Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Re: Thought Policing
My Hate Speech Conviction
9/9/10 By Mike Adams - My Hate Speech Conviction
Over the summer, I was convicted of anti-gay hate speech. The most incredible thing about it was that I never set foot in Canada. The conviction happened while I was in Colorado. But the offense took place almost 15 years ago.
In the 1990s, a friend of mine announced that he was divorcing his wife because he had decided (after a couple of unhappy marriages) to pursue the gay lifestyle. My decision to support him was born out of ignorance. Not only was I harboring the illusion that there actually was such a thing as a gay gene. I was also ignorant of the fact that gays could be successfully cured through therapeutic efforts.
My decision to label my own verbal support of his lifestyle choice as “hate speech” makes sense only after one becomes educated about that lifestyle. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 82% of all known sexually-transmitted HIV cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for over 60% of all syphilis cases.
Some will say that homophobia is the indirect cause of such numbers. They claim that fear of stigmatization keeps gays from seeking information before they become ill and from seeking medical help afterwards. But, clearly, that is not the case. In cultures where homosexuality is more accepted the numbers are worse. That is why I steadfastly maintain that supporting my friend’s decision to turn to the homosexual lifestyle was indeed an example of hate speech.
Most gays become angry when someone tells the truth about the health consequences of their lifestyle choice. The reason they get angry over the facts is because their conscience convicts them. When I came to realize that I helped make it easier for my friend to pursue his unhealthy lifestyle my conscience was convicted. I have regretted my verbal support of his decision ever since.
No sane person could ever posit that the act of rectal sodomy is safe, normal, or healthy.
The rectum is a one-way street. It is a sewer meant for the expulsion of poison.
Treating the rectum as a sex organ is damaging to the health – especially for the recipient of such abuse.
That is why it is an act of hate, regardless of whether some choose to call it “love.”
But the gay lifestyle has never been about love. The average number of lifetime sex partners is four for a heterosexual, fifty for a homosexual. Monogamy is the norm (82%) among heterosexuals, and an aberration (2%) among homosexuals. This promiscuity is routed in the pairing of similar traits, which is an inevitable result in homosexual relationships.
It should go without saying that women have greater emotional needs than men, while men have greater physical needs than women. They need each other to balance one another out. And that is why when two men are together the physical aspects of the relationship spiral out of control to the point of compulsion. That is why estimates show that anywhere from 21-43% of homosexual males have had several hundred sex partners.
One study of white male homosexuals, published in the 1970s, showed that 43% of white males had sex with over 500 partners. Over one-quarter (28%) had sex with over 1000 partners. When these drives are unchecked they often go in dangerous directions. Although homosexual men are only about three percent of the population, they commit about one-third of all acts of child molestation.
Even pseudo-conservative Andrew Sullivan knows that homosexuality is about unbridled sexual pursuit rather than love. He openly claims that homosexuals need more than one sex partner and that heterosexual relationships are too restrictive. But he refuses to see succumbing to sexual temptation as a weakness. Instead, he calls it a sign of “honesty” and “flexibility.”
Andrew Sullivan thinks we should all become more like gays. In his calls for the majority to conform to the minority he reveals the fundamental narcissism that is at the core of the gay lifestyle. From Andrew Sullivan’s perspective, homosexuality is all about self-gratification.
But love, by definition, seeks the ultimate good of the loved one by forsaking all others. That is why we must steer our loved ones away from the homosexual lifestyle and suffer the slings and arrows of the true perpetrators of hate speech.
Source: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone by Frank Turek
Re: Thought Policing
As the increasing numbers of Male Drag Queens Stalking the 'little girls room' and Steroid Dykes Stalking the 'men's' toilets show - the opportunities to demonstrate 'tolerance' for Misandry (Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) are increasing daily.
The Zero Sum Pogrom is designed to Destroy Gender as a Political Concept, and make it illegal to assert that (exactly like Drag Queens and Steroid Dykes) your gender is anything other than a "perception" changeable at a whim, because to say that you inherited your Male 'Y' Chromosome / Gender from your Father would be 'discrimination' - at least according to the Steroid Dyke caucus, and who else matters in this age of Abomination...
Death to the "Y" Rape Chromosome - Tolerance Macht Frei!
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Transvestites Seek Right to Use Opposite Sex Bathrooms in Argentina
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent
BUENOS AIRES, September 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Argentinean transvestites are objecting to new legislation proposed to create a third bathroom for their use in commercial establishments, according to local and international reports.
The proposed law, advanced by councilwoman Gimena Abonassar of the city of San Martín, is intended to protect women from men who enter their bathrooms dressed as the opposite sex, an increasingly common occurrence in certain countries.
"We're talking about creating a third bathroom to give a place to transvestites because of complaints by fathers of girls who were saying that they felt uncomfortable when they had to share the same bathroom," Abonassar told the French Press Agency in a telephone interview.
Although Abonassar says that local transvestite groups in San Martín support the measure, the national Association of Transvestites, Transsexuals, and Transgenders of Argentina (ATTTA) is objecting to it.
"We are against it because it seems to us to be discrimination," a representative of the association told the Spanish news agency EFE.
"The councilwoman should inform herself and legislate in favor of more integration, not to divide society," he added. "The only thing this measure achieves is more discrimination, and it is an example of the transphobia of many politicians, who don't really know what the people need."
Re: Thought Policing
I take exception to this article only in the presumption that at least some of these radical hatemongers Don't want to literally Bomb - as in Blow Up - Their 'Enemies' - as in those who fail the Cannibal Soup 'pander or Perish' test of the radical leftist / gender feminist / homosexualist hate machine...
- like the the ObamAcorn's Weather Underground Terror Bombing Mentor - Alinsky, who also used to Blow Up People in his younger days, before he became more crafty and got his America Hating stooge elected as a proxy.
See:Amazon: #1 Bestseller in Nonfiction ...The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists -
Otherwise, the 'Game' could pass for any number of movies currently playing or scripts in development in the friends of Dorothy's fantasy land of Hollyweird ("a modern day beachfront Sodom and Gomorrah", as john stewart referred to it during the academy awards)- where they really do hate the rest of us, but none the less try to look so very chic while doing so, at least according to their publicists.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.
"Destroy the Traditional Family: The Game" (LSN)
No, we're not joking. This game is real, and you can play it on this website: Destroy traditional marriage: The game - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor
Participants can use the cursor (shaped like a target) to click on images of happy traditional families, and watch as bombs fall onto the collage of smiling portraits, leaving only a black crater in their wake!
And we're the intolerant bigots?
Of course we realize that the people behind the website have no intention of actually bombing families. But what it does make clear is what LifeSiteNews.com has been saying for years:
Very influential, well-funded people are trying to destroy the traditional family.
Anti-family groups, organizations, and individuals have made it their mission to completely deconstruct the family, giving it a subjective meaning that can be molded and warped to an individual's liking. The result is not a new type of family, but the destruction of family, the bedrock of civilization, altogether.
Perhaps no institution has done more to further this destruction than Hollywood.
In early August, actress Jennifer Aniston revealed her opposition to the conventional family, asking, "What is it that defines a family? It isn't necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot." Aniston even claimed that fathers aren't necessary, and that women "don't have to fiddle with a man to have that child," as though men are merely toys which may or may not be used as instruments for childbearing.
Moreover, the recently released film, "The Kids Are All Right," starring Julianne Moore and Annette Bening, attempts to give normalcy to a lesbian-headed "family," where the children were conceived with the help of a sperm donor. The title (and the whole film) is meant to suggest that such a lifestyle is perfectly natural and harmless.
The anti-family movement has certainly made progress over the past few decades, and Hollywood has been the perfect vehicle to spread its propaganda.
But while Hollywood has aided the anti-family movement in deconstructing the family, LifeSiteNews has been busy aiding the pro-family movement in defending it.
LifeSiteNews knows what constitutes a family, and marriage, and life. And we stand by these principles by exposing lies and calling attention to those who attempt to undermine our most essential values.
Re: Thought Policing
Academentia, from allegedly 'elite' campuses down to community colleges, is so infested with Ideological Thought Policing in service of Misandry (Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) that it sometimes even resembles the 'justice' cystem.
But then the two feed off each other in a dance of symbiotic depravity that assures Tenure for those who Pander, and Termination for those who fail the 'Cannibal Soup Test', so their consumption of each others waste produce is understandable.
That the judiciary accepts 'studies' from these political indoctrination camps as 'justification' for its own rabid attacks on the fabric of society, is all the more reason for junking the whole system and starting over with blank paper and simple pencil drawings for tenure, as well as trial by torture...
- which would be a whole lot more merciful than the current system..
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
A case of "academic misconduct" at Harvard has taken the gloss off "the new science of morality". Mercatornet.org
Morality is a tricky business. Experts are held to a higher standard of probity. That’s why church sex abuse scandals and the double lives of some televangelists have done such damage to the cause of religious morality. Perhaps, too, this is why academic misconduct by one of the leading exponents of the “new science of morality” has rattled scientists and bioethicists.
In August Harvard University announced that a popular lecturer, 50-year-old Professor Marc D. Hauser, was guilty of eight instances of unspecified scientific misconduct, three involving published papers and five unpublished material. "There were problems involving data acquisition, data analysis, data retention, and the reporting of research methodologies and results," a university official admitted. Harvard has resisted pressure to reveal the dreary details. But the word on the academic grapevine is that Hauser may have performed experiments without a control group, making them utterly useless.
“If it’s the case the data have in fact been fabricated, which is what I as the editor infer, that is as serious as it gets,” said the editor of the journal Cognition, Gerry Altmann, who has withdrawn a 2002 paper of which Hauser was the lead author.
Professor Hauser’s future is uncertain. The case is being investigated by the Federal government, as it may involve misuse of research funds. He has taken a year’s leave of absence and told the New York Times that “I acknowledge that I made some significant mistakes” and that he was “deeply sorry for the problems this case had caused to my students, my colleagues and my university.”
If you rank bad deeds on a scale of 1 to 10, with murder and paedophilia at 10 and expletives deleted at 1, “academic misconduct” is about 2.5. But Hauser’s misdeeds are different. His interests extended far beyond whether tamarind monkeys can recognise themselves in a mirror. He was a leading figure in the “new science of morality”. This is a movement which argues persuasively that right and wrong are based on biologically-determined gut feelings, not reason. It is a revolutionary effort to wrest right and wrong from the pulpit and plonk it on the lab bench.
Hauser is one of the movement’s leading figures. His most recent book, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (2006), was highly praised. A leading bioethicist declared in the New England Journal of Medicine that it “offers us the most important scientific contribution to moral psychology in many decades”.
There are many different approaches to this reevaluation of morality. One influential strand explains fairness or sexual taboos as civilised versions of the physical disgust we experience at the thought of eating cockroaches or faeces.
The history of ethics, they argue, goes from oral to moral.
Hauser has been deeply influenced by the controversial linguist Noam Chomsky and believes that morality is like language. Just as there is a universal grammar, with particular applications, there is a universal capacity for moral thinking, but each culture has its own moral toolkit. That is why we all profess to be moral, but we find each other’s moral codes incomprehensible.
This approach has unsettling consequences for the man in the street. If my morality and the morality of Pathan tribesmen in Afghanistan are as different as English and Pushtu, how can I say that female genital mutilation is wrong?
Nor is banning abortion “reasonable”, any more than Chinese is more “reasonable” than Spanish. Nor does morality have any link to transcendent values.
As Hauser wrote in Moral Minds, the "marriage between morality and religion is not only forced but unnecessary, crying out for a divorce".
But do Hauser’s troubles discredit the new science of morality? To err is human and disgraced preachers haven’t discredited the doctrines of Christianity. Up to a point, this is true of disgraced professors, too.
But Hauser and his colleagues are not just preachers of received dogmas. They are the founders of a visionary new approach to morality. They have many followers among bioethicists who are seeking to replace ethics based on transcendental values with materialistic explanations. If biology is the foundation for morality, then objections to stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia, for instance, are based on nothing more substantial than the “yuck factor”.
In 2010, it’s time to rip up the rule book our Paleolithic ancestors used and write our own.
Unhappily, Hauser’s misstep suggests that the founders might not even respect their own rule book. “I believe that science, and scientists, have an important role to play in shaping the moral agenda. We have an obligation to use facts and reason to guide what we ought to do,” he contended forcefully in a recent essay on The Edge.
Well, facts and reason didn’t stop Professor Hauser from stooping to academic misconduct. No big deal, perhaps, in comparison to murder or torture. But it does make one hesitate to hand over the future of morality to Ivy League professors. Who knows what barriers they might breach next? The working title of Professor Hauser’s next book is “Evilicious: Explaining Our Evolved Taste for Being Bad”. It will make interesting reading.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
This article is published by Michael Cook, and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines.
Last edited by Ohso; 17th-September-2010 at 07:42 PM.
Re: Thought Policing
Jonah Organization is a Jewish group that works with other faiths to protect the America that has provided a haven to them all - at least up until now.
The following article represents a well thought out response to the radical political mau mauing that has passed for 'debate' until now.
Homosexualists vs. Conservatives: Answering The Specious Secular Arguments Used to Normalize Homosexuality
Jonah Organization - Written By: Laurie Higging JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (September 2010)
I worked for eight years in the writing center of a public high school on the North Shore of Chicago and was a member of the English Department. I learned from this experience what ideas and resources students were exposed to and what ideas and resources they were never exposed to. I learned that there was absolute censorship of conservative resources on the topic of homosexuality.
I learned that the commitments of many public educators to diversity and tolerance were empty verbiage. They do not honor or cultivate intellectual diversity, and they are intolerant of those who express conservative views on the nature of homosexuality and the morality of homosexual practice.
They engage in censorship, finding myriad rationalizations for including resources that espouse “progressive” views of homosexuality. For academic ideologues, that's the beauty of teaching English: they can always find ways to rationalize the teaching of controversial texts that undermine traditional values. They simply assert that these texts cultivate higher order thinking skills, or critical thinking skills, or research skills or the teaching of literary terms or that they connect thematically to other texts being taught.
Astonishingly, they can’t seem to find any pedagogical reason for having students study even a single essay from a conservative scholar.
Their pedagogical rationalizations are subterfuges to conceal the true goal in teaching controversial texts which is societal transformation.
As I began to read and think more deeply on the cultural debate surrounding the issue of homosexuality, I learned that the ideas that public educators promote are assumptions for which they have no evidence or justification. They impose their unproven, non-factual beliefs through curricula and their own classroom comments; and they impose them on other people’s children using public resources.
Conservatives need to understand the fallacious, unproven nature of their assumptions and challenge them on them, rather than always being on the defensive. For example, we never ask “progressives” to provide reasons for their claim that homosexuality is by nature like race, which is the assumption upon which virtually their entire house of cards is built.
There is no greater threat to First Amendment speech and religious liberties, to the ethical legitimacy of public education, or to parental rights than that posed by the homosexuality- affirming movement. Our continued fearful silence makes us complicit in these terrible losses.
I had a colleague tell me that he was trying to find a way to address the problem of homosexual-advocacy that was not divisive. I told him that that was not possible. No matter how completely you express your views and no matter how graciously you express them, if you say that you believe homosexual practice is immoral, you will be hated. We need to understand that unity and peace must never trump truth.
In this paper, I will discuss a number of the specious cultural arguments used to normalize homosexuality and silence dissent, pointing out their intellectual flaws in the hope that such a discussion will help prevent people from being either confused or deceived by these arguments and so that people will feel better equipped to engage in this critical public debate.
What is homosexuality?
I would argue that there are very broadly two categories of conditions:
First, there are conditions that have no behavioral implications that can be assessed morally. In other words, these conditions are morally neutral, like skin color or biological sex. Having brown skin has no behavioral and, therefore, no moral, implications.
And then there is the second category of conditions, which includes conditions that are centrally defined by desire or feelings and volitional behaviors. This would include polyamory (which is the romantic and sexual attraction to and involvement with multiple people at the same time), promiscuity, consensual incest, aggression, and homosexuality. The initial impulses or desires may be shaped by biological factors, but the behaviors associated with these conditions are volitional and legitimate objects of moral assessment.
Progressives are plucking homosexuality out of category 2 and treating it like conditions from category 1 without any justification for doing so and apparently hoping no one will notice or challenge them.
But homosexuality is not analogous to race. Race or skin color is 100% heritable; completely immutable; and has no behavioral manifestations that are legitimate to assess morally.
Even if biological factors influenced attraction would not mean that homosexual acts are moral. Biology tells us precisely nothing about morality.
I do not believe that people choose to experience same-sex attraction. I believe they choose how to respond to those unchosen and in many cases unwanted attractions. Those who experience same-sex attraction are no different from any other person who experiences unwanted, powerful, persistent impulses, desires, and attractions. Our task as moral beings is to determine which of our myriad desires are morally legitimate to act upon.
From this attempt to equate homosexuality to race emerges the claim that disapproval of homosexuality is equivalent to racism, or to hatred of persons.
The first mistake in this argument is that homosexuality is not analogous to race, and therefore disapproval of homosexuality is not analogous or equivalent to racism. Instead, disapproval of homosexuality is equivalent to disapproval of other conditions that are centrally defined by volitional acts, like polyamory.
Second, homosexualists (which are homosexuals and those who support their beliefs and goals) emphatically assert that disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes hatred of persons. However, they don’t apply that principle consistently. They don’t argue that disapproval of other volitional behaviors constitutes hatred of persons.
People make moral claims about behavior all the time and are rarely accused of hating people. People say polyamory is immoral, polygamy is immoral, promiscuity is immoral, and gossiping is immoral, and yet no one is ever accused of hating polyamorists, polygamists, promiscuous people, or gossips. And when have you ever heard people who disapprove of polyamory referred to as polyphobes?
In reality, the only thing racism has in common with disapproval of homosexuality is that homosexualists hate both.
Sometimes this argument is tweaked a bit, and homosexualists will say that the expression of the view that homosexual acts are immoral is hurtful.
What they’re suggesting is that the moral legitimacy of speech is determined by the subjective response of hearer. It suggests that if someone is made uncomfortable by hearing a moral claim, it is unethical to make it.
This idea, applied consistently, would preclude the expression of any moral claims because someone within earshot is likely to engage in the behavior that we are critiquing. We couldn’t say promiscuity or gossip is immoral because someone listening might be promiscuous or a gossip, and would feel bad. Imagine a culture in which no one could ever make a moral claim publicly.
The moral legitimacy of speech is determined by its content (e.g. is it believed to be true or is it a deliberate lie) and the manner in which it is delivered (e.g. are the words and tone civil). For example, saying “God hates fags,” like Rev. Fred Phelps does is unethical speech, whereas saying that homosexual acts are immoral is perfectly legitimate speech. The fact that homosexuals will hate both statements does not mean both statements are unethical.
We should always remain aware that there is a strategic goal behind accusing people of being haters: the goal is to shame or humiliate them into silence. Homosexualists seek to use fear to compel conservatives into self-censorship. And they’re succeeding.
One of the central stratagems of the homosexuality affirming movement is to manipulate rhetoric, and one set of related terms that are manipulated in the service of normalizing homosexuality includes the terms prejudice, bias, bigotry, and discrimination:
* “Prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” As such, opinions formed, even negative opinions, after careful consideration do not represent prejudice.
* “Bias” according to the American Heritage Dictionary means “A preference or inclination, esp. one that inhibits impartial judgment; prejudice.” In its usage note it further explains that “Bias has generally been defined as ‘uninformed or unintentional inclination,’” which is the meaning of prejudice. This definition reveals that informed, intentional, thoughtfully constructed opinions do not constitute bias.
* A “bigot” according to the Merriam Webster definition refers to a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.”
* Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral.
In addition, the word “obstinately” in the definition of “bigot” warrants some discussion. First, “obstinate,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary, connotes “unreasonable rigidity.” I would argue that conservative views on homosexuality are completely reasonable, and that conversely, liberal views are woefully unreasonable. In order to determine whether a tenaciously held conviction reflects obstinacy requires an evaluation of the content of the belief and the justifications for that belief. For example, very few would characterize the act of consistently and enduringly, holding the belief that infantilism, pedophilia, or polyamory is wrong to be a manifestation of obstinacy or bigotry.
* With regard to discrimination, an important distinction must be made between appropriate or ethical discrimination and unethical discrimination. Discrimination can refer to making judgments or discriminating between right and wrong in which case it is a good, healthy, and essential personal and civic process.
Illegitimate discrimination, on the other hand, refers to unfavorable treatment of others based on ignorance. Conflating or deliberately obscuring the different meanings of discrimination, or asserting that all negative judgments reflect discrimination, plays on our country’s racial guilt and people’s understandable resistance to being associated with such ugliness.
The culture has communicated the false idea that expressing conservative views on issues related to homosexuality either in school curricula or the polling place is not only bigoted but also violates the separation of church and state:
Far too many Americans have a serious misunderstanding about the relationship between morality and religion. People of faith have been deceived into believing that morality is the same thing as religion, and therefore they mistakenly believe that they should not advocate for policies that reflect their moral beliefs. Basing our decisions about public policies, laws, or elections on values and beliefs (even those that may derive from religious doctrine) does not constitute the establishment of a state religion.
The same people who argue vociferously against the presence of religiously informed political decisions that are conservative in nature are curiously silent with regard to those liberal Catholics, Jews, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Episcopalians who are politically active in the movement to effect speech codes and revolutionize marital laws.
No one ever charges Catholics who oppose the death penalty because of their religious beliefs of violating the separation of church and state.
No one ever charged Martin Luther King Jr. with violating the separation of church and state when he said,
“How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. . . .”
People who attend churches or synagogues that affirm liberal views of homosexuality and same-sex marriage and who express those views in school or in the polling place are never accused of violating the separation of church and state or of trying to impose their religious views.
One could argue that those who attend houses of worship that support legalized same-sex unions are similarly attempting to enshrine in law their religious beliefs. Consistency would demand that the political efforts of homosexualists who attend liberal churches be considered as suspect as the efforts of those whose religious beliefs lead to opposition to same-sex marriage.
People from diverse faith traditions and no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons for that valuation of life differ.
If there is a secular purpose for the law (e.g. to protect nascent human life), then voting for it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The sources of the various parties’ desires to protect pre-born life are not the concern of government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives and beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion and equally unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote on abortion laws. Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The same goes for issues related to homosexuality.
All laws reflect or embody someone’s morality. The moral views of people who hold conservative theistic world views are no less valid in the public square than the moral views of those who hold liberal theistic world views or atheistic world views—which, of course, are also faith-based.
The debate over same-sex marriage increasingly occupies center stage, with homosexualists arguing that retaining the traditional definition of marriage is both immoral and unconstitutional.
What is marriage?
What is the purpose of marriage? What are the factors or conditions that determine its legitimacy? Is it a public and legal recognition of companionship, emotional affinity, and sexual attraction only? Or, is it somehow tied to an objective reality integrally connected to sexual complementarity?
Historically, both in this country and around the world, marriage has been understood to be the union of one man and one woman. Societies recognize, celebrate, and legally sanction this particular relationship because it is the type of relationship in which children will potentially be born and raised. Because procreation and effective parenting are essential for the sustenance and continuance of healthy societies, legal recognition of this type of union is a compelling state interest.
Homosexualists tell us that marriage is solely a private institution
If or when private actions or relationships have no impact on the public good, the government must remain uninvolved. If, however, private actions or relationships impact the public and are adjudged harmful, society is not only entitled but obligated to legislate. The reason that our government provides for the legal recognition of any union is that society understands that through such unions, the private impacts the public.
Society has determined that private unions impact society to a sufficient degree to warrant government involvement. Historically, society has determined that since marriage is fundamental to the health of society, it is the right and responsibility of society collectively to define marriage. The fact that society has made mistakes and included a criterion that was not fundamental to marriage (i.e. with anti-miscegenation laws, meaning laws banning interracial marriage) does not mean that society has been wrong on all criteria. Tradition, sociology, biology, psychology, philosophy, natural law, and, religion, many religions, in fact, have held that both men and women are crucial to the fulfillment of children’s needs, and the fulfillment of children’s needs is crucial to the health of society.
If marriage were solely a private institution that was concerned only with the subjective feelings of individuals—as homosexualists claim it is—and if it had no impact on the public good, then there would be no justifiable reason for the government to be involved at all. And if society decides it is an exclusively private institution that is concerned only with the subjective feelings of individuals, there is no justification for prohibiting plural marriages.
Homosexualists also claim that marriage is a civil right.
Homosexualists assert that marriage is a civil right to which homosexuals are entitled, ignoring, however, the fact that as it now stands all homosexual adults enjoy the right and privilege to marry. They simply do not have the right to redefine marriage.
Marriage is an institution, and access to marriage is not a civil right. Our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. Civil rights are not accorded to couples, but rather to individual persons. These rights are based on universal, objective human characteristics, not on subjective individual feelings, desires, “orientations,” “preferences,” or volitional conduct. Rights are inalienable, which means that the government cannot legitimately grant them or take them away. The government merely protects them.
Our civil rights include the following:
* freedom of religion
* freedom of speech
* freedom of press
* freedom of assembly
* the right to life
* freedom from involuntary servitude
In contrast, the government can legitimately define an institution and limit its membership in accordance with that definition. Marriage is a very particular institution, and access to marriage is a privilege; it is not a civil right.
When homosexuals claim that they prefer only members of their own sex as romantic and sexual partners, they are acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally and significantly different. Many, including experts in the fields of sociology, psychiatry, psychology, theology, and neuroscience, assert that these differences are not exclusively anatomical, but emotional, psychological, and/or spiritual in nature.
Since men and women are fundamentally and significantly different, unions composed of the same sex must necessarily be of a different nature from unions composed of different sexes, and, therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that each type of union would impact society differently.
Further, society has concluded that the only type of union that truly benefits the public is a union between two unmarried adults of opposite sex who are not closely related by blood. In evaluating the inherent merits of or contributions to the public good that homosexual unions bring, society has concluded that legal recognition is not warranted.
Every adult has the legal right to marry. Homosexuals are not demanding a civil right that is denied them based on a universal, objective human characteristic; they are being denied the right to redefine the institution of marriage by eliminating one of the criteria that society has deemed essential: sexual complementarity.
Homosexuals as individuals are not being denied the right to marry. They are being denied the right to choose the sex of their marriage partner. Others are denied the right to choose the numbers of their partners. Still others are denied the right to choose the age of their partner. And yet others are denied the right to choose the blood proximity of their partner.
Polyamorous people who love more than one person cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of numbers of partners. Incestuous couples cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion regarding close blood kinship. And pedophiles cannot eliminate the criterion of minimum age. None of these groups of people are being denied their civil rights even though they cannot marry whom they’d like to marry. They are being prevented from unilaterally redefining marriage which is a public institution that affects the public good.
Most of them—with the exception of pedophiles—may pursue emotional intimacy, engage in sexual relations, and set up households together, but society is under no moral obligation to provide legal sanctions or benefits for these relationships simply because those involved experience love and sexual attraction.
Another intellectual sticky wicket for many is the accusation that banning homosexual marriage is the same as banning interracial marriage.
As with most of the secular arguments used to defend and justify the view that homosexual conduct is morally tenable, there are underlying presuppositions implicit in this analogy that are concealed—and flawed. The most salient of these unproven presuppositions is that race is ontologically or existentially equivalent to homosexuality.
That is to say that comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage requires prior assent to the proposition that homosexuality is a state or condition similar in fundamental ways to race. But that is a false proposition, one with which many African Americans disagree; one with which many theologians disagree; one with which even some “queer theorists” disagree; and one which science has not proved.
Laws banning interracial marriages were based on a deeply flawed understanding of both race and human nature. It was based on a false belief that different races were of fundamentally different natures. As Dennis Prager explains:
There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is (sic) moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is (sic) not. . . . a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man. The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another.
Laws that permit only heterosexual marriages are in no way equivalent to laws that banned interracial marriage because homosexuality is in no way equivalent to race. Laws banning interracial marriages were based on the erroneous belief that whites and blacks are by nature different, when, in fact, whites and blacks are not by nature different. Laws that permit only heterosexual marriages are based on the true belief that men and women are by nature different. Therefore, it is permissible and right for laws that regulate marriage take into account the very real differences between men and women.
Moreover, Thomas Sowell explains that “The argument that current marriage laws ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior.”
A black man who wants to marry a white woman is seeking to do the same action that a white man who wants to marry a white woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits an interracial marriage is wrong because it is based on who the person is, not on what he seeks to do.
But, if a man wants to marry a man, he is seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who wants to marry a woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits homosexual marriage is legitimate because it is based not on who the person is but rather on what he seeks to do.
Neither homosexual men nor heterosexual men can marry men. Both homosexual men and heterosexual men can marry women. Homosexual men are not denied the right to participate in the unique institution of marriage. They are choosing not to exercise their right.
Marriage currently has four central defining criteria: blood kinship, numbers of partners, minimum marrying age; sexual complementarity. History has seen marriages between family members, marriages of children to adults, and polygamy. In virtually no society, have we seen homosexual marriages (in those very few societies which permitted marriage-like relationships to be ceremonialized, the relationships were primarily temporary unions between adult men and adolescent boys who were expected ultimately to marry woman after this rite of passage.) Polygamy, marriage between adult men and young girls, and incestuous marriages have been fairly common throughout history, while homosexual "marriage" has been extraordinarily rare. Homosexualists are seeking to jettison the one criterion that has been the most enduring throughout time and across cultures. In other words, their efforts are the most radical.
Some argue that traditional marriage constitutes an inappropriate imposition of one segment of the population’s morality on the entirety of society.
In making that argument, however, they fail to acknowledge that legalized same-sex marriage would equally represent the imposition of someone’s moral beliefs on all of society. Same-sex marriage would impose on all of society the beliefs that gender is irrelevant to marriage, that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with childbearing and child-rearing, and that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality.
Legalized same sex marriage doesn’t hurt society or anyone’s marriage:
One could make the argument that a polygamous marriage would not harm my particular marriage or even that an incestuous marriage would not harm mine. But ultimately the disuniting of marriage from procreation, and marriage from gender renders it meaningless as a public institution.
So, how society will be affected:
* The belief that same-sex unions are equal to heterosexual unions in their potential to affect children and society positively will proliferate.
* The religious and/or speech rights of those who hold traditional or conservative beliefs on homosexuality will be diminished.
* The belief that fulfillment of emotional and sexual desires constitutes the fundamental basis for marriage will spread.
* The belief that same-sex unions are equal in moral value to heterosexual unions will proliferate.
* Schools will be compelled to include homosexual identities and families as normative in curricula.
* The view that sexual fidelity is an integral aspect of marital commitment will diminish. Whereas sexual fidelity is an indispensable, integral component of the traditional view of marital commitment, for many homosexual men, sexual fidelity is neither expected nor desired. They hold that extra-marital sexual outlets neither diminish nor attenuate commitment.
* The belief that marriage is irrelevant will increase as it has in Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz, research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution has written a number of articles that analyze the impact of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia. According to Kurtz “a majority of children born in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents.”
* Widespread societal approval of homosexuality through legalized same-sex marriage will increase ethically dubious ways of creating families. Surrogacy, pregnancies resulting from sperm and egg donations or sales, and in vitro fertilization would increase as the numbers of same-sex unions increase.
* Demands for legalized polygamy will increase. If society accepts the proposition that marriage is a private institution centrally concerned with emotional feelings and sexual attraction rather than sexual complementarity and procreation, then polygamy is just around the corner.
Another term that is abused in the service of normalizing homosexuality is “judgmentalism.” Conservatives are often asked, “Who are you to judge?”
Charges of judgmentalism are confusing because, although we know that God expects us to make judgments, there is something unseemly about being judgmental.
Since being judgmental can mean forming opinions or making decisions authoritatively or wisely, and in this sense is certainly legitimate, what precisely do critics who level this charge mean?
They mean one or both of the following:
* “Don’t tell me something I’m doing is wrong.”
* “People should judge only their own behavior, not anyone else’s.” (This is, of course, a moral judgment.)
It’s both legitimate and right to make moral judgments about conduct. Everyone does it all the time, including those who make the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. We forfeit the right to be parents, teachers, rabbis, preachers, or lawmakers, and we forfeit a just and civil society if we forfeit the right to judge between right and wrong.
One rarely hears that society should refrain from judging racism or greed or selfishness or pedophilia or adultery or polygamy or incest between consenting adults. What’s the difference? The difference is that now many have judged that homosexual conduct is moral conduct and demand that everyone else accept that judgment and express that judgment or none at all.
What opponents really find objectionable is not that people make moral judgments publicly, but rather that the particular moral judgment conservatives make about homosexuality is one with which homosexualists disagree.
Homosexualists misapply the "Golden Rule" in their efforts to promote heretical views of the nature and morality of homosexuality. The Golden Rule, which is found in both the Old and New Testaments, properly understood, does not mean that believers should affirm all persistent human desires. Nor does it mean that people of faith should refrain from making public statements regarding the immorality of homosexuality. The Torah teaches "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah.” This means that religious believers should affirm to others God's Word--the entirety of God's Word--in a godly way. It is absurd to suggest that in order to live out the Golden Rule faithfully either Jews or Christians must affirm every desire that another human experiences, including even sinful desires.
Often homosexualists proclaim "Judge not lest ye be judged" as biblical justification for the position that religious believers ought not to state publicly that homosexual behavior is immoral. But this verse means that we are not to engage in unrighteous judgment. We're not to hypocritically condemn the speck in the eye of others while ignoring the plank in our own. We're to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven. This verse does not prohibit people of faith from making distinctions between moral and immoral behaviors.
One related point regarding Jewish, Christian, or Moslem expressions of moral disapproval: Some will argue that religious people should remain silent regarding the immorality of homosexual acts. They say, just love homosexuals into the Kingdom, and allow the Holy Spirit to work on their hearts or consciences. But what other sin would we make that statement about. Would we ever say, “Just remain silent about the sin of adultery, polyamory, pornography, or racism,"? Just love adulterers, polyamorists, porn users and racists into the Kingdom and let the Holy Spirit work on their hearts,”?
While the mainstream news media, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, churches, synagogues, public schools, and increasingly, laws promote false and destructive ideas about homosexuality, we must speak the truth in the public square.
One final cultural issue that must be addressed is homosexual adoption:
What are the essential criteria for evaluating the suitability of families seeking to foster or adopt children?
They must have the financial means to support them and be able to provide a clean, nurturing environment.
If it is a couple, they must demonstrate that they have a stable, committed relationship.
But is that all?
If that’s all, then we as a society should cheerfully turn over children to the care of loving, committed, stable incestuous couples who are able to provide a safe, nurturing environment. Incestuous couples could make the case that their desire to adopt reveals their sense of responsibility in that procreation could result in serious birth defects. Shouldn't loving incestuous couples be allowed to have children? Is it fair to allow society's prejudice to prevent them from this basic right?
And we should cheerfully and comfortably relinquish children to the care of loving, stable, committed polyamorous families who are able to provide a safe, nurturing, environment.
Love, commitment, stability, safety, and support are, indeed, essential factors when evaluating the appropriateness of a family seeking to foster or adopt. But so too is the moral nature of the relationship of the adoptive family.
Those who recoil at the idea of incestuous couples or polyamorists fostering or adopting do so out of the same kind of moral evaluation of the nature of incest and polyamory as others do out of a moral evaluation of homosexuality. Those who would prohibit loving, stable incestuous couples or polyamorous partners from fostering or adopting do so for the same kind of reason that those who would prohibit loving homosexual couples from fostering or adopting do: a belief that these kinds of relationships are morally flawed.
Some argue that the belief that homosexual conduct is morally flawed is a prejudice and cannot be imposed on all of society. But then one could reasonably argue that the belief that adult consensual incest and polyamory are immoral is an ignorant, antiquated, provincial prejudice that ought not to be imposed on all of society.
Study after study has revealed that children fare best when raised by both a mother and a father. In addition, children have rights. They have a self-evident right to be raised, when possible, by the biological parents who produced them. If those parents are incapable of raising them, these children deserve to be in homes that closely approximate a natural family.
If we measure harm only in concrete, measurable ways -- dirty house, lack of food, untended infections, emotional detachment -- then we ill-serve the children we purport to care so deeply about. When society and the government that represents it are called on to make decisions regarding the placement of children in families, it is not only appropriate but critical that we take into account the moral nature of the relationships of the potential caretakers.
Last edited by Ohso; 20th-September-2010 at 07:26 PM.
Re: Thought Policing
I have written before about the Politics of Adversarial Terminology and the insistence that depraved feces focused homo-anal perversions be sanitized with 'happy' euphemisms - so as to avoid the political ungood of "Ism-Obia" in the pathetic farce of Academentia...
Townhall - Nothing Gay About It
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
Nothing Gay About It
There are a couple of terms I need to stop using in my columns. One of those terms is “liberal” - most of the self-described liberals I write about in my columns are not tolerant enough to be called liberals. The other term is “gay” - most of the self-described gays I write about in my columns are not happy enough to be called gays. This is especially true of those who also call themselves “gay activists.”
The active aggression of gay activists is on full display each time they lobby for so-called gay marriage. These are the same people who argue that marriage is a form of patriarchal oppression, which benefits men more than women...
We all lose our liberties whenever the gay rights agenda advances. There is no more hostile group in this nation than homosexuals, especially when it comes to civil liberties.
Right now, as you are reading this column, un-gay activists are writing to my employer demanding my firing - all in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity of thought.”
Such tactics can be deterred only by rebellion against political correctness. Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. And evil it surely is...
As a nation, we have fallen a long way in recent years by pretending that abnormal things are normal. But now we are on the verge of pretending that the same abnormal things are actually desirable. And that is unconscionable.
The APA is not likely to cease its double standard of opposing gay re-orientation therapy while supporting gay-affirmation therapy. But society-at-large need not employ the same double-standard. After all, the average citizen has far more common sense than the average psychiatrist...
Because the stakes are so high the debate must be joined by everyone. It cannot be dictated by those who call themselves gay but use anger to silence those who object to the same-sex union. Now more than ever, we must speak now or forever hold our peace.
Source: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, by Frank Turek.
Re: Thought Policing
Hysterical Revisionism is not to be confused with Historical confusion, or a speakers gaffe - no matter how big a red herring it lands.
The ObamAcorn Quote by itself lacks the impact of the Video, where the rapid eyelid movement and other speaker twitches of the presentation provide greater context.
I do not believe he was paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, but rather Revising it - to suit the agenda of a more evolved Abomination.
YouTube - Obama Removes God From The Declaration of Independence
Re: Thought Policing
The Following is a copy of my own Amicus (Friend of the Court) Brief in the California Proposition 8 attack on 'marriage' case heard by Judge Walker in the Federal Court in Sodom by the Sea. It is posted under the 'Thought Police' thread because I believe that is the primary goal of the radical leftist / gender feminist / homosexualist hate lobby - to so warp the current thinking about such simple things as Gender and Marriage that they are easily attacked and destroyed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(Perry v. Schwarzenegger - Case no. 09-CV-2292 VRW)
TO: THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Please Take Notice that before the U, S, District Court for the Northern District of
California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, the Honorable Vaughn R
Walker presiding; Pro Se Amicus Curia Michael J. McDermott (CA Lic. #235984) now
moves this court for an order granting leave to participate as Amicus Curia in the above
captioned case in support of California Proposition 8, aligned with Defendant-Intervenor.
1. Standard For Motion For Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curia
Although there are no local rules directly on point, this court has broad discretion to
permit their parties to participate as Amicus Curiae:
“District Courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non- parties concerning
legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the partied directly involved or if the
amicus has [“unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help
that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.”]” NVG Gaming, Ltd, v. Upstream
Point Molate, LLC.; 355 F. Supp 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005); (quoting Ryan v.
Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997)
II. Identity and Interest of Pro-Se Amicus Curiae Michael J. McDermott
I am a California Voter, native son of San Francisco and current resident of Alameda
County, and supporter of Proposition 8 (Prop. 8). I had previously submitted a Pro-Se
Amicus Brief to the California State Supreme Court supporting Prop. 8 and opposing the
Misandry (Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) I believe motivates
much of the attack on Marriage. I now believe it equally appropriate to do so in this
Federal case in order to defend rights and viewpoints not fully represented by any current
parties to the action.
I graduated with Distinction from the McGeorge School of Law in 2003 with
focus on First Amendment and Civil Rights law, and was the founder and president of the
campus Men’s Caucus. Like many who openly supported Prop. 8, I have been targeted
for retaliation both personally and professionally, and feel the need to defend the validity
of my vote and the benefit to the citizens of my state and the nation derived there from.
I believe I present a perspective not represented by other parties; particularly my
familiarity with and long term opposition to what I contend is the Inherent Animus and
Misandry of Plaintiff’s positions; especially those of the City of San Francisco, the
County of Alameda and (although nominally on the defendant side) the California
Attorney Generals Office; as well as the ideological movements behind such animus.
III. Why Amicus Curiae’s Brief Will Be Beneficial To This Court
I submit that the attack on the validity of Prop. 8 as not just one involving social
issues of the culture wars, but also an attempt to destroy basic rights to the Freedom of
Speech, Conscience and Political Viewpoint as guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Where other briefs by the Defendants side seem to focus on rebutting charges of animus,
I believe that the real animus is found in Plaintiff’s attack on Marriage and the Rights of
the Voters. I further submit that my Pro-Se Amicus position fills a necessary function in
addressing this gap and my input in to the process is necessary to a full airing of the facts
and issues of this case, and thus ask the Court to grant my application.
I therefore request this Courts leave to submit my Pro-Se Amicus Curiae brief in support
of my vote in favor of the great good of Proposition 8
Michael J. McDermott, Pro-Se Amicus Petitioner. February 1, 2010.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………..………………….4
APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF……………………………………………...1
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIA - INTRODUCTION……………………………………...5
APPENDIX (EXHIBITS, DECLARATION & PROPOSED ORDER).…………..15-19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
United States Constitution: 1st & 14th Amendments…………………............................1-9
United States Supreme Court: Torasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, n.3 (1961)……………4
Federal Public Law: Pub L. 111-84, Division ‘E’: (2010)……………..............................1
Supreme Court for the State of California & Government Code:
K.M., v. E.G.: S125643 (2005)……………………………………………………………7
Elisa B. v. Superior Court ; S125912 (2005)……………………………………………...7
Kristine H. v. Lisa R.: S126945 (2005)…………………………………………………...7
California Government Code: §8240-8246 (Commission on the Status of Women)…….5
Articles and Interviews:
Interview with Theodore Dalrymple, www.FrontPageMagazine.com( 8/31/05)………...2
Jeffrey M. Barker, ‘Same-sex shoo-in: Sacramento News & Review (4/28/05)
Susan Bridle, ‘No Man's Land’ An interview with Mary Daly by Susan Bridle (1999)
Men's Liberation? Women's Liberation? Gay Liberation? - What Is Enlightenment? magazine - Issue 16
‘Lesbians Raising Sons’, Anthology by Jess Wells, Alyson Books (1sst Ed. 1997); ISBN
‘The Physical Health Risks of Homosexuality’, by Alysse ElHage Family North
Carolina Magazine—July/August 2007, www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html…….......9
INTRODUCTION & ISSUE STATEMENT
“Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”
George Orwell, 1984, on the Thought Police.
The Attack on Proposition 8 is such an overt act of ideological thought policing, financed mainly by radical hollywood activists such as the notorious propagandist Rob
Reiner, that it is worthy of the title of ‘Tantrum Theater.’ With the recent enactment of the most draconian ‘Thought Crime’ law in American history: Pub L. 111-84, Division
‘E’: Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes act (2010), promoting imprisonment for using words alone to allegedly “Incite” parties unknown to the speaker
to commit alleged “hate crimes”; the attack by the radical gender feminist / homosexualist alliance on the First Amendment has gained a powerful tool.
Thus this legal attack on the very idea of Marriage as a heterosexual institution between a woman and a man, now portends using that law to punish those who dare speak such basic truths. Marriage in our society is and always has been for members of opposite complimentary genders, meaning the immutable and inherited characteristics of birth that
make us male and female; as scientifically proven by the presence of XY and XX chromosomes in every cell of our bodies. Further, All human procreation is Heterosexual,
and every child has a Male Father and a Female Mother; and is created by the combination of male sperm and female ovum, regardless of the physical mechanics of
Thus the attack on Prop. 8 is an Orwellian pogrom aimed not just at destroying the term ‘marriage’, but an institution grounded in scientific fact. The Plaintiffs want to use the Court to disenfranchise the voters in order to change the meaning of the word ‘marriage’ in furtherance of their radical political agenda.
Thus while the attack on marriage uses many pretexts as propaganda in support of their radical agendas, the overarching goal is furtherance of a Political Gender War
against their favorite bogeyman of the hated ‘Hetero-Patriarchy.’ The arguments attacking Prop. 8 are a prime example of political correctness run amok to the level of
destructive absurdity. This phenomenon was perhaps best explained by author Theodore Dalrymple in an interview in FrontPageMagazine.com (August 31, 2005), when he said:
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to
persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Hence, a prime goal of the attack on Prop. 8 is not the promotion of alternate views on marriage, but the banishment of the prevailing view (as evidenced by the votes
nationwide on the issue) as legally unacceptable. It is an entirely reasonable next step in chilling and destroying free speech on the issue to take what is already a semi official
pogrom of punishing people who support Prop. 8 (in employment, government service…) and turn it in to a political thought crime leading to imprisonment.
I know of no greater threat to the liberty and free speech rights of citizens than the combination of mandatory pandering to the radical gender feminist / homosexualist agenda inherent in the attack on marriage, enforced through use of ‘hate crime’ laws. The hypocrisy of these radicals claiming that an unthinking animus is all thatinforms those defending Prop. 8, is only exceeded by the campaign of censorship in service of political correctness by which they and their allies seek to forbid factual examination of the prime motivations for this unprecedented pogrom. There are many rational, reasonable, logical, fact based intellectually and morally valid justifications for rejecting the types of Behaviors and Agendas that inform and motivate this attack, including defense of the fundamental Constitutional Rights of citizens of conscience in service of preservation of the basic fabric of civilized society.
The alliance against Prop. 8 has two main constituencies whose common bond is the shared animus against men, masculinity and normal heterosexuality that is the essence of Misandry. That they have allies in all levels of government, media. professional political lobbies and particularly academia, willing to turn a blind eye to double standards in service of political correctness and viewpoint discrimination, is all the more reason for the Court to thwart this pogrom pushed through the attack on Prop. 8.
In essence the goal is to force upon the public normalization of both a separatist / neoexterminiationist radical feminist misandrist pogrom directed against males, as well as
promoting male homo-anal coprophile behaviors as equivalent to normal heterosexuality. This is the true core of the agenda of animus behind this thought policing pogrom.
1. THOUGHT POLICING
A. The First Amendment rights of citizens to speak out against the advancement of social evils is under attack like never before, and the war on ‘marriage’ is a war against
speech and ideas totalitarian in nature and destructive in purpose. The attempt to use the Courts to try and force ‘beliefs’ on the citizens, including those identified by the U.S.
Supreme Court as “Secular Humanist” Torasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, n.3 (1961), is a grave threat to the future of the republic.
Whether through direct punishment for alleged ‘hate crimes’ or simply intimidating the Voters from speaking the truth for fear of the consequences, the attack on Prop. 8 has shown the real nature of a campaign that seeks to brand itself as only concerned with ‘love’ - and yet acts out with such fierce animus.
Unable to sell their goods in the market place of ideas, opponents of heterosexual marriage now seek to force the electorate in to accepting a false and harmful equivalency,
and by requiring that voters who know better must believe in an agenda that cannot stand up to unbiased public scrutiny by the electorate. Unlike the fable of the boy who exposed
the fraud of the ‘emperors new clothes’, those who stand up to this misandrist fraud are being subjected to severe reprisals, particularly from those making a profit from the
scam, much as the suppliers of invisible thread and cloth to the emperors tailors did. By enshrining the false equivalency of their agenda in to law, activist for radical gender
feminist / homosexualist causes seek a weapon to silence those who would expose them.
II. EQUAL PROTECTION HYPOCRISY
The example of government opponents of Prop. 8 who make equal protection arguments in their cause, are revealed as hypocrisy when compared to the double standards of misandry they support and promote (often with tax subsidy) where they wield power. The following are some prime if not exhaustive examples:
A. The San Francisco Dyke March / Anti Male Hate Riot. Every year since 1989 the City of San Francisco ‘hosts’ an annual takeover of the public streets known as the
“Dyke March” (Exhibit #1), which although it refuses to apply for a permit or pay any fees none the less orders the banning of Men from the streets. Despite the fact that it refuses to even mark the route in advance or warn citizens of the gridlock that shuts down a good part of the city, San Francisco now supplies tax subsidized police and transit services to this takeover, which boasts that it seeks to bring about “A World Devoid of Men.”
Such raw Animus could not be directed against other groups without causing considerable fallout, but in Frisco the level of official misandry is such that it is best describes as a public policy of BAMN BAMN – Bash Men, By Any Means Necessary. The self avowed “Separatists” who run the Dyke March are fully integrated in to the City Government, and represent a powerful interest behind the misandrist attack on Prop.8.
B. Government Censorship and Discrimination. By not only overtly silencing certain politically incorrect viewpoints, but of also providing tax subsidized forums for promoting only one point of view, government agencies throughout California promote radical gender feminist misandry. Granting extraordinary political lobbying powers to
groups such as the “California Commission on the Status of Women” (created by Government Code Section 8240-8246), is a prime example of the mockery of equal
protection that is the reality in this state. The statements by Alameda County board of supervisors president Scott Haggerty showing his vehement opposition to allowing an
equal voice for male citizens (Amicus Dec. P-3) serve to highlight the hypocrisy in any claims of concern for equal protection these parties may make.
C. Ignoring Attacks on the Voters. The story of former Yolo County District Attorney’s office manager Gretchen Bender is also relevant1.
1 Same-sex shoo-in: A gender-neutral marriage bill passes its first hurdle in the Assembly. By Jeffrey M. Barker, (www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=35079)
Bender publicly boasted in an article widely published in the state capitol (Exhibit # 2.) of engaging in egregious acts of trespass and vandalism of election materials maliciously directed against law abiding citizens; and apparently escaped any sanctions from the State. Contrast this treatment to the official public statements of then Attorney
General Bill Lockyer (Amicus Dec. P-4) supporting homosex prison rape for Males Only, and his continued leadership amongst ‘male feminists’ in the political party that controls
the California Legislature. These few examples serve only as indicators of the pervasive institutional misandry endemic to California government, and the double standards they
embrace that betray their public posturing about ‘equal’ protection.
D. Discrimination against Children & Heterosexuality. By attempting to create a suspect class with rights superior to all others, based solely on their choice to perceive
themselves as oriented towards engaging in homosex behaviors, Prop. 8 opponents display animus to both the rights of Children and Heterosexual Males. Phenomenon such
as the ‘Donor – Sibling’ registry (DonorSiblingRegistry.com: educating, connecting and supporting donor families) show the problems (ranging from search for identity to potential incest…) resulting from ‘anonymous donors’ and the legal elimination of male parents from appearing as real persons on birth certificates. Children deserve to know who their natural biological parents are, and the attack on Prop. 8 is a deliberate roadblock to thwart this normal and healthy aspiration.
This bias against equal protection for heterosexuality was demonstrated in the set of three cases foundational to the California Supreme Court’s marriage / procreation
jurisprudence prior to Prop. 8, published together on August 22, 2005: (K.M., v. E.G.: S125643 / Elisa B. v. Superior Court; S125912 / Kristine H. v. Lisa R.: S126945).
Because Prop. 8 can now be argued to have invalidated attempts to Disfavor Heterosexuality in the law, and reaffirmed the equal protection rights of heterosexual males as opposed to ‘donors’, the misandry lobby is targeting it. Indeed, even California Justice Werdegar in her dissent touched on one aspect of such violations of equal protection when she said:
"Although the majority denies that its rule depends on sexual orientation the opinion speaks for itself; The majority has chosen to use the term lesbian no less than six times in articulating its holding. Moreover, the majority prevents future courts from applying its holding automatically to persons other than lesbians. I see no rational basis, and the majority articulates none for permitting the enforceability of an ovum donation agreement to depend on the sexual orientation of the parties. Indeed, lacking a rational basis, the rule may well violate equal protection." K.M., v. E.G.; Werdegar Dissenting at 6.
Even more telling of the attempt to instill misandry in to the law is the bizarre ruling in favor of holding males who engage in heterosexual behaviors to a different standard than those who Intentionally ‘donate’ Sperm at what are commonly referred to as ‘sperm banks (Aka - ‘dead beat dad’ factories): “Usually, whether there is evidence ofa parent and child relationship under the UPA does not depend upon the intent of the parent. For example, a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who
assures him, falsely, that she is incapable of conceiving children is the father of a resulting child, despite his lack of intent to become a father." Id. at 4-5
Because it can be argued that Prop. 8 makes it clear that marriage is between a Man (XY) and a Woman (XX), all such ersatz attempts to create ‘fatherless’ children as a
matter of law may now be open to challenge. This includes such bizarre double standards that say amongst other things, that fraternal twin brothers can have different paternity.
Consider the case of a woman who uses a sperm bank to conceive one male (XY) son, and then later engages in heterosexual intercourse with the same man (the prior
‘anonymous’ donor), and conceives another male (XY) son – his fraternal twin brother. The First Boy (who Inherited His Father’s Y Chromosome via intentional
‘donation’) is held to have No Legal Father – not an absent one or a deadbeat, but no legally existent male parent, despite the scientific evidence of his own genes. His twin
brother (exact same Y Chromosome), because he was conceived by heterosexual intercourse, does have a Father recognized by law (even if the conception was
unintentional), and that Man can be sent to prison for failure to pay support for this Son only, based on scientific proof of parentage from the same Y Chromosome.
Prop. 8 threatens to invalidate such insanely contradictory anti-scientific misandry, which is based on a hatred of normal heterosexual intercourse and not ‘love’
for those of the same sex, and which is a central factor behind the attack on Prop. 8.
A. Radical Gender Feminist Misandry Motivates Animus. Recently deceased academic icon Mary Daley was widely eulogized by the media and other prominent feminists for a lifetime of misandry. She is emblematic of many of the Prop.8 activists in her motivation by a fierce hatred for the “patriarchy.” 2Like many others of her ilk sheopenly advocated an agenda whereby the male population could be reduced to 10% of less of its present level as a means of “decontaminating the earth.” Such views are not
only widespread and popular in radical feminist circles, but also inform and motivate much of the attack on Heterosexual marriage, particularly given the popular radical
feminist position that all heterosexual intercourse is rape, because women cannot consent to heterosexual relations under the yoke of oppression by said “Patriarchy.”
Susan Bridle, ‘No Man's Land’ An interview with Mary Daly by Susan Bridle (1999) www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j16/daly
The anthology book “Lesbians Raising Sons” by Jess Wells 3provides stark example of such separatist / exterminiationist misandry in the Anti 8 movement. The book is full of
stories ranging from denunciations of those who fail to abort male children as “Traitors to your species”, to demeaning male babies as “Pig Child” and the banishment of those who
associate with them because they “exude maleness.” The attack on Prop. 8 is in large part the extension of such hate driven misandrist pogroms in to the Courts, where they have
already found considerable success. These aspects of anti male animus are rarely discussed, but need to be part of the full debate.
B. Forced Acceptance of Behavioral Equivalency. By contrast another main thread of misandry behind the attack on Prop.8 is motivated by the demand for normalizing male homo-anal coporphile behaviors, and forcing the public to accept them as no different than heterosexual relations4. Although nearly three of every four new first time
Aids cases in California are the direct result of homo-anal transmission, the campaign to censor those who point out the pathological nature of such behaviors and the harm from
endorsing them is widespread and relentless.
By coupling the choice to engage in such behaviors with ‘marriage’, the intent is to force a false equivalency on the public consciousness, with even greater penalties for
those who dare to point out the important differences than already exist. An analogy to the flaws in equal protection arguments made by such activists can be found in the rules
for sound eyesight in order to get a drivers license, in that blind people may claim it is unfair to have a double standard favoring those who can see, because some of them still
get in car wrecks anyway.
So to with the notion that heterosexual behavior must be free of similar pathological aspects in order to recognize its natural procreative value. Thus the attack on Prop. 8 is a deceitful attempt to use the Courts to normalize and force acceptance of behaviors that advocates have failed to sell in the marketplace of ideas.
‘Lesbians Raising Sons’. Anthology by Jess Wells, Alyson Books (1sst Ed. 1997) ISBN 1-55583-410-8
‘The Physical Health Risks of Homosexuality’, by Alysse ElHage Family North Carolina Magazine— July/August 2007, The Physical Health Risks of Homosexuality. Writing in their 1989 gay manifesto, After the Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, Ph.D., offered the homosexual community the following strategy:
“In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”[i]
The plaintiffs seek to cast themselves in the guise of victims seeking to overcome oppression at the ballot box, by judicial fiat. The reality is just the opposite. They are
instead trying to enforce their own radical political ideologies on an unwilling public by ever more draconian intimidation tactics, including the use of the Courts to thwart the
will of the electorate, at least when they don’t like the outcome of the vote. The attempt by Plaintiffs to use the Courts as Thought Police, in order to push a
radical political agenda that is rationally and reasonably opposed by a majority of the citizens, should not be allowed to succeed.
Far from opening up any debate about the issue, destroying the vote of the electorate for Prop. 8, or using that vote as grounds for advancing the political ideology of the Plaintiffs, would have a deeply chilling effect on all manner of Rights to Freedom of Speech and Conscience on these important issues.
The Vote of the Electorate in favor of the rational and reasonable position of Proposition 8 should be upheld, and the Plaintiff’s case dismissed in full.
Michael J. McDermott – Amicus Pro-Se.
Submitted 2/2/10 in accord with the rules of Court for N.D. CA.
7172 Regional #329 Dublin CA94568
email@example.com (925) 548-3446
EXHIBIT #1: 6/28/98 San Francisco Dyke March - Anti Male Hate Riot. *Note Lit
Torches carried by self avowed Dykes in Daylight Takeover of the Public Street.
The actual quote by Lisa Roth is found in her follow up Letter to the S.F. Chronicle of 7/1/98, where she Explicitly Bans Men from the Streets: “Many thanks for running a
great picture of the 6th Annual Dyke March on the front page of Sunday's paper, but I must correct an error. I never said, "Guys are welcome." I said, "Guys are welcome to
stand on the side and cheer” The Dyke March is a "woman only" event, organized by women for women and about women. As we said at our rally, the Annual San Francisco
Dyke March is the best live girl show in town. We've got No Permit, no politicians, no corporate sponsors and No Men. We are fierce and feisty and fat and feminist.” 7/1/98
Lisa Roth - S. F. Dyke March Organizing Com. / Damn Lesbians
Women rule the world, if only for a little while . By Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer. Sunday, June 27, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle. For a few hours Saturday night, Vicki
Noble got a fleeting glimpse of a world devoid of men…"This is what the world would look like if women ruled the world, which we intend to do," said Noble…
Men told not to rain on parade Unity key to Dyke March; 50,000 expected at S.F. Dyke March 50,000 expected -- men not advised. By Joe Garofoli, S.F. Chronicle Staff Writer - Saturday, June 26, 2004.
A few simple rules are expected to attract more than 50,000 participants to today's 12th annual Dyke March through San Francisco: no corporate sponsors, no politicians, no permit to march and no men.
Dyke- friendly guys are invited to cheer from the sidewalk as marchers wind along a still-secret route through the Mission and Castro districts and points beyond. It's cuttingedge
politics like this that has helped the march blossom…The biggest donation was a $5,000 gift from the city's Grants for the Arts.
The same goes for calling it a "dyke" and not a "lesbian" march. Organizer Tina D'Elia said it's an effort to reclaim the word "dyke," long considered a derogatory term for
lesbians… - it's become one of the city's largest winked-at underground events. Though there are no official march permits, the city's police, traffic and
transportation officials now plan for it…
San Francisco Dyke March 2002 Official Statement
This grass roots activist event has neither a permit nor the city’s blessing, but nobody’s worried: The parade draws women by the tens of thousands, and there’s nothing the city
can do. Unlike Sunday’s official pride parade, the march has no corporate sponsors, no leadership hierarchy, and no guys, save for the few supportive fellows cheering from
the sidelines… the march is a return to raw, in-your-face activism… the crowd of women takes over the Mission Quadrant, with Dykes on Bikes leading the Charge…
The 2000 San Francisco Dyke March Website clearly states the requirement for Men to be allowed in the streets when it says: “It's okay for men to march, but they must first
complete two thousand years of evolution”
Exhibit #2: Same-sex shoo-in: A gender-neutral marriage bill passes its first hurdle in the Assembly. By Jeffrey M. Barker, Sacramento News &
Review (www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=35079) 4/28/05.
Before the committee discussion had even begun, gender-neutral marriage was a shoo-in… Enter Gretchen Bender, a self-described “poster child of the modern lesbian.”
The 34-year-old Natomas woman is the chief fiscal officer for a branch of Yolo County government, is a mother of two and has been in a relationship with a
woman for five years… It was on a rainy day during election season, in 2000, that Bender became openly involved in the gay-marriage movement. As she drove down a street in
Riverside, her daughter pointed out the many pro-Proposition 22 campaign signs.
“I jumped out of the car and started pulling the signs off the side of the road,” she said. She collected them at home, where she changed the “Yes” to
read “No.” Then she swapped out the signs on people’s lawns and on utility poles. “It definitely put the community in a defensive stance rather than in an
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS BRIEF
I, Michael J. McDermott, submit this true copy of my Declaration to the California Supreme Court in its Proposition 8 case, as my Declaration in Perry V. Schwarzenegger:
1. I am a native son of the city of San Francisco and an advocate on behalf of the Civil Rights of this nation’s despised and disposable Male Minority. I am also a 2003
graduate of the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, who has been summarily stripped by the administration of all my vested alumni rights; without charges, process or
appeal, This was done in retaliation for reporting Threats of Extreme Physical Violence against me by a McGeorge Professor, sanctioned by the school’s policy of aggressive
viewpoint discrimination in favor of the same radical gender feminist / homosex politicalagenda that is also driving the opposition to Proposition 8 and promoting Misandry
(Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) throughout the CaliforniaLegal System.
2. In 1989 as a professional firefighter in Santa Barbara County CA, I was terminated as the result of a secret government run star chamber political vendetta, again
based on viewpoint discrimination, in retaliation for recommending the establishment of a Commission for Men to parallel the existing Commission for Women, and having
allegedly “Written Letters to the Editor Expressing Negative Views in Current Women’s Issues.” Additional secret anonymous charges in the star chamber process included retaliation for attending open public lectures at the University of California, and duringthe Q&A Sessions daring to ask questions that angered the campus feminist / homosex
thought police – who used their police powers to reach out in to the community and secretly complain to my employer in order to silence and censor me while remaining
3. As a Men’s Civil Rights Advocate I have long opposed the Unconstitutional Violation of Equal Protection inherent in the State and Counties subsidizing and granting
extraordinary political power to Commissions for Women, while simultaneously Denying Equal Voice to the Male Minority. One example of this occurred on September 17, 2008,
when I attended a government-sponsored session labeled as political appointments training - for women. The only other Male present was Alameda County Supervisor Scott
Haggerty – who after boasting about their County Commission for Womyn said: "I would Never Appoint a Man to the Status of Womyn Commission; that would Not be
the right thing to do."
Supervisor Haggerty then went on to state that He and the Rest of the Supervisor were Completely Opposed to allowing the establishment of any Similar Commission for Men and had been so for Decades. The hypocrisy of the CA Attorney General and County Counsels presenting briefs in this case claiming to demonstrate a concern for Equal Protection, is clearly shown by their own egregious Discrimination against allowing any such Equal Representation for the Male Minority.
4. The extent of Institutional Misandry pervading the California Legal System is highlighted by the example of former Attorney General Bill Lockyer while in office.
During the spring of 2003 I attended a lecture by this McGeorge graduate during which he engaged in considerable Male Bashing rhetoric. After the lecture I asked him about his
public statements supporting Male Prison Rape as a Policy of the State, in regard to his public statements about a then un-indicted target, when he said: “I would love to
Personally Escort Ken Lay to an 8x12 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who would say, ‘Hi, My Name is Spike, Honey”.
Attorney General Lockyer not only confirmed this Official State Policy of Homo-Anal Prison Rape targeting Males as valid, but emphasized that it was only policy for Male citizens and did not under any circumstances apply to Women. When I asked him why the double standard against Men, he swore at me and walked away with his staff and supporters.
5. One of the most important educational moments of my life occurred on June 28, 1998, during the San Francisco Dyke March / Anti Male Hate Riot pictured and
described in Exhibit #1. I was going about my business in my home town of San Francisco when, in the process of crossing the public street, I encountered the Misandrist
Reality of the San Francisco Dyke March in the form of several Dykes on Bikes using their motorcycles as offensive weapons to clear the streets of Men in advance of the Hate
Riot. I later learned from reading the story that accompanied the picture of these torch bearing hate mongers, as well as research on the internet, that these self avowed
“Separatist Dykes” boast that they refuse to even apply for a permit when they take over the public streets and Ban Male Citizens. They even boast in Court Filings that this is as
part of their pogrom to bring about their Misandrist / Exterminationist ideal of a “World Devoid of Men”.
That the leaders and legal establishment of my home town of San Francisco use tax money to subsidize this Anti Male Hate Riot, and turn a blind eye to the rampant
violations of the law and the civil rights of the Male Minority it represents, simply illustrates the hollow and hypocritical nature of their briefs purporting to show such a
great concern for ‘Equal Protection’. Support for Separatist / Exterminationist Misandry is a mainstay of the Frisco political establishment, and a shame to the nation.
6. On January 6, 2008, I learned that the San Francisco Catholic Church where my parents were married, Holy Redeemer, was vandalized with spray paint swastikas and
anti Catholic Hate speech, by those retaliating against the Church for its principled stand in favor of Proposition 8. As a student of history and particularly the fascist movements
of the 20th century, the use of Swastikas as a symbol of Radical Homosex Activism struck a chilling cord.
Historical truth found in books like The Pink Swastika clearlyhighlight the connection between Homosex Behaviors and Nazism that gave rise to one of the most hateful Exterminationist regimes in modern history. The stark historical reality is that the Nazi Party was founded and run by butch Homo-Anal Coprophile Ephebophiles, such as Storm Trooper leader Ernst Röhm and his Protégé Adolph Hitler.
The predilections that characterized them are demonstrated each year in Frisco during the Folsom Street Fair. Likewise, the Exterminationist Hatred they directed towards the Jews
is echoed in the public demands of Dyke Marchers for “A World Devoid of Men.”
7. Thus I find that the campaign of Anti Male Thought Policing and Retaliatory Discrimination that has come to characterize my home state of California is indeed
reminiscent of the fall of Weimar Germany and its replacement with a National Homo- Socialist Third Reich.
As one of the Men squarely targeted in the sights of such Exterminationist Misandrists, I am reminded of the episode of the South Park cartoon show, titled “The
Death Camp of Tolerance”. California is quickly morphing in to a Deeply Misandrist Society where the new political paradigm is that of a ‘Cannibal Soup’ culture – meaning
that one either joins in the orgy of Misandry as a Diner, or is included in the feast as Dinner.
Male Citizens who fail to pander to Misandry are targeted by the legal systemand other organs of government, and their very right to speak out against such Rank Misandry is being censored in the name of an ersatz fraud of alleged ‘tolerance’.
The Attack on Marriage is simply one facet of this overall pogrom of Exterminationist Misandry, and whether Male (meaning having the immutable inherited characteristic of Male Gender as proven at birth by the (XY) chromosome), or Female (XX); all citizens have a duty to stand up to such evil; even if it be found in the immoral,
irrational, and anti scientific demand that citizens believe or act as if Marriage is Not what it Truly Is – a Bond between a Man and a Woman.
I submitted this declaration of the truth under penalty of perjury on 1/14/09 and do so
again as of 2/2/10.
Sincerely, Michael J. McDermott
Last edited by Ohso; 27th-September-2010 at 12:10 AM.
Re: Thought Policing
Poll Finds Record Majority of Americans Distrust Mainstream Media
By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new Gallup poll shows that a record majority of Americans have little to no trust in mainstream media to report the news “fully, accurately, and fairly.” Nearly half cited “liberal bias” in the media, which ranked only slightly higher than the U.S. Congress in public confidence levels.
Gallup reports that 57 percent of those polled for their annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, said their “confidence and trust” in mass media – newspapers, television, and radio – was “not very much/none at all.” This is one percentage point higher than the record set in 2008.
Forty-three percent said they rated their confidence in the media as “great deal/fair amount.”
The numbers represent a huge turnaround of confidence from three decades ago, when the public had a great deal/fair amount of confidence in the media in the high 60th to low 70th percentile.
Forty-eight percent of Americans said that the news media is “too liberal,” while 33 percent say it is “just right.” Only 15 percent say the media is “too conservative.”
A majority of those identifying themselves as Democrats or liberals tended to have trust in the media. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats had confidence in the media, while 48 percent thought its reporting was “just about right.” Among liberals, 54 percent said they had confidence in the media, and 51 percent did not perceive any media bias.
However Independents and Republicans expressed similar levels of distrust of the media. Sixty-one percent of Independents said they had little to no trust in the media, while 67 percent of Republicans said the same.
Independents and Republicans were more divided in how liberal they thought media reporting was. Republicans were very dissatisfied with mainstream reporting, with 76 percent saying that the media was “too liberal” and 15 percent saying it was “just about right.” Conservatives held similar views.
Among Independents, 45 percent thought mass media was “too liberal,” while 35 percent did not detect a bias.
The mainstream media, nevertheless, garners more public confidence than the U.S. Congress, the elected representatives of the American people. In another Gallup poll, just 36 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the legislative branch.
Re: Thought Policing
MEDIA MATTERS - 'Gays' on television hit record
Expert calls flood of characters attempt to 'brainwash' public on lifestyle
Posted: October 03, 2010 By Brian Fitzpatrick WorldNetDaily
A pro-homosexual organization is reporting that the number of "gay" characters on television for the 2010-2011 season has reached a record high 3.9 percent.
But a prominent critic of the "gay" rights movement says the report from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation marks nothing more than a continuation of a strategy to batter public resistance to homosexuality.
In a new report, GLAAD notes that on broadcast TV, 23 regular characters, including five lead characters, are homosexual this season, an increase over 18 last season. An additional 14 recurring characters are homosexual.
Homosexual activists routinely vet Hollywood scripts to make sure homosexual characters are portrayed sympathetically.
"Getting more gay characters on TV is right out of the gay movement's playbook, Hunter and Madsen's After the Ball," said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.
"After the Ball," published in the late 1980s, lays out a strategy for persuading America to accept homosexuality, using techniques of mass marketing and emotional manipulation.
GLAAD is "the leader in changing hearts and minds to support full equality for the LGBT community," according to its website.
"Brainwashing would be a better term," said LaBarbera.
"The three main techniques in 'After the Ball' are desensitization, jamming and conversion," said LaBarbera.
"Desensitization involves flooding straights with images of homosexuals," said LaBarbera, who proceeded to quote directly from 'After the Ball:' "You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think it's just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."
"Jamming means you make people feel guilty for opposing the homosexual agenda," said LaBarbera. "According to 'After the Ball,' you 'jam' people by portraying homosexuals as innocent victims of bigotry, to make people feel like they are oppressing gays if they oppose the political movement.
"The longterm goal is conversion, where you make people accept and even defend homosexuality," said LaBarbera. "You accomplish this by giving people images of homosexuals that belie the negative stereotypes, and remind you of people you already admire and associate with.
"Television is very effective in applying all of these techniques, because of the emotional impact that comes from its visual images," LaBarbera added. "It's their preferred medium for spreading propaganda. That's why it's so important for them to get more gay characters on TV. According to 'After the Ball,' television is their first choice because, quote, 'its breadth of audience is unparalleled,' and, quote, 'it's the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message.' 'After the Ball' says that TV, quote, 'has a way of getting to even the most resistant viewers.'
"If a Martian sat down and watched TV for a week during this new season, he would conclude that Americans worship sex, not God, that a large segment of the population is homosexual, and that our attention spans are about three seconds," said Robert Knight, senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and author of the newly updated book "Fighting for America's Soul."
Re: Thought Policing
Obama & co election fraud may be worst in US history
By Sher Zieve - Renew America
As the lawlessness of the Obama regime becomes evident to all who can think overseas, here at home it has metastasized throughout the body of our nation. Obama and his US Marxist Party (formerly known as the US Democrat Party) are working with increased speed and vigor to destroy all that once was the United States of America; to the point of Obama's DOJ now openly flaunting both the upholding of equal-access voting laws and engaging in blatant election fraud.
Continuing their arrogant attitude of "we have our jack boots on yours and your country's neck and you can't stop us!", Obama and his minions have already bled We-the-People dry of most of our resources and are currently embroiled in their now-overt plans to negate our votes against our own enslavement to the tyrant. One of Obama's protected emissaries Malik Shabazz — the same New Black Panther leader Malik Shabazz who said black people need to "kill white people and their babies" — has, apparently, been a regular guest at the Obama White House. Corrupt and violent minds think alike?
Further, this is the same Malik Shabazz who was convicted in one of the most blatant and egregious cases of voter intimidation in US history. This is also the same Malik Shabazz whom DOJ chief and Obama lackey Eric Holder protected by throwing out the conviction against him and officially acknowledging that if the victim is "white" no one will be prosecuted under the fraudulent Obama regime.
The illegitimate Obama regime has been kicking the sands of racism into our eyes since it usurped our country in 2008 and has become the foreign occupier of OUR US White House.
Former DOJ employee J. Christian Adams and his, under subpoena, supervisor Christopher Coates testified before the US Commission on Civil Rights that the Obama DOJ is hostile towards enforcing crimes against whites. Coates further stated: "That anger was the result of their deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who have been discriminated against."
Even though all viable polls point to the fact that the November ousting of the US Marxist Congress will — most likely — be of epic proportions, the Dictator-in-Chief Obama's dark and dangerous plans for the cancellation of his opposition will be fierce. Expect New Black Panthers and Union thugs intimidation at US polling places. From Obama's DOJ policies that have now been brought into the light of day, it seems blatantly obvious that Obama will pull out all the stops in keeping "white folks" from voting. Note: This is the worst, most openly racist — not to mention most illegal — government in US history.
If the historic actions and words of this regime are to be taken into consideration, dead people, family pets, illegal aliens and all other ineligible Marxist Democrats will be allowed to vote, while legitimate and eligible US voters will be denied. Note: This is the same regime that supports known terrorists, threatens US States and continues to suppress the US military vote.
Again, folks, if We-the-People are to have any chance of taking back our country we must vote in such overwhelming numbers that we cannot and must not be denied. We must scare the current totalitarian rulers into submission to us — not the other way around. It's time to begin cleaning out the House and Senate of all Marxists and RINOs. But, be prepared for a fight as corruption and evil never leave willingly...or quietly.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." — Thomas Jefferson.
New Black Panther Malik Shabazz: Kill white people and their babies:
YouTube - black panther wants to "kill white babies","Kill Some Crackers" filmed AFTER polling incident
The Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies: YouTube - The Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies
Barack Obama's Guest List: Malik Shabazz:
Barack Obama's Guest List: Malik Shabazz
Coates: Voter Intimidation Ignored in the Department of Justice If Victim Is White:
Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls:
Pajamas Media » Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls
J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Voter fraud, Fox interview Part 2:
YouTube - J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Voter fraud, Fox interview Part 2
Democrats Suppress Military Vote...Again:
Democrats Suppress Military Vote
Re: Thought Policing
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case of Funeral Protestors that Could Affect Free Speech Rights
Washington, DC – This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving individuals who protested a funeral more than 1,000 feet from the location. In Snyder v. Phelps, Albert Snyder, who did not actually see the protest prior to the funeral but was later told about it, filed suit seeking monetary damages from the Fred Phelps family for protesting at the funeral of his son, a fallen war hero. Although Liberty Counsel expressly condemns the offensive tactics employed by the Phelpses and deplores the content of their rhetoric, Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans that could be affected by the outcome of this case.
Phelps and his family have been protesting for years and, in fact, protested the funeral of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, with whom Mathew Staver was a personal friend. Although Liberty Counsel recognizes that such protests and picketing events are offensive and in poor taste, Liberty Counsel also recognizes that the bad facts of this case could negatively affect the legitimate free speech rights of law-abiding Americans. This case could give a veto right to anyone who claims the speech of another is “offensive.” Today it is the offensive speech of the Phelpses, and tomorrow it could be religious, pro-life or pro-family speech, or any other speech for that matter.
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The Supreme Court must not use the bad facts of this case to restrict legitimate free speech rights of law-abiding citizens. The First Amendment does not grant to anyone a veto right over another person’s speech, simply because it might be offensive. Free speech needs breathing room. I would rather tolerate a person’s offensive speech than be silenced by the force of law.”
Re: Thought Policing
One way the Radical Leftist / Gender Feminist / Homosexualist Thought Police enforce their pogrom of Mandatory Pandering is to apply the Cannibal Soup Test to intimidate or obliterate all who get in their way.
In the following story, one of the most vicious Misandrist Hate Groups in the world (with the Orwellian handle of 'hrc') highlights the manner in which the Thought Police Destroy their Enemies by Destroying their Right to speak in opposition to the sick hatreds and vlie perversions being shoved up the public wazoo.
By Demanding that Law Firms Refuse to represent anyone who Fails to Pander, these radical Misandrists seek to deny legal representation those they target for their hate pogroms - and thus deny them the Voice to Defend Themselves.
After all - any attorney who would defend "ism-Obia" deserves to become an unemployable pariah, and be sent to jail for 'Contempt' if they fail to force feed Cannibal Soup to the Client in Court.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltarie
"97 BigLaw Firms Get Perfect Scores on LGBT Issues - News - ABA Journal"
97 BigLaw Firms Get Perfect Scores on LGBT Issues - News - ABA Journal
The Human Rights Campaign has given perfect scores to 97 large law firms for their protections and benefits for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.
The nation’s top 200 law firms were invited to participate in the survey, and 130 agreed, according to a press release. Ninety-seven received 100 percent scores, making the legal sector the top industry in the campaign’s corporate equality index, according to the 2011 report (see page 81 for individual listings). Second place went to the banking and financial services industry, and third place to retail and consumer products employers.
Last year, 88 law firms got perfect ratings.
The survey relies on self-reporting, but the Human Rights Campaign will deduct points for a “significant official or public anti-LGBT blemish on the company’s recent record."
That hurt Foley & Lardner, since it provided legal help to groups opposing gay marriage in Washington, D.C., the Human Rights Campaign says. “Although the firm has a long history of pro bono support for LGBT causes,” the reports says,
“it decided not to abandon its representation of the anti-LGBT organization and has not provided HRC with evidence that such clearly discriminatory clients will not be engaged in the future.”
Absent the 15-point deduction, the firm would have received a perfect score.
Re: Thought Policing
'Unkle' Kinsey is the Icon of the new sex order, and the more that is know about him - the more people realize the foundation of Horror that is the bases of their new world order. (*the hyperlink will take you to Rape Tables from his book)
Stunner! Kinsey paid my father to rape me
Subject of 1940s 'research' goes public with horrific details of abuse by dad
Posted: October 17, 2010 Stunner! Kinsey paid my father to rape me
By Brian Fitzpatrick © 2010 WorldNetDaily
Editor's note: The following report is part of WND's ongoing, multipart investigation into alleged crimes committed by sex-research pioneer Alfred Kinsey and his Kinsey Institute.
WASHINGTON – A victim of sexologist Alfred Kinsey's "research" during the 1940s is coming forward with the stunning claim that her father was paid by Kinsey, universally regarded as the "father of the sexual revolution," to rape her and then report to him on the attacks.
Nearly 70 years after being molested repeatedly by her own father, "Esther White" (a pseudonym) is speaking out in hope of prompting Congress to investigate the controversial research. White said she would be willing to testify in person on Capitol Hill if an investigation results in opening the Kinsey Institute files to public scrutiny.
"He was giving me orgasms and timing it with a stopwatch," White told WND. "I didn't like it, I went into convulsions, but he didn't care. He said all little girls do this with their daddies, they just don't talk about it."
White was 7 when her father began abusing her.
"There's no question that Kinsey broke a number of laws and conspired to break a number of laws to conduct his faux research," said Matt Barber, a law professor and associate dean at the Liberty University School of Law.
Kinsey's 1948 and 1953 books on human sexual behavior contain tables of information about sexual responses in children as young as 2 months old. Several tables record how long the children needed to be stimulated to achieve "orgasm," and others record how many orgasms the children achieved in given periods of time.
Esther White's data would have been used for this table in Kinsey's first book, though the book focused on male sexual behavior
"Kinsey was not a legitimate scholar. He was not objective," said Janice Crouse, Ph.D., the head of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank at Concerned Women for America. "Instead, he found people who could produce the results he wanted. ... He was very interested in changing the sexual mores. ... He believed any sex act between consenting adults and even children was acceptable, even healthy." Kinsey and his researchers are widely credited with having redefined sexual morality in America.
White said Kinsey "enticed" her grandfather, who became a personal friend of Kinsey while studying at Indiana University, to participate in the research, and that her grandfather in turn recruited two of his sons to molest their own daughters for Kinsey. She described Kinsey as "insane," "evil" and "Satan incarnate."
White says her father and grandfather were paid by Kinsey and that Kinsey was aware of what her father was doing to her. She recalls that her father filmed some of those sessions and sent the home movies to Kinsey. She also witnessed Kinsey handing her grandfather a check.
"In 1943, when I was nine," White told WND, "I found a sheet of paper that had boxes on it and my father was checking off things he was doing to me. He grabbed it away from me and put it in a brown envelope.
"It was a form with little boxes down the left side of the page, and a list of statements describing sexual acts. He was supposed to check things off, whether he did that or not.
"One of the statements included the words 'timed orgasm.' I didn't know what 'orgasm' meant, so I asked him and he told me. That's why he was using a stopwatch.
Esther White's data would also have appeared in this table from Kinsey's 1953 book on female sexual behavior
"My dad took movies of what he did to me. They were home movies, the camera was one of those wind-up types. ... I think he sent them to Kinsey.
"Kinsey did interview me, he asked me some questions, things like whether I loved my family. My father had told me what I needed to say to him, we wanted to make a good impression. I found out later we had to make a good impression because we were getting paid for this.
"Esther White" at age 9
"When Kinsey was about to leave, my grandfather said, 'What about the check?' Kinsey said, 'I almost forgot,' and I saw him give my grandfather a check. Kinsey said 'I made it out to both of you because I didn't know which one was going to get the money.' That was in the winter of 1943."
Researcher Judith Reisman, Ph.D., began raising questions about how Kinsey collected the data in 1981. Since then, the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction has continually denied that Kinsey recruited child molesters to conduct ongoing research.
1952: American biologist, Alfred Charles Kinsey (1894-1956), whose pioneering investigation of human sexual behaviour resulted in two controversial studies that had far-reaching influence. (Photo by Bert Garai/Keystone Features/Getty Images)
"Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children," according to an early 1990s document currently cited on the Kinsey website in a section titled, "Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.'"
"Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him," wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, "Alfred Kinsey's work 50 years on," currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.
At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey's successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.
"Kinsey's colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research," Barber told WND. "He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey's research.
"There's pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey," Barber continued. "Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it ... the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey's research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts." Kinsey's research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.
Crouse told WND people today "think he's the research guru who knew everything about sex.
"Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was," she said.
"He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.
"People don't realize the people in Kinsey's studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history."
White compared Kinsey's research to the U.S. government's 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.
"I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue," White told WND. "That's what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn't care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were."
Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, "but that was all over long ago."
"This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality," she said. "He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor 'Esther' just stands there and says 'What about me, what about all the people this was done to?'"
Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, "The Children of Table 34," which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther's testimony "scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century's greatest and most enduring scandals."
"Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates," Knight said.
"If Esther's story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children's innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar."
Reisman noted that the lead expert witness in the lawsuit challenging California's pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8 initiative cited Kinsey.
"It's like quoting (Nazi Torture 'doctor') Mengele for medical expertise, and everybody just accepts it," Reisman said. "The Kinsey Institute just published a new study about children's orgasms, and everybody just accepts it. I feel like I'm in 'Alice in Wonderland.'"
Knight said the Kinsey researchers "were aiding and abetting child molestation."
"Their hands are dirty and they need to be exposed," said Knight, currently a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries. "It's so bad, they can't admit to it. It's crushing. So the charade goes on."
Reisman told WND the Kinsey Institute is so afraid of being sued by the victims of the Kinsey research, it has repeatedly threatened to destroy its files if brought to court.
Today's related story:
Victim of notorious sex experiments speaks out
Re: Thought Policing
Forcing Firefighters to be Objects of Homosex Hatred as part of their jobs, is just one aspect of the 'Pander or Perish' agenda of our Cannibal Soup Club government.
These guys now have a Big Target on their backs, and plenty of Feminazi / Homo-Anal scalp-hunters out to harm them.
I wish them well - I know what its like.
Unbelievable Audacity [Capitol Resource Institute CA - 0.8632478632478633]
In 2007 four San Diego firefighters, against their will, were told by city officials they had to participate in the city-sponsored "Gay Pride Parade."
During the parade the four firefighters were subjected to sexual harassment through licentious calls, lewd gestures, and explicit sexually charged images and displays.
The event was described by openly lesbian San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Jarman as a "fun event" in which "all employees are encouraged to participate."
The firefighters took the city to court in 2007 and in 2009 they won. However, San Diego appealed the jury's verdict.
"Not only did the city threaten the men with disciplinary action if they did not participate, but also had the audacity to appeal a verdict that would otherwise restrict their 'do as I tell you or else' policy," said Karen England, Executive Director.
The city did change its policy... well not entirely.
They maintained that they are allowed to revert back to forcing people into participating should it lack volunteers.
By appealing, the city tried to invalidate the jury's verdict thus making it easier to force participation in sexually charged events. The city's intolerant policy flies in the face of a person's vehement objection based on moral and personal convictions.
The appeal's verdict came last Friday. The firefighters were before the court to defend their right not to participate in events that clearly violate their beliefs.
The Alliance Defense Fund represented the four men throughout the case. In the end the firefighters prevailed.
You may also enjoy reading the following threads, why not give them a try?
By RSSreader in forum Chit chat (MAIN)
Last Post: 4th-October-2013, 11:46 PM
By byslexic_danana in forum Chit chat (MAIN)
Last Post: 22nd-January-2009, 04:00 AM
By outdoors in forum Chit chat (MAIN)
Last Post: 25th-December-2008, 08:02 AM
By Fred X in forum Chit chat (MAIN)
Last Post: 4th-May-2006, 08:30 PM
Tags for this Thread
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO