservatives to deal with is how readily the liberals in the press, the schools, and elsewhere unquestioningly accept this complete lunacy. There appears to be no lower limit to what those people will embrace as fact, no matter how ludicrous, if it falls within the realm of political correctness.

One wonders if this is how the horrors of the 1930s in Europe and later in China and other communist countries took place so easily. It makes it all the more necessary for good people to speak out as loudly as possible.

There must be no compromise

And unfortunately, we’re already seeing many pro-family groups cave in on the “transgender” issue. They disagree with it in principle but invariably refuse to challenge it with anything stronger than polite opposition to the use of “gender identity.” They’ll argue that “privacy” rights should be respected in restrooms and locker rooms or that “special rights” should not be granted in schools. That way, by arguing at the edges, they avoid a direct confrontation with the transgender lobby. But it’s the coward’s way out and in the long run hurts children terribly.

MassResistance doesn’t compromise on these issues. Neither should you. This can and must be derailed.

Pushing the transgender agenda to kids.These two men had a booth at the “Youth Pride” event in Boston last year. They were inviting middle school and high school students to a “Drag Gospel Festival”.
[MassResistance photo]

A closer look at the “Drag Gospel Festival” poster.

Rhode Island pro-life / pro-marriage activists put their words into real action: Marriage and now a baby!

And finally some GOOD news!

During the heat of the culture war battles in Rhode Island over the last few years two of the most prominent pro-marriage and pro-life activists in the state have been Kara Russo and Chris Young. We’ve worked with them a lot.

Sometimes the battle tends to spur us on to bigger things. As we reported back in September of 2012 Chris and Kara decided to collaborate on their pro-marriage activism by . . . getting married!

Well, they didn’t leave their pro-life work behind. On December 22, 2013 their daughter Immanuel Mary Katherine was born. On Feb. 2, she was baptized by at St. Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church in Galilee, Rhode Island, the same church where they were married.

Chris Young, Kara Young, and Immanuel Mary Katherine Young at the baptism on Feb. 2.

Now THAT’s what we call dedicated activism!!