| ||||||||||||||||
1. In unanimous vote Mass. House caves in to gay lobby on "anti-bully" bill. Adds GLSEN homosexual school guidelines; requires diversity training to school staff; extends bill to include private schools; fines and jail terms for kids; and more.
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Mass Resistance update
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
kikes STILL Trying to Pass Faggot Pervert Adoption
'SODOMITE ADOPTION RIGHTS' IN CONGRESS
By Harmony Grant Daws and Rev. Ted Pike
15 Mar 10
A new bill has been introduced into Congress, attractively named the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act.” The goal of HR 3827 is “to prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identification, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.”
The bill reports that “one-third of child welfare agencies in the United States currently reject gay, lesbian, and bisexual applicants, citing a conflict with the religious beliefs associated with the agency, State law prohibiting placement with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, or a policy of placing children with married-heterosexual only couples.” It says as many as two million homosexuals may be interested in adopting children and may be rejected because of their orientation. The bill will remove federal funding from any placement agency that “discriminates” on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity of marital status.
This means Christian adoption agencies will be unable to operate according to their founders’ consciences. It means closure of Catholic or Christian agencies which refuse to violate their moral principles of placing children with heterosexual or nuclear families only. Ultimately, this will mean fewer children adopted! After a similar law was passed in Britain, multiple adoption agencies closed. The Catholic Children’s Rescue Service was the first to do so. Rather than allowing the free market to potentially create homosexual-friendly adoption agencies (should there really be such demand), this law strong-arms benevolent religious organizations into violating their own principles in favor of a political agenda.
This bill would not only limit freedom of religion for adoption agencies but also for birth parents. A teen mother won’t be able to find agencies which screen for nuclear, Christian families if those are the qualities she wants for her unborn child.
Inevitably, such agenda-driven legislation is used as a force of discrimination itself. In Britain, pro-homosexual adoption laws were passed and are now used against traditional, religious people seeking to rescue children! In 2008, Daily Mail reported a story of a Christian couple told, “You can’t foster if you think it’s wrong to be gay.” Eunice and Owen Johns, a black couple who have cared for almost 20 children and raised four of their own, would not submit to a new hate law requiring them to condone homosexuality in order to continue rescuing needy kids. Eunice explains that she was told she would have to tell foster children that it’s okay to be homosexual.
“But I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me,” she says, “Morally I couldn’t do that, spiritually I couldn’t do that.” Her husband says, “I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of ten.” Because of their traditional values, the Johns were denied the opportunity to continue saving needy kids.
In 2007, a British woman named Sonia Maples wrote for the UK Telegraph about being denied adoption because of the religious “idealism” she shares with her husband. Maples says their home is not “overtly religious” and they have homosexual friends, but this wasn’t enough to make up for their belief that a nuclear family is best for children.
“Long before the current row over whether church-based adoption agencies should be allowed to set their own rules about accepting homosexual couples on to their books, my husband and I felt the cold breath of discrimination,” says Maples. “It wasn't because of our sexual orientation…we were found wanting because we were Christians and because we hold strong views about the importance of children having both a father and a mother.”
Maples and her husband were investigated for 18 months by social workers full of questions about their religious convictions. They were then refused by the adoption panel because of their religious objection to homosexuality. Maples said, “We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them.”
This anti-heterosexual agenda affects even birth parents who want to keep their own children. In Vermont, ex-lesbian Lisa Miller is currently running from the law with her seven-year-old biological daughter Isabella because custody has been awarded to her previous same-sex partner, who is not legally or biologically related to the child! Miller has become an evangelical Christian and her advocates say this is clearly a case of hard-line “progressives” pushing for pro-homosexual custody rights. Talk show host Wiley Drake, who is familiar with the case, said that after the first court ordered weekend visitation of six-year-old Isabella to her lesbian “mother,” the child returned home to her real mother proudly fondling herself. She related matter-of-factly that she and the lesbian had taken a bath together and watched pornographic movies. She had even been taught how to urinate standing up. Adoptive rights for homosexuals? Such corruption of children by aggressive sodomites will only be expanded to millions of society’s youngest, most vulnerable members if this bill becomes law.
End of Normal Adoptions in America
In the US, the largest adoption agency has already had to pull out of multiple states because of “anti-discrimination” lawsuits. In 2003, Adoption.com was sued by two homosexual men, residents of California, who claim they faced illegal discrimination because the agency won’t serve homosexual couples. The homosexuals won the lawsuit and the agency no longer serves adoptive parents in California. The adoption agency argued it was governed by Arizona law and wasn’t required to violate its own conscience by advertising homosexual couples. But if HR 3827 becomes federal, all agencies will have to submit or close their doors.
To prevent this, one state was proactive. North Dakota, in 2008, passed the “Adoption Agency Freedom to Serve” Act which protects the right of adoption agencies to refuse adoptions that violate their moral or religious beliefs. When the bill was introduced there were six agencies provided licensed services, four of them affiliated with religious organizations. But if HR 3827 passes, this state law will be overturned and North Dakota’s citizens will lose the freedom they have chosen.
Protest to your House member now! Call 1-877-851-6437 toll free 202-225-3121 toll. Also call the crucial members of the House Ways and Means Committee (especially Republicans) demanding they stop the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act.” Names are available HERE at www.truthtellers.org.
Tell House members, “Please do not vote for the ‘Every Child Deserves a Family Act,’ HR 3827. It would force all US adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples. Many homosexuals prey on children. And this bill would force religious adoption agencies to close. I and my friends will vote out any House member who supports this outrageous legislation.”
Monday, March 1, 2010
Is It Time For A Revolution?
IS IT TIME FOR REVOLUTION?
By Rev. Ted Pike
1 Mar 10
Joseph Stack was an angry accountant who expressed his protest of the IRS by becoming an aerial firebomb, hurtling his plane into Austin's IRS building. His suicide note—“Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer”— perfectly expressed the fiery sentiments of the majority of talk radio callers to whom I recently spoke. This past week I went back on the radio to try to stir up calls against the Anti-Defamation League’s new public school hate crimes bill, the Student Nondiscrimination Act, HR 4530. I encouraged tens of thousands to protest to the House Education and Labor Committee where this bill is being considered. I discovered a shocking new mood in heartland America: fury and widespread determination to end liberal tyranny in Washington but not by phoning Congress. Increasingly, violent revolution is the solution for some.
You can listen to my interview with Rick Adams. For an hour and a half, the phone lines are jammed largely by callers enthralled with the possibility of "watering the tree of liberty" through bloody revolution. They hope this might bring the national salvation which has eluded us. (Listen to the broadcast HERE)
I encountered the same mood on other programs. The common belief is that, since Washington will not heed the will of the people, we must “punish” the government by no longer talking to it (in other words, calling Congress in protest.) Since the government has mocked the will of the people, various forms of non-cooperation, isolation and even violent insurrection are all that is left for us.
As a result, out of my nearly eight hours of intense pleas for action, heard on at least 70 radio stations slanted to the right, fewer than 70 people came to our website www.truthtellers.org for the list of names to call! Evidently, even the perverse and frightening objective of the Student Nondiscrimination Act—to establish the federal government as the pro-homosexual educator and punisher of Christian opponents of homosexuality in American public schools—can’t rouse many people to call the politicians who will decide whether it goes forward.
Useless to call Congress?
Disheartened and desperate conservatives, largely in the tea party movement, think Congress is now impervious to the will of grassroots America. But an important clarification must be made. The government is not necessarily our enemy. America's primary adversary is the agenda of very powerful lobbying groups—primarily Zionist and secular Jewish groups led by the Anti-Defamation League and assisted by the homosexual lobby. These forcefully pressure and often work together with our leaders, from President Obama to members of the House and Senate.
Orthodox rabbi Nachum Shifren, in his unprecedented expose of the power and globalist aspirations of the ADL, confirms that secular Judaism, the dominant form of Judaism in America, spearheads this agenda. (See Shifren's article The ADL vs. Faith and Freedom) The red-button issues most promoted by the American secular Jewish community include homosexual rights, immigration and healthcare “reform,” abortion rights, national financial bailouts, support of Israel’s occupation of Gaza, and wars to make the Mideast safe for Israel—including possible attack of Iran. ADL epitomizes secular world Jewry and is a prolific and untiring fountain of freedom-destroying legislation, including state, federal, and international hate laws. We almost invariably find ever increasing numbers of Jewish Senators and House members either introducing or promoting the latest ADL-engendered legislative poison. Their ranks are vastly disproportionate to the 1-2% presence of Jews in the American population.
The problem of government "insensitivity" is thus largely synonymous with the fact that liberal, secular Jewish supremacy is deeply entrenched in our nation's capitol, promoting its anti-Christian, un-American agenda. Some Republicans, but especially Democrats, are overtly complicit with this Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG). All are heavily pressured to support issues of which the Zionists will admit no compromise. Dissent means political ruin by the vengeful, all powerful Jewish lobby, including Jewish-dominated big media (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish).
The focus of tea party and right-wing anger, demonizing “the government,” is thus both simplistic and misdirected.
It is foolish to “punish” Congress by refusing to talk to it! The secular Jews and liberals running Congress would actually be delighted to be left alone to create a dictatorship oppressing us all. Are we going to give them what they want? Or will we make their road to tyranny as rough as possible through incessant telephone criticism when and where it is needed? Rep. Steve King says the most effective way to hold back the liberal legislative agenda is by calling, at the critical moment, members of those pivotal committees that decide which legislation dies or advances. This is the critical moment to destroy the Student Nondiscrimination Act, HR 4530 in the House Education and Labor Committee. Find the names, especially of Republicans, of members of this committee (find them on our Action page here) and call toll-free 1-877-851-6437, toll 1-202-225-3121. Also read and widely circulate my recent article on HR 4530, “ADL’s New Public School Hate Bill.”
Victories for Freedom in 2009
Has the ability of the people to impact Congress really gone the way of the dinosaur? It’s true, concerning financial bailout and healthcare reform, the Democrat Congress has not revealed a sincerely listening ear. But even though the hate bill became law, the people scored several powerful victories against hate crime legislation in this Congress. Even though it took a lot of urging from National Prayer Network, calls of protest against the hate bill finally soared just before its passage, even exceeding calls about the Sotomayor hearings and healthcare. Democrats in the Senate were terrified and quickly added the previously rejected Brownback amendment to the present hate law, strengthening protection from possible federal prosecution for pastors, talk show hosts, and authors. Last fall, Americans’ phone calls did even more. They stopped dead in their tracks ADL’s cyber-bullying and AWARE bills, which would federalize prosecution of those who criticize homosexuality in American public schools and establish massive pro-homosexual public education. This happened because patriots, again alerted by the National Prayer Network, flooded the Judiciary committee with protest. This outpouring encouraged Rep. Louie Gohmert in particular to assemble a cast of top-flight Constitutional and conservative experts to argue against these bills.
Despite the big talk of revolution, there is little possibility for successful military insurrection for a long time to come. The real danger now is that through violence unstable people or groups may give ADL, the Department of Homeland Security, liberal media and Obama Democrats exactly what they want: confirmation that the tea party and far right are not only potential but actual domestic terrorists. The government response will be martial law, oppressive directives and legislation much further stripping us of freedom.
Today, the telephone remains our strongest weapon. Some in the right may vie for the honor of firing what they believe will be "the shot heard round the world," precipitating a revolution that will solve America’s problems. Actually, such violent fanaticism would give the most powerful enemies of freedom the opportunity they lust for. It would reverberate in the clang of thousands of prison cells throughout this land.
~~~~~~~~~
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.
The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Keep our Honor Clean! No Faggots In the Military
| "TO KEEP OUR HONOR CLEAN!" Why We Must Oppose the Homosexual Agenda for the Military |  |  |
| Written by The American TFP | ||||||||||||||
| Monday, 15 February 2010 20:29 | ||||||||||||||
President Obama promised in his January 27, 2010 State of the Union Address that he would work with Congress and the military to overthrow the current law that excludes homosexuals from the military.[1] A Moral Revolution This move cannot be considered in a vacuum. To understand fully its significance, it must be seen in light of a decades-old homosexual movement that strives to uproot the very foundations of our morality. Thus, homosexual activist Paul Varnell, writing in the Chicago Free Press, affirmed: “The gay movement is not a civil rights movement but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.”[2] Indeed, the significance of overthrowing the military’s prohibition on homosexuality is well understood by the movement’s leaders. Thus, Thomas Stoddard, former executive director of Lambda Legal, admitted: “This is not a fight about the military. This is a fight of every lesbian and gay American for their place in society.”[3] Similarly, the nation’s largest homosexual rights group, Human Rights Campaign, plans to spend over $2 million on a national lobbying campaign to influence lawmakers whose votes will be needed to overthrow current law.[4]
These activists understand how our military is a powerful symbol in the minds of Americans. William Kristol was correct when he called it the “one major American institution [that] retains citizens’ faith.”[5] Thus, were homosexuals allowed to serve, it would resound throughout all our nation’s institutions. That is one of the many reasons why our military must be defended from ideologues who would sacrifice its effectiveness and honor on the altar of unrestrained license, even at a time when national and global security rests on its successful campaign against terrorism. Exacerbating this danger, many pundits cloud the issue by parroting the homosexual movement’s sophistry. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at some of the main arguments used to support repeal of the ban. Do Homosexuals Have a Right to Serve? One sophism claims that homosexuals have a right to serve in our Armed Forces. Proponents of this notion often label the current law discriminatory. They compare lifting of the ban to President Truman’s 1948 executive order that desegregated our nation’s military. However, such claims are baseless. First, there is no constitutional “right” to serve in the Armed Forces, nor could there be such a right. Because of its fighting purpose, the military is necessarily a discriminating organization that revokes membership on the basis of age, height, physical infirmity and many other causes. Obviously, these forms of discrimination would not be accepted in civilian society. Similarly, violations of morality such as lying and adultery can result in court-martial.
Additionally, there is no comparison to be made between President Truman’s desegregation of the military and lifting the ban on homosexuals in our Armed Forces. Homosexual behavior is a moral, not a racial issue. It is a personal choice of lifestyle. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell affirmed this,[6] stating: “Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”[7] Indeed, current law is not based on who homosexuals claim to be, but on what they do. Would the Presence of Open Homosexuals Harm Unit Cohesion? Another argument claims that the presence of open homosexuals would not harm unit cohesion. Those making this claim state that unit cohesion was unaffected in England, Canada and elsewhere when these nations allowed homosexuals to serve. First of all, it must be noted that these countries are not the United States. Neither Canada nor England has the military commitments or capabilities we do[8] and both have a markedly more liberal view of homosexuality. Indeed, many members of Britain’s Conservative Party, including their leader David Cameron, approve of homosexual adoption and same-sex unions.[9] In America, things are different, even more so on our bases. As Colonel David Bedey wrote: “It is an undeniable fact…that military communities are bastions of traditional values.”[10] This is important to consider because shared values are necessary to unit cohesion. According to Commander of the Army Research Institute William Darryl Henderson: “Common attitudes, values and beliefs among members of a unit promote cohesion…some observers contend that similarities of attitudes contribute to group cohesion more than any other single factor.”[11]
Allowing homosexuals to serve would also break down unit trust, a necessary foundation for cohesion. Vietnam War hero Colonel John Ripley explained this in testimony delivered on May 4, 1993 before the House Armed Services Committee, saying: “No one can trust a leader nor can a leader trust a subordinate if he thinks there are sexual feelings just underneath the surface. It makes no difference if the individual is suppressing those feelings. It makes trust virtually impossible.”[12] Common sense reinforces what Colonel Ripley affirmed. As current law points out, military society is necessarily “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”[13] In turn, this leads to high levels of stress. The effect of adding sexual tension to the mix need only be imagined. Perhaps that is one reason why America’s two most prominent veterans groups, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion, whose combined membership exceeds 4 million, have both come out against repeal of the ban.[14] Also, during wartime, men are in continual contact with each other’s blood. Therefore, the well documented increased disease rates of homosexuals would cause them to be perceived as a risk rather than an asset to unit survival. This increased disease rate should not be underestimated. As Colonel Ronald Ray pointed out: “Despite the fact that they account for less than 2 percent of the total American population, a compilation of recent health studies shows that homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases.”[15] This increased disease rate has led some to refer to the homosexual lifestyle as a “deathstyle.” Inclusion of this deathstyle in our Armed Forces is a dangerous proposition, indeed. With these factors in mind, it is simply impossible to suggest that openly serving homosexuals would not damage unit cohesion. Current law and many officers corroborate this affirmation.
Among them is General Norman Schwarzkopf, who affirmed: “…in my years of military service, I’ve experienced the fact that the introduction of an open homosexual into a small unit immediately polarizes that unit and destroys the very bonding that is so important for the unit's survival in time of war.”[16] Last, the current law, which was passed with a veto-proof majority in both houses of a Democrat-led Congress, states: “The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence…would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”[17] At a Time of War, Can We Afford to Lose Capable Servicemen? Opponents of current law also claim that we cannot afford to expel any trained personnel during our present military engagements. In this line, the media often claim that over 300 language experts, including over 50 fluent Arabic speakers, have been discharged from the military under the current law. These claims are based on exaggerated and misrepresented information. In her July 23, 2008 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Elaine Donnelly, president and founder of the Center for Military Readiness, noted that 9,501 homosexuals were discharged from our military in the 11 years between 1993-2004, a yearly average of 864.[18] While this may seem like a lot, it is relatively few compared with the number of servicemen who were dismissed for other reasons. For example: 36,513 enlisted personnel were removed during the same time period for having gained too much weight, 26,446 were removed for becoming pregnant and an additional 20,527 for parenthood, while nearly 60,000 were removed for drug use.[19] If we were to stop removing homosexuals from our Armed Forces, how could we continue to dismiss those whose only offense is having too hearty an appetite? Furthermore, if we concede to lower standards for the sake of quantity, where will we next draw the line? Also, claims that 300 language “experts,” and over 50 “fluent” Arabic speakers have been discharged from our military because of their homosexuality is based on a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study. However, the GAO document clearly states: “Relatively few of these separated servicemembers had proficiency scores in listening to, reading, or speaking…that were above the midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency scales.” Among the 54 “fluent” Arabic speakers, only 20 had recorded scores, of which none scored above midpoint for speaking proficiency. Furthermore, 59% of these discharged language “experts” had served for two and a half years or less.[20] Furthermore, we must consider the loss of manpower that would result from lifting the ban. There is convincing evidence to show that these losses would greatly outweigh the number of homosexuals removed under current law. A 2008 survey done by the Military Times showed that nearly 10% of respondents claimed they would “not re-enlist or extend” their service if the homosexual prohibition were lifted, while an additional 14% reported that they would “consider not re-enlisting or extending” their military careers.[21]
As Mrs. Donnelly pointed out, if we assume that these numbers represent the views of all active and reserve forces, repeal of the ban could result in a loss of between 228,600–527,000 servicemen (depending on the final decision of those considering termination of their careers). These numbers are astounding considering that there are currently around 200,000 active duty Marines.[22] Similarly, a 2006 Zogby poll showed that 10% of those who had served in the last 14 years would probably not have even enlisted had there been open homosexuals serving. An additional 13% were undecided.[23] Therefore, if we are concerned about diminishing our ranks at this critical moment, we must maintain, not lift, the ban on homosexuals in the military. Over 1,100 Flag and General Officers Support the Ban In addition to all the practical arguments we make in favor of current law, there is a voice of experience that speaks more loudly than ours. It is that of our military leadership whose years of service at the highest levels of command have given them the wisdom to understand the issue and all of its implications. That is why Congress should heed a statement signed by 1,152 retired flag and general officers, strongly urging them and President Obama to uphold the ban on homosexuals in our military.[24] Their statement is as urgent as it is unequivocal and includes the following passage: Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the ban] in morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden…would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons… and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force…As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10), and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.[25] The signatories of this message include 51 four-star officers, our nation’s highest peacetime rank. And to Keep Our Honor Clean… These practical arguments are helpful, but they do not constitute the most important component of the issue. The core of the matter touches on a higher reality in which the very identity of the American soldier is at stake. To be successful, a military must incorporate two seemingly incompatible values. On one hand, it must enforce the highest moral principles of discipline, valor and uprightness and simultaneously inculcate the desire to destroy the adversary. Indeed, the very existence of the military proclaims that evil exists and, at times, must be confronted. It represents the strength of truth and uprightness and is a symbol of that species of good that fearlessly defies wickedness. Thus, a successful military must operate in an atmosphere in which good and evil are clearly defined and relativism has no place. The military also personifies self-sacrifice. As the great Catholic thinker, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, wrote, the military profession proclaims “the existence of values worth more than life itself and for which one must be willing to die.”[26]
It is these values of uprightness, self-sacrifice and strength that project the military into a superior order of things. In a word, they confer an honor upon it, which is so identified with the archetype of the American soldier that our nation’s highest military decoration is called the Medal of Honor. However, homosexual vice represents the opposite of this military honor. It violates natural law, epitomizes the unleashing of man’s unruly passions, undermines self-discipline and has been defined as “intrinsically evil” by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on numerous occasions.[27] That is why, in order to advance, the homosexual movement must blur the distinctions between virtue and vice; truth and error; good and evil. If this vice is imposed on our Armed Forces, it will necessarily bring this relativistic spirit with it. In turn, this mentality would undermine the direct and straightforward mindset, so necessary to the military.[28] It would sully the honor of all who serve and weaken society’s notion of the incompatibility between good and evil, so well represented by our Armed Forces. In this light, we understand why homosexual ideologues doggedly insist on effecting this transformation within our military. However, it also gives us powerful motives to resist their plans. We must urge Congress to block any efforts to overthrow current law and insist on the ban’s continued strict enforcement. Colonel Ripley well understood the dangers of abandoning our current law in this respect. That is why he finished his 1993 testimony to the House Armed Services Committee beseeching Congress to maintain the ban on homosexuals serving in the military in the following moving words: “I implore you, as an American and as a Marine who has fought for his country and loves his Corps and country more than life itself, not to lead us into this ambush from which we can never recover.”[29] On his behalf, we should derive encouragement from the words of the Marines’ Hymn that apply to all the branches of our military as they confront this perilous issue: “We fight our country’s battles In the air, on land and sea; First to fight for right and freedom And to keep our honor clean…”
February 11, 2010 Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes |
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Trannys Are Now Officially A "Serious Mental Disorder"!
Many of you were shocked seeing our report of the bizarre and sad "Transgender Lobby Day" at the Massachusetts State House -- and the legislators who are supporting it.
It doesn't take an M.D. to understand that transgenderism is a tragic sickness, not a natural behavior that needs to be encouraged, despite what Massachusetts politicians want you to believe. Now, the courts are finally starting to agree with what the mental health profession has been saying all along. But it took a bizarre case - and a tortured outcome - to bring it about.
The United States Tax Court ruled on Feb. 2 that Gender Identity Disorder is "a well-recognized and serious mental disorder". This squares with the mental health profession's assessment in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Fourth Edition) and practically all of the medical profession.
Read the Associated Press article HERE
MassResistance and the pro-family community have been trying to make that point to the Massachusetts Legislature regarding the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill" (H1728), which forces the normalization and even encouragement of open transgenderism and cross-dressing throughout society, with fines and jail time for people who voice dissent.
READ our synopsis and full report of Bill 1728
Download our pamphlet on Bill 1728 HERE
The case involved an eerie former member of the Massachusetts Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who is a 65-year-old man who dresses as a woman and has had hormone injections to grow female-like breasts. The Commission sends homosexual and transgender activists into public schools to set up programs to normalize those behaviors to schoolchildren.
| Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, a man with hormone-induced female-like breasts who dresses as a women, worked with public schoolchildren as a member of the Massachusetts Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth. Your tax money at work! |
Mr. O'Donnabhain was suing the IRS because they refused to accept a $5,000 "medical deduction" involving his sex-change surgery. According to news reports, the IRS had said that the surgery was "cosmetic and not medically necessary."
However, the court got one part of it terribly wrong - that trying to "change" one's sex through medical procedures constitutes "appropriate and effective treatment."
Their ruling stated:
The evidence amply supports the conclusions that petitioner suffered from severe GID, that GID is a well-recognized and serious mental disorder, and that hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are considered appropriate and effective treatments for GID by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who are knowledgeable concerning the condition.
There are some rogue and activist medical people who are willing to attempt such procedures, which range from hormones to actual mutilations and so-called body sculpting. But that continues and exacerbates the disorder and often the psychological suffering of the patient, often into new, destructive directions.
Medical research finds that attempted "sex re-assignment" actually causes more distress. Psychological problems such as GID require appropriate psychological treatment.
A few good articles on this:
"Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist Urges End To Sexual Reassignment Surgery," NARTH, 12-2-04
"Destabilizing the Categories of Sex and Gender: The Case of the Transgendered Student," NARTH
"Victory" claimed by the gay lobby
Strangely, O'Donnabhain was represented by the homosexual law firm Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) which considers this a victory because it now opens the door to a flood of "sex-reassignment" surgeries which now can be considered tax-deductible.
Their strategy appears to be force America to accept the idea of sex-change, and then attack the medical community and force them to change it from being a disorder, much the way they did with homosexuality itself.
Rhiannon O'Donnabhain will always biologically be a man who has tragically mutilated his body because of a psychological issue. We must not allow the Massachusetts Legislature to inflict the radical Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes bill, which would encourage such practices, on society.
Posts
