America's Party
America's Party
  • HOME
  • Platform
  • Affiliate
  • Be a Leader
  • Leadership Pledge
  • HOME
  • Platform
  • Affiliate
  • Be a Leader
  • Leadership Pledge

Why we're losing the battle for marriage

4/9/2013

0 Comments

 
Exclusive: Stephen Baskerville advocates using 'masculine courage' to confront divorce

WND 

Stephen Baskerville

The fight to save marriage, as current being waged, is largely pointless. It simply cannot be won on these terms. If defenders of marriage can let go of their own politically correct fixations and squarely face some harsh but incontrovertible facts, it is still possible to stop the impending destruction of marriage by the courts.

First: Marriage exists to attach the father to the family. It is not a gender-neutral institution. Marriage breakdown produces widespread fatherlessness, not motherlessness. (Motherlessness often follows, but fatherlessness begins the process.) The father is the weakest link in the family chain, and without enforceable marriage bonds, he is easily discarded. This is glaringly obvious: American inner cities, native American reservations, northern England, Parisian banlieues, Africa – all are impoverished, crime-ridden and drug-infested matriarchies. Fatherlessness – not poverty or race – predicts social pathology among the young. Without paternal authority, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.

Once this principle is recognized, same-sex marriage makes no sense. Judge Vaughn Walker’s finding of “fact” in the Proposition 8 case that “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage” is rendered preposterous. Same-sex marriage simply mocks true marriage. Homosexual parenting marginalizes children still further from their fathers (and sometimes mothers), who lose their children to homosexuals usually through divorce.

Thus the second unpleasant fact: Homosexuals did not destroy marriage; heterosexuals did. The demand for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of marriage deterioration. The major threat is obviously divorce. As Mike McManus of Marriage Savers writes, “Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.”

Same-sex marriage would not be an issue if marriage had not already been debased by heterosexuals. Though gay activists cite their very desire to marry as evidence that their lifestyle is not inherently promiscuous, they also acknowledge that that desire arises only by the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” Andrew Sullivan observes. “All homosexuals are saying … is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.” Homosexuals are correct that heterosexuals first devalued marriage, though they then use that to rationalize devaluing it further.

Thus the third undeniable truth: To save marriage divorce must be confronted. It is not a private matter. We cannot wash our hands of it by (so to speak) wagging our fingers at immoral people and cultural decay. A lucrative government machine forcibly imposes divorce upon unwilling and innocent people, who are then evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expropriated of everything they possess and incarcerated without trial. It is the greatest violator of constitutional rights in America today. It generates the social ills that rationalize almost all domestic spending and are bankrupting our economies. And it is promoted ideologically by the same sexual radicals who are now promoting same-sex marriage.

Read this story at wnd.com ...

Stephen Baskerville is professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family.” He is writing a book on sexual politics.
0 Comments

If the Court decides against marriage and the natural family, their opinion is null and void

3/25/2013

0 Comments

 
Gregg Jackson

In today’s Washington Post Ralph Reed states:

“Look, if the Supreme Court does with marriage what it did on abortion, which is to impose the laws of New York and Massachusetts and impose them on the rest of the country by judicial fiat, it will make this issue more divisive and contentious, not less so,”

Reed makes the often-made mistake by conservatives of assigning powers to the Supreme Court that it doesn’t possess.

The Supreme Court didn’t “impose” any laws on any states since the judiciary possesses no law making powers. Individual sovereign states merely treated a toothless, unconstitutional, immoral court opinion as if it were actual law. In other words, individual sovereign states ceded law making power and authority to the court which the court DID NOT POSSESS in the first place. (As Romney did when he falsely asserted the court forced him to sign in $50 co-pay abortions and pass out marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Massachusetts).

This is what I believe Christian and conservative leaders should be proactively saying now in anticipation of the Court’s likely ruling that barring same-sex “marriage” is unconstitutional:

“If the Supreme Court rules that the exclusivity of male-female marriage to be unconstitutional they will have issued an anti-Constitutional, illegal, immoral and legally null and void administrative opinion (as Roe v Wade was) that each individual sovereign state has the Constitutional and moral obligation to ignore since any law or court opinion contrary to God’s Divinely Revealed Law is no law at all and since the judiciary possesses no law making authority. As President Lincoln once famously said, ‘..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ May that not be the case in our nation.”

When conservatives perpetuate toxic liberal lies by ceding their illogical, specious and faulty premises and pre-suppositions, (in this case that court opinions become the “law of the land” the moment they are issued) we always lose…

0 Comments

GRAVITY EQUALITY

3/14/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

GOP Elites and the Abolition of Marriage - Republicans join push for gay Roe v. Wade

3/2/2013

0 Comments

 
American Spectator

JEFFREY LORD

Well, this is helpful. A clutch of Republican elites have run to the Supreme Court demanding the judiciary shut off debate on gay marriage.

The story has predictably been front page news at the New York Times and in the world of the liberal media, the Times leading with this:
More than two dozen Republicans — including a top adviser to Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, and a former congresswoman who made banning same-sex marriage her signature issue — have added their names to a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed.

The brief comes as the White House is considering whether to weigh in on the same-sex marriage case; at this point, the Republicans who signed the document are taking a more expansive stance than [Alleged] President Obama, who favors same-sex marriage but has said he would leave it to the states, as opposed to making it a constitutional right.

The list of Republicans on the brief now tallies more 100, organizers say. It now includes Beth Myers, who ran Mr. Romney’s 2008 campaign and was a senior adviser to him in 2012, and Marilyn Musgrave, a retired Colorado congresswoman who was once rated the most conservative member of the House by the American Conservative Union.

Ms. Musgrave, who lost her bid for a fourth term in 2008, was an unsuccessful sponsor of a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex couples from marrying; she once warned that if gay couples were allowed to wed, “the next step is polygamy or group marriage.”

The brief, organized by Ken Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who is gay, will be filed on Thursday as a friend-of-the-court, or amicus, brief to a lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that bars same-sex marriage, and all similar bans.
Some of the signatories’ names are published here at the Blaze. The group — including names such as Ted Olson (the Bush 43 Solicitor General), Meg Whitman (the last GOP nominee for Governor of California), Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, ex-Bush-appointed RNC chairman (and 2004 Bush campaign manager) Ken Mehlman, Bush national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Bush commerce secretary Carlos Guitierrez, Bush deputy attorney general James B. Comey and Reagan budget director David Stockman — has decided to force gay marriage on the American people without their consent.

Effectively making of this case a gay Roe v. Wade.

They are asking the Court to force an elitist world view on a nation in which thirty states have chosen by state constitutional amendment, referendum or legislation — this is called “consent of the governed” — to support marriage between a man and a woman.

Read this story at spectator.org ...
0 Comments

How 'gay marriage' won in four states

11/14/2012

1 Comment

 
MassResistance

1. Analysis: How 'gay marriage' won in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington.

2. Important: Where we go from here.


-----
1. Analysis: How 'gay marriage' won in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington.


On November 6, four states voted in favor of "gay marriage." Up until now, "gay marriage" had been defeated in 32 statewide elections. But this time in all four states the homosexual lobby won, though in all four the margins were slim:

The homosexual victories were won as follows:
   
Maine: 53% - 47%
Maryland: 52% - 48%
Washington: 52% - 48%
Minnesota: 51% - 48% (1% were blanks - counted as "no" & added to 51%)

Maryland and Washington were both voting to overturn "gay marriage" laws recently passed by their state legislatures. Maine's legislature had passed a gay marriage law in 2009 which was overturned by statewide vote in November that year. The homosexual lobby re-introduced that referendum this year to reinstate the earlier law. Minnesota was voting on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, to protect against future actions by their legislature or courts.

Intimidation. Vandalizing and destruction of pro-marriage signs was more widespread than ever.
These results were unfortunately not unexpected. After observing these four races since last summer and talking to many pro-family activists on the ground, we sensed this would happen. This is not meant to demean the energy and efforts of the various pro-family forces. Our people worked hard. But this time too many factors weighed against them.

How the pro-family side was organized

Nationally, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) tirelessly raised several million dollars -- the major share of all the money on our side -- which was distributed to all four races. They also worked out strategy, produced commercials, and much more. NOM did an impressive job. Without their efforts and leadership things would have turned out infinitely worse.

As in past gay marriage votes, NOM coordinated its efforts in each of the four states through an established statewide pro-family group. Each state group set up a special "marriage" PAC with its own website and volunteer activist organization distributing signs, doing outreach to churches, etc.

Other organizations helped, also. Family Research Council (FRC) provided valuable aid. In Minnesota, the Catholic Church raised enormous sums and did a lot of work.

MassResistance also sent out thousands of copies of our booklet, "What Same-sex 'marriage' has done to Massachusetts." Many people copied and distributed them locally. And much of our "gay marriage" research was used by local groups and activists.

Our side worked much the same as we had in previous gay marriage races. But this time the combination of homosexual lobby's enormous funding, sophisticated propaganda campaign, intimidation tactics, and support by the mainstream media--along with a flawed pro-family strategy--could not be overcome.

The top ten reasons the homosexual lobby was able to win

(1) Huge money

The homosexual movement raised enormous amounts of money. Corporations and individual millionaires (and billionaires) poured endless resources into their coffers. NOM did its best to keep up, but it was impossible. Overall, it's estimated that our side was outspent by at least 5-1.

NOM said that they put $5.5 million into the four states, and were outspent by at least $20 million. However, the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) claimed they raised $32 million for the gay marriage races, giving them a very big advantage.

(2) Sophisticated campaign tactics

The homosexual groups put their money to use through extremely sophisticated campaign tactics and an array of well-crafted psychological techniques, weaving emotion with flawed reasoning, to persuade people who had opposed gay marriage, to support it. In addition, throughout the four states, they able to bring thousands of pro-homosexual volunteers into critical areas for their "ground game."

The day after the election, a very revealing article, "How gay marriage finally won at the polls" was posted on various websites describing what they did in Maine: The gay rights movement succeeded by using one of the most sophisticated issue campaign operations ever deployed -- and by making it stick with old-fashioned commitment, hard work and face-to-face conversations.

Within weeks of the Maine loss [in 2009], Freedom To Marry helped assemble a coalition of state-based gay groups, polling experts and academic researchers to centralize and share information so that each campaign didn't have to start from scratch for each new battle.

Third Way, a centrist think tank working in the coalition with Freedom To Marry, began to unpack exactly how straight people reacted to such tactics [advertisements showing kids being given books on homosexual relationships in school]. The group found that when straight people were asked what marriage meant to them, they spoke of love, commitment and responsibility. But when asked why they thought gay people wanted to marry, they cited rights and benefits. Tapping into anti-gay stereotypes, they suggested gay people wanted marriage for selfish reasons while they themselves wanted to express love and commitment.

Thalia Zapatos of Freedom To Marry, who oversees the coalition's messaging research, describes another revelation from the data. [NOM's ad person Frank] Schubert's misleading "princess" ads [describing homosexual books for kids] implied that schools could usurp the role of parents in teaching pro-gay values, but that was wrong. As Zapatos and her team pored over the research, they watched conversations in which voters spoke among themselves and kept circling back to the same insight: Parents are the parents, and they teach their kids values at home.

The first step to combating that fear were ads that showed (among other story lines) a mom who was also a teacher speaking at home with her husband. "What we do in a school is no substitute for what happens at home," she says. Her husband chimes in: "No law is going to change the core values we teach our kids here at home." The takeaway: No one would force parents into uncomfortable conversations when their own child returned home from school.

But advertising is a one-way conversation. Zapatos began to find that once voters became engaged (either by pro- or anti-forces), new concerns arose. The next step was to turn the messaging into a conversation.

In the end, the Maine campaign spoke to 250,000 people, nearly one-fifth of the state's population -- and that was likely the fifth that mattered most. This sort of effort is ongoing in more states beyond this week's election, such as Oregon, which may be next up for an initiative.

Research shows that knowing a gay person makes you 65 percent more likely to support same-sex marriage - and having a conversation with that gay person about marriage raises the figure to 80 percent. Third Way recently released a report showing that 75 percent of positive movement in support for same-sex marriage comes from people of every age group changing their minds. It's about having the right message and imparting it with patience and labor.

And that's not all. Since older people tend to be more conservative, the homosexual lobby specifically targeted them with their emotional outreach. One of their most successful ads, "The Gardner Family" of Maine was written up in the New York Times. It is a masterpiece of emotional propaganda. The ad conjures references to discrimination, cruelty to other people, having a relative who's gay, and more. You can see the article and video HERE.

Their campaign tactics also targeted Christians by emotionally portraying "true" Christianity as being "compassionate" and not "cruel" regarding people loving each other and letting them marry.

Finally, unlike in previous years, the homosexual lobby's TV commercials contained almost no actual gay characters. Their research found that it was more effective to use straight characters who would talk about their friends and relatives who were homosexual.

As described above, these tactics worked so well that the homosexual lobby has already indicated that they will re-use them the country in future races.

(3) Flawed pro-family strategy

In sharp contrast to the homosexual lobby's slick, sophisticated propaganda machine, the pro-family overall approach was largely the same moderate, inoffensive, often logically incoherent approach that they've coasted on until now. A number of activists made it a point to complain to us about that.

For example, most of the pro-family message was some variation of: Every child needs a father and a mother; the word "marriage" is special; marriage is about procreation; marriage is a timeless institution; gays already have all the rights marriage brings; etc. These arguments are not emotional, fairly general, and not very compelling. In contrast, the homosexual lobby made the arguments in their ads emotional and personal.

At its root, "gay marriage" is really about the forced acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of society. But both NOM and the state pro-family groups went to great lengths not to criticize homosexual behavior. They were very fearful of being perceived as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" especially in the liberal press. So they insisted on moderating everyone's messages. In Minnesota, for instance, activists were specifically told, "Don't make this a gay issue."

Those who deviated from this and took a more direct approach were shunned and even publicly criticized by the pro-family establishment. This included some of the vocal black churches in Maryland who wanted to quote the Bible, and activists in Maine and Minnesota who felt compelled to discuss the negative aspects homosexual behavior.

Except for some material posted on websites of the local pro-family groups, there were no attempts at all that we know of to persuade the public through advertising that homosexual behavior was perverse, dysfunctional, and unhealthy. Our side basically conceded that argument completely, and even went to lengths to state that "we're not anti-gay." The homosexual lobby took full advantage of that by aggressively portraying homosexuality as just another facet of normal human behavior.

This tactic is not sustainable, as it soon became clear. It certainly does not effectively counter the emotional strategies put forth by the homosexual lobby. At some point you have to engage in the real battle at hand.

(4) Hard-hitting pro-family commercials came too late

In the final few weeks when they finally hit the airwaves with a "red meat" anti-gay marriage commercial, it was too little, too late.

This mirrored a disturbing pattern we noticed in past gay marriage races. Our side would use the "soft" message until it became clear that the race was in trouble of losing. Then at the last minute bring in the hard-hitting David and Tonia Parker / Robb and Robin Wirthlin TV ads. They were first used in the California Prop 8 reverendum in 2008, and have been used in several since then.

These ads are emotional and direct. The Massachusetts parents describe how their elementary school children were read children's books describing homosexual relationships. The schools refused to let parents opt out their kids or even be notified. When the Parkers and Wirthlins took it to court, a federal judge ruled against them -- because "gay marriage" in Massachusetts obliges schools to portray homosexual relationships as equivalent to real marriage. The ads are very effective.




VIDEO: Maine version of the hard-hitting David and Tonia Parker TV ad.


But in all four states, the Parker / Wirthlin ads were held back until about two weeks before the election, then finally unleashed. But that was too late, according to activists we talked to. These -- and similar ads -- should have been on the air for months.

It's clear that the gay lobby hates and fears these ads, and anticipated them. In Maryland, the homosexual groups ran TV ads all summer saying that homosexual issues would NOT be taught in the schools. Nevertheless, as soon as the Parker ads showed up they seemed to panic, and their only defense was to claim that the Parkers were lying, which their allies in the media ran with.

These ads really exploited the homosexual lobby's weakness. As one Maryland activist told us, "Our side should have been running the David Parker ads early and often."

(5) Obama and the targeting of the black community

This past summer Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage. In Maryland, where blacks have been a large anti-gay marriage constituency, this had a terrible effect on many black churches. Almost immediately many either stopped dealing with the issue and some even switched to supporting it.

The homosexual lobby used that crisis to its full advantage by directing huge efforts and money into a full-court press to target blacks to support homosexual marriage. Not long after the White House announcement, they created very slick pro-gay marriage flyer featuring Michelle Obama which was widely distributed in the black community. It was even brought to the polls by some voters.

But their biggest target was the black churches, which they started working on even before the Obama announcement. Back in January, Maryland's pro-gay Governor helped persuade two of the most prominent black ministers in the state -- who had already started to go soft on the issue -- to take an active role in persuading their community to abandon their support for traditional marriage.

The two pastors, Rev. Donte Hickman Sr., pastor of Southern Baptist Church in East Baltimore and Rev. Delman Coates, who leads a megachurch in Prince George's County, were ultimately a major part of the homosexual lobby's propaganda campaign.

As the Baltimore Sun later described, things progressed considerably since their January meeting with the Governor: Ten months later, the two had become the highest-profile pitchmen for Question 6, appearing in nearly identical commercials that played on television for three-quarters of the campaign. In Baltimore -- during some stretches -- the average person saw the commercials 10 times a week.

Voters' approval of Maryland's same-sex marriage law last week can be traced in part to the decision by Hickman, 41, and Coates, 39, to lend their names, faces and reputations to a campaign on an issue that remains highly controversial in their community.

. . . The group [Marylanders for Marriage Equality] spent about $800,000 a week on television time, and Hickman and Coates remained on the air for most of the campaign.




VIDEO: Pro-gay marriage TV ad with Rev.Delman Coates that flooded the Baltimore airwaves.

(6) Intimidation tactics


Probably the most vile aspect of these races was how homosexual activists and their allies turned their intimidation machine into high gear. It started out with everyone on the pro-family side of the issue being loudly labeled a "bigot" and "hater" at every opportunity. Many people became afraid to discuss the issue or even put up signs, we were told, because of this.

Before long it escalated into vandalism. A church in Maine was vandalized with swastikas painted on it to send a strong message to the congregation.

This church in Maine had a pro-marriage message outside.


It was very widespread regarding pro-marriage signs. As one activist in Minnesota told us, "Everybody had signs vandalized, stolen, ripped apart." He added that he even had to go back to his church every few days with a new sign. In Maine it became so blatant that a video of pro-marriage signs being stolen and destroyed was posted on YouTube. Activists in Minnesota also posted a video of a sign being stolen.

VIDEO of pro-marriage signs in Maind being stolen and destroyed.
(7) Confusing ballot language

There was a lot of confusion even when you got into the voting booth. In Maryland and Washington, people were voting whether to overturn their legislatures' passage of a gay marriage law. But in both cases it was worded so that a "no" vote would overturn it and a "yes" vote would keep it. Moreover, wording on the ballot in Maryland referred to issuing "marriage licenses" to any two people and talked about religious protections, rather than the actual text of the law, which clouded the issue. Some people told us that the wording looked pro-family, and almost didn't realize it wasn't.

(8) Ballot fraud

During early voting in Maryland, in many cases the touch-screen machines which created paper ballots did not register the "no" votes on the marriage ballot question; instead it come out blank. One woman told us that she noticed hers came out blank, and she had to go back and re-vote on it. She said that this happened to many others she knew of, and that one person had to go back three times to get his "no" vote properly registered. This is outrageous.

At least one relatively conservative area in Maryland surprisingly voted "yes" for gay marriage. There is suspicion that some kind of voter fraud was behind that. "It was really startling that we lost there," one local activist told us.

We have been informed that pro-family attorneys are getting involved in the continuing counting of absentee ballots in some of the key areas where the vote was close.

(9) The Democrat machine vs GOP non-help

The Democratic Party machine and its various allies were actively helping the homosexual lobby. In Maryland, teachers' union people were handing out their pro-gay ballot sheets at the polls. But as far as we could tell, the GOP played a very minor role, if any. In Maryland, the GOP did robo-calls supporting candidates and one ballot question, but didn't mention this one. In Maine the GOP also avoided this issue. Some GOP politicians came out for marriage in Minnesota, but were very moderate in their approach. On the national level, the Romney people had stated that marriage was not an issue in their campaign and they offered no support.

(10) The media

The news media continued its overwhelmingly biased coverage of the gay marriage issue and the homosexual issue in general. This was particularly noticable in the simultaneous attacks on the David and Tonia Parker ads by media in all four states.

But also, television's general embrace and normalization of homosexuality in its prime-time programming has had its intended effect of softening up many people on this issue. And conversely, the media routinely portray the pro-family side as bigoted, hateful, and dysfunctional.

Conclusion

All four of these races were lost for basically the same reasons: Our side was enormously outspent and out-organized, along with a phalanx of other forces enumerated above.

Furthermore, the groups running the campaign opposing gay marriage had an arsenal of weapons about homosexuality, homosexual behavior, and the destructive nature of homosexual relationships that they didn't use because it would not be "politically correct" and would likely anger the liberal media -- and because it wouldn't be seen as "nice." And when they finally were willing to use the very effective issue of schools forcing homosexuality on kids, it was too late.

Voters are now so dumbed down and are constantly fed a twisted view of church and religion by the media and academia. They don't examine issues but follow emotional and often illogical propaganda. So the verdict often comes out: "Everybody should be happy. Leave it up to God. My nephew's gay, so it should be legal."

It's not surprising that, as mentioned above, they are already talking about using these campaigns as a template for "turning over" other states one by one. And of course, they are also focused on overturning DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act, allowing states to stand by their own laws banning same-sex marriage).

Nevertheless, we are still confident of the future.

Looking at everything they had to do, it's still very clear that the ONLY way the homosexual lobby can win a gay marriage referendum - even in these four very blue states, and by those relatively small margins -- is through the extraordinary measures and expenditures listed above, along with our acquiescence on moderating our opposing message.

If our side can get its ideological act together, toss out our milquetoast rhetoric, get some political courage, and be aggressive rather than reactive, we would be pretty unstoppable. But right now, that's a big "if."
  2. Important: Where we go from here.


Someone once said that the Left treats elections like a war and conservatives treat them like a dinner party. That's certainly what it felt like this time.

Any honest assessment would be that the pro-family, pro-life movement has been steadily losing, and the losses are getting worse. This year, just for starters, four states were bombarded by the homosexual lobby in "gay marriage" referendums; Obama homosexualized large parts of the military and the federal government; Chick-fil-A was attacked over that issue; and of course the GLBT push into the nation's school system  continues.

But we haven't seen anything yet. After this year's elections, especially with Obama continuing in power, we can expect our adversaries and even our government to become more ruthless and hostile than ever regarding these issues.

The conservative movement's current strategy isn't making us stronger but rather weaker. For example, not a single major "conservative conference" all year even discussed the homosexual agenda (and there was very little on abortion), even though it has been literally the 800-pound gorilla in the "culture war" living room. That's astounding. And we know why: It's considered too controversial, angers the Left too much; upsets libertarians, comes off as intolerant, and so on. That's what our movement has come to, and we are paying the price.

We need a different way of fighting the "culture war," a whole new paradigm.

Most people of a certain age have forgotten what normality was like. We discuss "gay marriage" as if it were just another philosophical issue. It wasn't too long ago that if you were to bring up the idea of men "marrying" each other, you would have been seen as having lost your mind. In the context of human history, it is beyond a lunatic concept. And it will be again, you can bank on that. This, too, shall pass. The only question is: How long will it take? The answer: It's up to us.

The progressive agenda is a house of cards that cannot be sustained without the constant pressure of propaganda and intimidation. It is actually exactly the opposite of the Civil Rights movement -- which they claim to be the inheritors of -- but which is universally seen as natural, not unnatural. Despite their mantra, ultimately history is on our side, not theirs.

We at MassResistance cannot change how every other pro-family group does things. That's a given. But we can change ourselves.

MassResistance is dedicating itself to giving as many people as possible the tools and guidance to fight back (a) fearlessly and (b) effectively.

During this election season we tried to study as many various movements and freedom struggles over the last century and across the political spectrum as we could. We looked at successes and failures around the world. Our conclusion is that all of this is winnable.

One thing is painfully clear: At this point in America the average person is emotionally and intellectually unequipped to confront the Orwellian and often vicious onslaught of propaganda, disinformation, threats, intimidation confusion -- and the force of law that often follows -- which engulfs us. That is something we must change.

Pope John Paul II famously observed that a major force that facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union was the people who were no longer afraid to tell the truth. That's a beginning, along with internalizing the fact that we're in a war and not at a dinner party. And that being reactive instead of being aggressive only slows down our losses. All nonviolent movements understand that.Over the last few months we've been contacted by activists from as far away as England and Australia, as well as several states across the U.S., wanting to form MassResistance chapters! If you think that the Left can't stand us now, just wait!

What you can do to help right now...

(fundraising appeal)
1 Comment

Tom Hoefling: Perpetually Hungry Republicans

3/25/2012

0 Comments

 
Tom Hoefling 2012

What if you went to a restaurant, read the menu, but every time you tried to order something you really want and need to keep body and soul together, they told you, "sorry, we're out of that"?

That's kind of the way it is nowadays for the conservative clientele of the Republican Party.

"Hello, welcome back to the Pachyderm-a-RINO Restaurant! I'm Mitt and I'll be your server today."

"Oh, hello again. Why don't you give me some of this 'Balance the Budget and Stop Deficit Spending Now' stew, please. I've always wanted to try it."

"Oh, that's really good stuff, you bet...but....sorry, Chef Boehner says that if you want that you're a big baby and just don't understand how the kitchen works."

"Oh my...well, okay, I guess...let's see...hmmm...then give me some of that 'Limited Government" salad..."

"Oh, the healthy dish that's in all our ads...well.....no....sorry, that's just too hard to make. The media critics would have a field day if we started cooking that up, and we'd lose our jobs, so no, you can't have that either."

"Wow. Hmmm...well...okey-dokey then...how about some of this 'Provide Equal Protection For the Right to Life' entre, with a side of 'Defend Marriage'..."

"No, of course you can't have that. Court order. What are you, a single-issue extremist?"

"Well, noooo...I like lots of things...uhmmm...do you have any 'Secure the Borders' succotash?"

"You are so heartless."

"Oh, well, gee thanks. So, is there anything at all I can actually order in this joint?"

"Well, no, but you can pay the bill, leave a big tip, and tell everybody in town how great it is that you didn't give your business to the Donkey Grill down the street - just like you always have!"

Tom Hoefling , March 25, 2012
Picture
PS ... if you want to eat at a place that actually provides everything that's advertised, and where the food is great, visit SelfGovernment.US!

0 Comments

Voter referendum to overturn immoral marriage law passed by the legislature in WA State

2/10/2012

0 Comments

 
America's Party of Washington

And while we're at it, let's throw all the bums out who voted for this nonsense.

seatllepi.com 

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Voters may be presented with two ballot measures seeking to overturn a recently passed measure that would legalize same-sex marriage in Washington state.

On Wednesday, the Legislature approved a gay marriage bill with a 55-43 vote in the House. The Senate approved it last week on a 28-21 vote, and now the bill awaits a signature from Gov. Chris Gregoire. She is expected to sign the measure into law next week.

-----

An official organization supporting the referendum has not yet formed, but several groups involved with the referendum attempt said an announcement is likely next week. To qualify the referendum for the ballot, more than 120,000 signatures must be submitted by June 6.


0 Comments

Begin Sex Ed in Kindergarten, Says New ‘National Standards’ Report

1/18/2012

0 Comments

 
_*Provided courtesy of the Committee to Defend Marriage & the Natural Family

CNSNews.com

January 17, 2012

Elizabeth Harrington

By the time they leave elementary school, children should be able to “define sexual orientation,” and by the eighth grade be able to “define emergency contraception and its use,” according to a report containing controversial new recommendations for sex education in U.S. public schools.

“Ideally, comprehensive sexuality education should start in kindergarten and continue through 12th grade,” says the “National Sexuality Education Standards” report, drawn up by a range of advocates, academics and public education officials. The Future of Sex Education (FoSE), an initiative started by sex education advocates, developed the standards “to create a strategic plan for sexuality education policy and implementation.”

Also involved are the American School Health Association, the National Education Association Health Information Network – the non-profit arm of the nation’s largest teacher’s union, the NEA – the American Association for Health Education and the Society of State Leaders of Health and Physical Education.

An advisory committee includes senior officials from Planned Parenthood and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

The 45-page report determines “age-appropriate” guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education in the areas of anatomy, identity, pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) and others.

“Specifically, the National Sexuality Education Standards were developed to address the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide and the limited time allocated to teaching the topic,” reads the report.

The authors argue too little time is devoted to instruction in HIV, pregnancy and STD prevention – a median total of 3.1 hours in elementary school, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In its rationale for sex education in public schools, the report says there is “a pressing need to address harassment, bullying and relationship violence in our schools, which have a significant impact on a student’s emotional and physical well-being as well as on academic success.”

Standards to be introduced in kindergarten and be met by the second grade include: “Identify different kinds of family structures” and “Demonstrate ways to show respect for different types of families.”

Recommendations for students by the time they reach age seven include that they use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy” and “provide examples of how friends, family, media, society and culture influence ways in which boys and girls think they should act.”

Starting in the third grade, and upon completion of the fifth – when most children are 10 years old – students should be able to “[d]efine sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender” and “identify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about sexual orientation.”

By completion of the eighth grade, the report says, students should be able to “differentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation,” “xplain the range of gender roles,” and “define emergency contraception and its use.”

Upon completion of middle school, students should be able to “analyze external influences that have an impact on one’s attitudes about gender, sexual orientation and gender identity”; “access accurate information about gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation”; “communicate respectfully with and about people of all gender identities, gender expressions and sexual orientations”; “explain the health benefits, risks and effectiveness rates of various methods of contraception, including abstinence and condoms”; and “describe the steps to using a condom correctly.”

And by the time they graduate from high school students should be expected to “define emergency contraception and describe its mechanism of action” and “assess the skills and resources needed to become a parent.”

Read this story at CNSNews.com ...

0 Comments
    SelfGovernment.US

    "Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government." 
    - Thomas Jefferson

    Introduction

    Picture


    'America's Summit
    Restore the Republic'
    Every Tues. & Thurs
    9 pm Eastern

    712-432-3566 
    passcode 340794#

    Archive 
    Listen on the web

    _National Round Table Categories:

    All
    2012
    2012 Convention
    2012 National Convention
    Abolition
    Abortifacients
    Abortion
    Abraham Lincoln
    Abraham Williams
    Aclu
    Action
    Adam Smith
    Adrian Rogers
    Advantage
    Afganistan
    Agents
    Agitation
    Alan Keyes
    Albert Einstein
    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
    Alexander Hamilton
    Alqaeda
    Ambition
    America
    America\\\\
    American Life League
    Americas Party
    America's Summit
    America's Summit
    Americas Summit
    Ammo
    Amnesty
    Andrew Jackson
    Antisemitism
    Appearances
    Appetite
    Appointments
    Arabs
    Army
    Asia
    Association
    Asylum
    Authority
    Azo
    Ballot Access
    Barber
    Be A Leader
    Benevolence
    Benjamin Franklin
    Benjamin Rush
    Betrayal
    Bible
    Big Government
    Birthright
    Bishop Daniel Jenky
    Bob Enyart
    Bondage
    Borders
    Branches
    Brandi Lozier
    Bravery
    Budget
    Calvin Coolidge
    Campaigns
    Canada
    Candidates
    Capital
    Caroline Glick
    Cars
    Carter
    Casino
    Catholic
    Certainty
    Character
    Charters
    Child Abuse
    China
    Choice
    Christ
    Christianity
    Church
    Churchill
    Cicero
    Citizens
    Civil Liberty
    Coalitions
    Coercion
    Colorado
    Commander In Chief
    Commerce
    Commerce Clause
    Committees Of Correspondence
    Common Good
    Common Sense
    Communism
    Compromise
    Concord
    Conduct
    Congress
    Conscience
    Consent
    Conservatism
    Conservatives
    Conspiracy
    Constitution
    Constitutional Convention
    Consumption
    Contraception
    Control
    Corruption
    Counter-revolution
    Country
    Courts
    Creator
    Crisis
    Cs Lewis
    Culture Of Death
    Cuts
    Danger
    Daniel Webster
    Davey Crockett
    Davy Crockett
    Deadgop
    Death
    Debate
    Debra Raba
    Debt
    Decision
    Declaration
    Declaration Of Independence
    Defeat
    Defense
    Deliberation
    Democracy
    Departments
    Despair
    Despotism
    Destiny
    Deterrence
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    Disarmament
    Dissolution
    Disunion
    Divinity
    Doj
    Duty
    Dwight Eisenhower
    Economics
    Economy
    Edmund Burke
    Education
    Edward Coke
    Efficiency
    Egypt
    Election
    Elections
    Eligibility
    Elites
    Encroachments
    Enemies
    Energy
    Enumerated Powers
    Environmentalism
    Epa
    Equality
    Equality Before The Law
    Equal Protection
    Equal Rights
    Eternal Vigilance
    Euthanasia
    Evil
    Example
    Exceptions
    Executive
    Executive Orders
    Exertion
    Experience
    Face
    Faction
    Facts
    Faith
    Family
    Farewell Address
    Fast And Furious
    Fatherhood
    Fathers
    Fatigue
    Fear
    Fear Of God
    Federal Government
    Federalism
    Federalist
    Fifth Amendment
    Fight
    Finney
    First Amendment
    First Principles
    Fisher Ames
    Flag
    Flattery
    Fools
    Force
    Foreign Policy
    Founders
    Founding
    Founding Fathers
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Fourth Amendment
    Francis Schaffer
    Franklin Roosevelt
    Frederick Douglass
    Fred Upton
    Freedom
    Freedom Of Speech
    Free Exercise
    Freemen
    Free Speech
    Freethefirst
    Free The First
    Friends
    Friendship
    Gas
    Gasoline
    General Welfare
    George Mason
    George Orwell
    George Washington
    Georgia
    Gingrich
    Gk Chesterton
    Glaciers
    Global Warming Scam
    Goals
    God
    God Bless America
    God Given
    God-given
    God-given
    Good
    Gop
    Gordon Klingenschmitt
    Government
    Government Schools
    Greatness
    Guard
    Gulag
    Gullibility
    Gungrabbers
    Gunwalking
    Happiness
    Harkin
    Heaven
    Henry Hazlitt
    Heritage
    Heroism
    Hhs
    Higher Law
    Hillsdale
    Himalayas
    History
    Holder
    Homeschool
    Homosexualagenda
    Homosexual Agenda
    Honesty
    Honor
    Horatio Bunce
    Hostility
    Human Nature
    Human Rights
    Hypocrisy
    Ideas
    Idleness
    Ignorance
    Immigration
    Immutability
    Impartiality
    Impeachment
    In
    Inaction
    Incumbency
    Independence
    Independents
    Industry
    Influence
    Information
    Injury
    Injustice
    Institutions
    Intelligence
    Interests
    Internet
    Interpretation
    Interview
    Interviews
    Invaders
    Iowa
    Iran
    Irs
    Islam
    Israel
    James Garfield
    James Madison
    James Russell Lowell
    James Wilson
    J D Ellis
    J.D. Ellis
    Jd Ellis
    Jefferson
    Jeremiah
    Jesus
    Joel Hilliker
    John Adams
    John Hancock
    John Quincy Adams
    John Witherspoon
    Joseph Story
    Joseph Warren
    Jr.
    Judgment
    Judicial Supremacism
    Judicial Supremacism
    Judicial Supremacy
    Judicial Supremacy
    Judicial Tyranny
    Judicial Tyranny
    Judiciary
    Judie Brown
    Jurisdiction
    Justice
    Kelly Oconnell
    Kennedy
    Keyes
    Knowledge
    Kuwait
    Kyl
    Law
    Lawlessness
    Laws
    Lawyers
    Leaders
    Leadership
    Legislation
    Legislative
    Legislature
    Legitimate
    Leonardo Bruni
    Lexington
    Liberals
    Liberty
    Libya
    Life
    Lifesitenews
    Limited Government
    Love
    Majority
    Mandate
    Manhood
    Manners
    Mark Twain
    Marriage
    Martin Luther King
    Marxism
    Materialism
    Matthias Burnett
    Media
    Mercy
    Middle East
    Military
    Minuteman
    Misery
    Mitt Romney
    Moderation
    Monetary Policy
    Morality
    Motto
    Muslim Brotherhood
    Nathan Hale
    Nation
    National Anthem
    National Defense
    Nations
    Natural Born
    Natural Law
    Natural Right
    Natural Rights
    Nature
    Navy
    Nazis
    Nccrb
    Necessity
    Netanyahu
    New Jersey
    News
    Newt Gingrich
    Nigeria
    Noah Webster
    Nukes
    Ny
    Obama
    Obamacare
    Obamawatch
    Object
    Oil
    Old Glory
    Opposition
    Oppression
    Order
    Ownership
    Parties
    Party
    Patrick Henry
    Patriotism
    Patriots
    Peace
    Peace Through Strength
    Permanency
    Persecution
    Personalities
    Personhood
    Persons
    Philosophy
    Policy
    Politicians
    Politicis
    Politics
    Polls
    Posterity
    Power
    Powers
    Prayer
    Preservation
    Presidency
    President
    Prices
    Principle
    Principles
    Privacy
    Private Enterprise
    Private Property
    Process
    Programs
    Propaganda
    Property
    Property Rights
    Prosperity
    Protest
    Providence
    Public Good
    Public Office
    Public Opinion
    Public Spirit
    Purpose
    Raise A Standard
    Reason
    Recall
    Referendum
    Refineries
    Regulation
    Religion
    Religious Liberty
    Remedy
    Repentance
    Representatives
    Republic
    Republicanism
    Republicans
    Republican Watch
    Resolve
    Resources
    Respect
    Resurrection
    Revenue
    Revival
    Revolution
    Reward
    Rhetoric
    Right
    Righteousness
    Rights
    Rkba
    Romney
    Ronald Reagan
    Rubio
    Rule Of Law
    Rulers
    Russia
    Samuel Adams
    Secession
    Second Amendment
    Sects
    Secure Liberty
    Security
    Self Control
    Self Government
    Selflessness
    Senate
    Sensibilities
    Service
    Shaw
    Sheen
    Sheeple
    Shipwreck
    Sidewalk Counselling
    Sin
    Slavery
    Socialism
    Socialized Medicine
    Society
    Sodomy
    Soft Power
    Sophistry
    Sovereignty
    Soviet
    Speech
    Spending
    Standard
    States
    Statesmanship
    Statism
    Sterilization
    Story
    Strength
    Suffering
    Summit
    Supply
    Supreme Being
    Supreme Court
    Survival
    Syria
    Tactics
    Taxation
    Taxes
    Temper
    Tennessee
    Terrorism
    Texas
    The Church
    The People
    The Sword
    Thomas Aquinas
    Thomas Jefferson
    Thomas Paine
    Thought
    Thrift
    Tom Hoefling
    Tom Shaw
    Traitors
    Treason
    Truth
    Tryon Edwards
    Tyranny
    Tyrants
    Un
    Unalienable
    Unalienable Right
    Unalienable Rights
    Union
    Unions
    Unity
    Us Flag
    Us Marines
    Us Military
    Usurpation
    Usurpers
    Utilitarianism
    Venezuela
    Veterans
    Vice
    Victor Hugo
    Victory
    Vigilance
    Violence
    Virgil Goode
    Virtue
    Vp
    Vusa
    Walker
    Wall
    War
    War On Terror
    Washington
    Washington State
    Waste
    Weakness
    Wealth
    Wendell Phillips
    We The People
    White House
    Will
    William Blackstone
    William Douglas
    William Henry Harrison
    William Penn
    Wilson
    Winston Churchill
    Wisconsin
    Wisdom
    Wise
    Words
    World Bank
    World War Two
    Worship
    Wot
    Wrong
    Wrongs
    Youth
    Zionism


    National Round Table
    By Month

    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    May 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012


    RSS Feed


    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    This website provided free of charge by Tom Hoefling, in exercise of his God-given, unalienable right to free political speech and freedom of the press, as guaranteed by the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."