Apartment residents told to take down U.S. flags...

By Melica Johnson

ALBANY, Ore. - At the Oaks Apartments in Albany, the management can fly their own flag advertising one and two bedroom apartments - but residents have been told they can't fly any flags at all.

Jim Clausen flies the American flag from the back of his motorcycle. He has a son in the military heading back to Iraq, and the flag - he said - is his way of showing support.

"This flag stands for all those people," said Clausen, an Oaks Apartment resident. "It stands for the people that can no longer stand - who died in wars. That's why I fly this flag."

But to Oaks Apartment management, Clausen said, the American flag symbolizes problems.

He was told to remove the red, white and blue from both of his rides, or face eviction.

"It floored me," he said. "I can't believe she was saying what she was saying."

Even long-time residents like Sharron White, who has flown a flag on her car for eight years, has been told to take it down.

White said management told her that "someone might get offended."

"I just said to her 'They'll just have to get over it,'" White said.

Resident we talked to who had been approached to take down their flags all told us the same thing: that management told them the flags could be offensive because they live in a diverse community.

Attempts to find out for ourselves why management would ban flags were unsuccessful. KATU wanted to talk to management at Oaks Apartments, but no one has returned our calls. The woman we were told had made the decision said she was "not going to answer any questions."

The mother of one soldier fighting in Iraq put up a poster in her son's apartment window when she learned of the ban. Her son's roommate said he'll risk eviction to make sure it stays.

Another Oaks Apartment resident, Judith Sherer, doesn't have a car. Instead she carries an American flag around the complex to protest the ban, and wonders if the flag pin she wears is next to be "singled out."

"If I put it on and I walk outside, what's going to happen?" Sherer muses. "Am I going to be confronted by a manager about this?"

We're told the ban includes sports flags and even flag stickers on cars.

Read more >>

‘The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate’

McConnell Statement on Finance Committee Proposal
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

‘The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the Finance Committee vote on partisan health care reform:

“Sen. Snowe called me this morning to let me know that while she continues to have serious, substantive policy reservations with this proposal, she wanted to keep the process moving. I share her concerns about the direction of this bill once it leaves the committee, and her call for transparency before we vote to proceed to any bill on the floor.

"The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate. But what we do know is that the bill written behind closed doors here in the Capitol will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar Washington takeover. We know it will slash a half-trillion dollars from seniors’ Medicare, add new taxes and raise premiums. That’s not reform.”

Read more >>

Bitten By Profligacy

The dollar edges closer to becoming a third-world currency.

By Thomas E. Brewton

Foreign central banks, suffering from the Treasury and Fed-engineered decline in the dollar’s value, are moving new currency reserve investments from the dollar into Euros and Yen.

Long-range effects on the United States will be bad.

If foreign central banks continue to shift their currency reserves from the dollar to other currencies, the dollar will lose its international reserve currency status, damaging our nation’s future.  Interest costs on the national debt will rise, reflecting a higher level of economic risk for foreign dollar holders.  To pay higher interest on the national debt, taxes will have to rise, crimping business and depressing employment.  Costs of our imports, upon which we came to depend for inexpensive consumer and industrial goods, will rise, because the dollar is worth less on international markets.  Those higher import costs will reduce business profits, further constraining creation of new jobs.

These are the unsurprising consequences accruing, among other factors, from President Obama’s flooding the markets with Keynesian deficit spending under his $787 billion special-interest pay-off bill (aka the stimulus program).  Needless to say, world currency markets also are spooked, both by the prospect of yet more trillions of dollars of deficit spending to finance National Socialist healthcare, and by business-killing and consumer-depressing pandering to “green” extremists, who lust to regulate energy costs up.

Despite propaganda from people like the New York Times’s Paul Krugman, economic prosperity cannot be created by the secular political state.  For that we must rely upon the effects of myriad individual actions.  The more those actions are regulated the less the scope for return to prosperity. 

Rather than removing constraints upon resumption of business activity that will create new jobs, the Obama administration is waging an ideological war to reduce the United States to third-rank economic and political status. 

Democrat/Socialist policies are tailored to keep the economy depressed and unemployment high.  Among them: straitjacketing our economy with more and more regulatory red tape, raising taxes on the productive portions of the economy, nationalizing parts of private industry, dictating compensation levels to private business, adding to labor unions’ monopoly bargaining power, imposing tariffs and other trade barriers against our allies in order to protect high-cost labor union jobs, deliberately forcing major increases in energy costs for everyone in order to impose the mythology of man-made global warming, and continually keeping business off balance with threats of yet more regulatory and nationalization programs, along with continual threats of criminal prosecution of business leaders.

Democrat/Socialist economics are the equivalent of trying to pull yourself out of quicksand by employing people to shovel on more quicksand.  Instead of dealing with the real problem, Democrat/Socialists attempt to leverage the crisis into more of what got us into trouble.

The nation got into the worst economic recession since the 1930s Depression in a multi-step process.  First, Democrat/Socialist welfare entitlements programs, initiated under President Lyndon Johnson, grow far more rapidly than the underlying economy.  Second, the Treasury and Federal Reserve have been funding the resulting deficit expenditures with ever-growing debt.  Third, Federal Reserve creation of fiat money to fund the deficit expands the lending reserves of banks.  Fourth, banks’ increased lending reserves lead them to look aggressively for new loans and investments, a process that tends to lower credit standards.  Fifth, encouraged by this flood of excess liquidity, businesses take on more debt to over-expand production, and individuals make consumer purchases far in excess of their capacities to repay the resulting credit card and mortgage debt.  Sixth, when resulting bubble sectors of the economy - housing in the recent case - over-expand production and consumers can no longer pay their debts, a recession ensues. 

Because of our poor educational system since the 1960s, voters have no clue to this basic economic cycle that is repeated in every recession.  Excessive government spending, financed by creation of fiat money, leading to over-expansion of bank credit that encourages speculation and spending beyond our means with borrowed money, culminating in a bubble burst.  This was exactly the pattern leading to the Great Depression: creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, over-expansion of bank reserves by the Fed that produced, in six years, an increase of bank deposits to double the total accumulated in the entire history of the nation prior to 1920, excessive bank lending and investments that created a false boom in the 1920s, and a bubble that finally burst in 1929.

The president’s actions signal that he, along with the general public, is uncomprehending with regard to the underlying realities of the economy.  Instead he believes the remedy for excessive spending and excessive debt to be more Federal deficit spending and programs to make consumers spend even more beyond their means.  Their initial stimulus program having signally failed to keep unemployment below the promised 8% level, Democrat/Socialist party leaders are now ballyhooing a new stimulus program that will pawn more of our future for short-term political gratification.

Read more >>

When Dynamite Explodes – The Nobel Prize As A Liberal Farce

By Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.  

Nobel is not a Norwegian, Swedish or any other word for noble.  It is the surname of Alfred Bernhard Nobel (1833 - 1896), a partially self-taught Swedish scientist who, notwithstanding unsuccessful patent litigation in the English courts, made a fortune by developing and selling what we commonly call dynamite.  Upon his death in 1896 Nobel left much of his fortune to establish five prizes.  The subjects (in alphabetical order) were chemistry, literature, medicine or physiology, peace, physics. 

In 1901, five years after Nobel’s death, awarding of Nobel Prizes commenced.  Originally, consistent with Nobel’s last will and testament, different entities awarded the Prizes.  The Peace Prize honoree, as the Prize came to be called, was decided upon by the Norwegian Storting, or, in English, the Norwegian Parliament.

The present procedure is that five Norwegians call the shot.  They are chosen by the Norwegian Parliament for six-year terms.  As expected, they are internationalist and liberal political personages.  It should be no surprise for that reason alone that the 2009 choice is the internationalist, activist liberal President of the United States.  He had been President only twelve days when he was nominated and only eight and a fraction months when the Prize was awarded.  He has done nothing meaningful, specific or concrete to further peace but has traveled the globe – from abroad casting some aspersions upon our United States of America, speaking as a purported world leader and offering no little advice as to what some foreign countries should be doing.

For another reason there should be no surprise.  To which conservative or moderate American leaders has this tiny Norwegian political committee awarded the Prize in the past, say, thirty years?  Let’s not struggle to search.  In 2002 the Prize went to former President James Earl (Jimmy) Carter, Jr; in 2007 to former Vice President Albert Arthur (Al) Gore, Jr.

The disproportionately liberal American press, of course, plays up the Prize as though it reflects the very quintessence of achievement, objectivity and prestige.

So much for the legacy of the dynamite merchant.

Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.

Read more >>

One Czar Gone

By Wells Sommer

Thanks, Mr. Glen Beck, FOX News! Where’s the rest of our News Media? Better still where are the “Experts” we elected to represent us, ones who took an Oath to ‘defend and protect our Constitution against enemies domestic and foreign?’ Nothing from the Great Defenders of our First Amendment either, i.e., “Drive-by Media” - local and national Newspapers, TV outlets like, NY Times, CNN, MSMBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC etc., why only FOX News, talk radio and GT? Who’s the Propagandist for our government or the responsible News Reporting Outlets? Wanna guess?

I didn’t mean to ignore you “MSMBC, CNN, etc., followers on what’s happened. Mr. Van Jones, an Avowed Radical Marxist, hired by Mr. Obama, as his “Green Czar” - Cap and Trade Bill, job consultant? “Resigned” September 12, Mr. Glen Beck, Fox News - Nightly 5:00 P.M. Eastern - exposed him for what he is, a Radical Marxist  - Communist – hired by and working in “our” White House, as advisor to “our” President? Disgusting, he’s our “Commander in Chief?” He’s hiring “his friends,” admitted Marxist, as “consultants,” to work in “our” White House? Elected “experts,” isn’t this conduct/action unacceptable by any President, where are you?

Thanks Mr. Beck for exposing our President for what he is attempting to do to our Constitution, Freedoms and our Capitalist form of government. America owes you and FOX News a great debt of gratitude!  One down, about 45 more Czars too go that Mr. Obama hired, pays with our tax money, to destroy our Nation, a parallel government to our Cabinet Members, no approval needed? HEY, elected “experts,” think it’s about time you woke-up?

You happy you voted for “change?” We tell our children, “you’re known by the company you keep, choose your friends carefully.” Majority of you sure didn’t listen! I want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to know the “freedoms” I enjoyed growing up in the greatest nation on earth! Would be nice if all - “Americans” - believed in protecting, defending what God, Family, Country stands for and has been defended for more than two hundred years, some paying the ultimate price, that we could experience “Freedom,” know the value/importance of worshiping God, of our choice, owning a gun, what Freedom of Speech, Choice and Thought is and means to us/our Nation! “Freedom is Not Free!” It’s our choice, speak-up and defend our “Freedoms,” or follow that “Book of Stupid,” I know, “its George and Wal-Mart’s fault?” God Help us! Thanks 9-12ers and T.E.A.Baggers for speaking up, God Bless America!

Read more >>

Rolling Out The Pink Carpet

by Rev. Austin Miles

Oakley, Califonria (10/12/09) On this day in history, (1960), Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev pounded his shoe on the podium at the United Nations and said to America, “We will bury you!” Considering our political scene today, it looks like he meant it….and let’s stop beating up on Obama….he hasn’t done anything…which is probably what got him The Nobel Peace Prize….and Washington, D.C. has rolled out the Pink Carpet.

Obama, who has snubbed the Dali Llama, and refused to make an appearance (or even greet by video) thousands of Christians in The Capitol on National Prayer Day, has personally welcomed anything Islam and just promised the homosexuals that the country is theirs.

At a National Banquet this past Saturday night, Obama told a cheering crowd of LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual and Transgender) that he is their man in the White House who stands with them for ‘equal rights’ and pledged to end the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy in the armed forces (meaning they can openly flaunt their homosexuality in a setting where men sleep in close proximity and take showers together), to end homosexual discrimination in the work place. a plan that would criminalize even thinking negatively about the homosexual lifestyle (?) and he vowed to end the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines that marriage is between a man and a woman, to which he received a wild standing ovation for his open intention to destroy the traditional family.

Then, talking about biting the hand that feeds you, the very next day, yesterday, those same homosexuals marched the streets of Washington D.C. carrying signs and using bullhorns to slam Obama for not giving them what they wanted sooner…demanding that he give them everything they want right now.

Then, this morning, October 12th, another foreign born politician, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill (that he promised to veto), SB 54 which means to overturn Proposition 8 that was overwhelmingly passed by the voters….twice! Then, our cinemactic gov just signed SB 572, The Harvey Milk Bill, which means public schools must recognize an openly homosexual politician in their classrooms.

It will be held annually on May 22nd, a day long tribute with exercises and programs that focus on Milk’s “contributions,” soley because of his sexual orientation that they want public school children (as young as 5) to adopt. Meaning, no math, no science classes, history or grammar classes that day, only sexual orientation and propaganda. This is yet another bill that the Terminator promised voters that he would veto. Remember that he is a member of the Kennedy family so what else could we expect?

Harvey Milk was shot and killed (not assasinated as the lobby describes it), he was killed along with another man who was not a homosexual (and does not warrant a day of tribute for that reason), and the killing had to do with politics, not because Milk was “gay.”

MilesTones observes that these actions are designed to make us fully accept the homosexual lifestyle…but worries that with the way it is going, homosexual practices may soon become mandatory. It’s time to take another long walk.

Rev.Austin Miles is a pastor/chaplain in Northern California and is a free lance journalist and commentator. Visit his website by going to: www.revaustinmiles.com

Read more >>

Let's All be Revolutionaries!

By Tim Dunkin

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell

If there was anyone who should know about deceit, it was George Orwell. Orwell – the pen-name for Eric Arthur Blair – was quite an idealistic man. Unfortunately for idealistic people, they are also often naïve, and susceptible to being deceived. Many are unaware of this, but George Orwell – despite the popularity of his antitotalitarian book 1984 – was a socialist. And as a good socialist in the mid-1930s, he went to Spain, to “fight against fascism,” as he put it. What he found out after he had been there for a while, however, was that his erstwhile Stalinist allies in the Spanish Communist Party were not so much interested in rescuing Spain from the fascist clutches of Francisco Franco (which they signally failed to do anyhow) as they were in coercing all the other leftists – including Orwell's Marxist-but-not-Stalinist group – into seeing things the Stalinist way, or arresting them if they wouldn't. Orwell - and a lot of other idealists like him – got snookered, but fortunately for him, he was able to get out of Spain without ending up on the wrong end of a firing squad.

He shouldn't have been surprised, however, but the deceptions of his “allies” and “compatriots.” After all, the first half of the 20th century was a high-water mark for the radical Left. In Russia you had a genuine successful Communist revolution that put the forces of ultrabig government firmly in control of the largest piece of property in the world. Meanwhile, fascism (also a Left-statist philosophy) was rolling to victory in Italy, Germany, and in a host of smaller eastern European countries. The Left – those people who wanted to use the power of government to stamp out traditional society and replace it with devotion to the all-powerful State – were on the march, and could afford a little backstabbing against their useful idiots.

Given all the propaganda flying around in those days, it's no surprise that Orwell would have thought himself living in a time of universal deceit. The Communists, the Socialists, the Fascists – everyone on the Left was constantly engaged in trying to dupe people into believing falsehoods that would make their particular version of Statism seem acceptable, or at least palatable. This was so even in the USA – let's not forget the whitewash of the Soviet-engineered famine which killed several million Ukrainians, conveniently covered up by Walter Duranty of the New York Times.

Unfortunately, we here and now in the United States find ourselves living in a similar time of universal deceit.

Let's not kid ourselves. We have a President who brazenly lies to the American people. He tells us that he's “saved” hndreds of thousands of jobs – even though several million jobs have been lost so far in the nine months he's been on the job. To get elected in the first place, he had to lie to the voters, telling them that he was going to “cut taxes on 95% of all Americans”, knowing all along that around 43% of Americans don't even PAY taxes, and that he jolly well had no intention of cutting the rates for the rest of those who do. Now we see his Democrat Congress – with his approval – proposing tax after tax after tax, on everything from cigarettes to our company-provided health care benefits. During the campaign, he ran an ad saying he supported medical care for infants who survive abortions – actually, he supported a bill that would have allowed such infants to die. He said the family of a dead soldier wanted him to wear a bracelet bearing the hero's name (which, if you saw the debates, he had a hard time remembering). Actually, the soldier's family had asked him (to no avail) to STOP wearing it. On and on and on, we see that we have a President with a serious case of mythomania.

Or, as Orwell put it elsewhere, “Political language....is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

It's not like those he surrounds himself with are much better. His economic advisors are all the time telling how the first green shoots of economic recovery are sprouting all around us. Yet, unemployment continues to rise, layoffs are still in the sextuple digits, housing prices are still languishing in the doldrums, and worldwide heavy manufacturing and transportation sectors remain depressed. Tim Geithner, our esteemed Treasury Secretary, can't ever seem to get his facts straight, whether he's talking about those AIG bonuses that he approved of before he disapproved of them, or trying to sell the Chinese – who are no fools, and laughed him to scorn – on the idea of buying yet more trillions of dollars in US debt, secured by a wink and a nod. Seems the only thing Geithner's been straight with us about is his admission before the Senate that he doesn't have a clue how to use TurboTax. As for Joe Biden, well, do any of us really think that he congregates with the other blue-collar stiffs down at the local Home Depot? At least he didn't try to claim that he hangs out with them at another one of his favorite restaurants that he goes to weekly, even though it's been closed down for five years now.

Aiding and abetting this, of course, is a complicit mainstream news media which seems to think that, instead of actually reporting the news, it's job is to pick out the news that can be spun to make Obama look good, while filtering out the rest, all the while telling you how to think about it. Seriously, we have a left-wing press corp that literally thinks it is more important that President Obama likes pizza (I'm not kidding - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31172985/) than it is that he is in the process of selling our closest ally in the Middle East down the river. We know more about the Obama's dog Bo than we do about what Obama is really planning on doing to exacerbate the health care “crisis.” The attitude of the press towards the President ranges from adulatory to hyper-adulatory, and reporters have spiked more unflattering and politically damaging stories about him than one of those nutso antilogging environmentalists.

And it all is fed by the fact that our young people are learning anything but truth in the schools, ranging from elementary to graduate school. Granted, our schools still generally teach facts to our children, so that they can do things like multiplication and long division (well, some of them can, at least). But they also teach them a whole lot of lies about the culture, about politics, about the world around them. If you spent a day in a public school in America, and believed everything you heard, you would come away convinced that global warming is an undeniable fact, that abstinence from sexual activity before marriage could never prevent teen pregnancy, that conservatives and Republicans are evil people who want to kick your grandmother out of the nursing home and into the street, and that homosexuals constitute their own third (or fourth, or fifth) gender and are perfectly normal. In short, you'd be lied to, you'd be a dupe.

At college, it's not much better. Despite the claims for their “intellectualism”, we need to understand that most university professors – at least in the “soft” fields, i.e. not math and science where you actually have to consistently get the right answers to be successful – are completely averse to truth. I mean that literally. They are averse to the idea of objective right and wrong, and use any amount of philosophical legerdemain to try to justify this position. They also hate anything, such as Republicans, conservatives, Christians, moral traditionalists, and so forth, which make claims to objective truth and rely upon truth as the basis for their worldview. Leftwing professors will ridicule conservative students. They will punish them with bad grades and public reprimands. They will try to sabotage their chances of doing graduate studies, or getting a good job after graduation.

Concurrently, they will try to propagandize the weaker-minded students who don't rest on objective truth, and who therefore are susceptible to being turned into leftists themselves. I've seen it happen. It is from this class of student that the future leaders of the leftist vanguard are drawn. It's these kids who will end up as future Barack Obamas and Nancy Pelosis.

So, in these times of universal deceit, when it seems that all the forces of government, the media, the popular culture, and academia are against us, what are we as conservatives to do?

Well, if I may be permitted yet another quote from George Orwell, I would suggest we take to heart these words, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

What we need to understand about the Left is that it is a knowledge-control cult. It seeks to limit the flow of information available to people so that they are unable to rationally assess whatever question is before them. On any question – global warming, health care, taxes, gay marriage, pick your poison – the leftist media, its academia, its politicians, have a vested interest in making sure that you and I and 300 million other Americans only hear, see, and read what they want us to. This is because when we only get the information they deem acceptable, then we should only come to the conclusions they want us to come to.

This is why the Democrats want to muzzle talk radio and FOX News. Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, and the rest have already been responsible for waking too many people up to the truth about leftists. This is also why the leftists in academia have tried so hard to eliminate any sort of traditionalist curricula (Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civ has got to go!) that would encourage students to familiarize themselves with the bases of our civilization, law, and morals. This is why leftists everywhere would love to see Christianity eliminated from all public discourse – loving God first and foremost means your loyalty is not to the collectivist state.

So, understanding this fact about the Left, we may then proceed to confute it. How do we do so? By counteracting the things the leftists are trying to control us with.

First, the media. Scrap it. Don't watch ABCNNBCBS. Cancel your subscription to your local fishwrap. Give the leftist-controlled outlets the old heave-ho. Don't let them direct your thinking anymore. Tap into alternate sources of information instead. Pick a couple of conservative blogs to follow daily, and expand from there. Despite the bad reputation that internet information has, the blogs in aggregate do a good job of distilling down what's really important in the news, and bringing it to the forefront. Many, many times, a combination of conservative blogs and the Drudge Report have brought out into the open something the mainstream media wanted to keep hidden. Also, listen to talk radio – Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin (if you can stand his anger level) – and get the straight dope about what's going on in politics.

Also, counteract the anti-intellectualism of the so-called “intellectuals” in our schools and other leftist outlets. Don't let the Left decide for you which books are “smart” to read and which aren't. Don't let them filter the ideas that you are “allowed” to think about. And by all means, don't let them withhold from you vital segments of academic knowledge that are vitally important to being a well-rounded, well-informed citizen. Take the time to read some Locke. Spend an hour a night going through de Tocqueville, or the Federalist Papers, or Hayek, or Voegelin – anybody that your typical leftist philosophy or literature professor would disapprove of. Reacquaint yourself with the great thinkers of Western civilization, all the way back to the roots in classical history. Bone up on your economics, study up on that moral philosophy, open your mind to a rational assessment of history. And by all means, if you want to read the latest tome by Ann Coulter or Mark Levin, then don't let them intimidate you into passing it up.

In short, make autodidacty (self-teaching) your friend. It was good enough for Jefferson and Lincoln, so it ought to be good enough for us. Our leftist-controlled public schools, at all levels, are cheating us of our birthright and heritage. Reclaim it, one book at a time, so you can refute the leftists one debate at a time.

Most importantly, consider deepening your relationship with God, if you already know Him, or consider trusting on Him through the sacrifice and shed blood of His Son Jesus Christ, if you haven't. The Left hates the Christian principles and Christian roots of this country – and yes, this country was founded on Christian principles. This is not meant to denigrate those who are not Christians, but is meant to affirm truth. Our Founders were not all Christians, but they all did have a respect for and an aquiescence to the principles of Biblical morality. Find out what all the fuss is about. If the Left hates Christianity, investigate why and see what it is they're trying to hide from you. Get yourself a King James Bible and start reading it. Even if you are not a believer, understand that the Bible is a foundation stone to our Western civilization, and that so much out there – our ethics, our laws, our morals, our traditional priorities – rely upon that Book. You'd even be surprised how many allusions to it you will see in our civilization's poetry and other literature. Don't believe the Left's meme that Christianity and the Bible are for slackjawed denizens of the backwoods. Find out what it is that has motivated some of the finest scholars, thinkers, and statesmen our civilization has produced.

Finally, if we wish to undermine the Left's efforts at controlling the free flow of information, we have to make sure that we don't keep what we know to ourselves. We have to get out there and engage people. We have to “get in their faces” (though not in the Barack Obama street-thugs-on-your-doorstep way, of course). We have to kindly confront people with the truths that they are missing, and which they may not want to hear, but which we still have the freedom to tell them. We have to stand firm on our principles, and make those principles heard. We have to counteract lies as they are told. That means showing up to the town hall meetings. That means writing letters to the editor. That means planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of your sheep-like neighbors as they hear and repeat the lies they get from the media.

When we do all this, we WILL be revolutionaries. We will subvert the dominant paradigm, the lies that the whole leftist house of cards is built upon. We will cut through the deceit. Let the revolution begin!

Read more >>

Special Report: H.R. 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

ENDA will force employers with 15 or more employees to implement the homosexual/transgender radical agenda in businesses across the nation.

Table Of Contents: Incrementalism Strategy Links to YouTube Videos ENDA’s Legal Problems Attorney Fee Problems ENDA Normalizes Transgenders ENDA Misleading Description of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Phony Religious Exemption ENDA Encourages Lawsuits Financial Issues EEOC Will Be Judge & Jury ENDA Based on False Premise Conclusion Additional Resources

Fall 2009 — Once again, homosexual legislator Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced the “inclusive” H.R. 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to create federally-protected minority status for homosexuals and transgenders in employment.

Democrats held a three-hour hearing on ENDA on September 23.

Republicans had two witnesses testifying about the problems with ENDA. They were an employment law attorney and religious liberties attorney.

Democrats had the rest of the panelists: A male-to-female transgender person; the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a gay researcher, a gay law professor; a liberal Jewish leader; and gay activists (pretending to represent the people in their districts) Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).

The hearing was an orchestrated propaganda event promoting the gay lifestyle and Gender Identity Disorders.

Incrementalism As A Strategy

The LGBT (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender) movement is using what is called “incrementalism” in order to gain its objectives. One advocate of this incrementalism is lesbian lawyer Chai Feldblum, who was the primary author of ENDA. She has been picked by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that will enforce ENDA against American businessmen and Christian leaders. At this writing, she is not yet confirmed.  Feldblum believes that the gay agenda should trump religious liberties.

Feldblum has written that incrementalism is the best way to achieve LGBT objectives. They are willing to put meaningless religious exemptions into ENDA. They are doing this to neutralize the opposition. They will return later to remove whatever exemptions were in the bill. The tactic is used so that they can get the votes from uninformed legislators to pass ENDA. Then, they will demand more at a later time.

Chai Feldblum has openly stated: “… when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” (Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty,” 5/15/2008)

Once Feldblum is on the EEOC, she can be expected to implement her ideas against religious liberty. She will enforce ENDA with a vengeance.

ENDA is proposing newly invented rights for individuals who engage in a variety of bizarre sex acts. ENDA pits constitutional rights of religious freedom and free speech against individuals who cross-dress or engage in dangerous sexual activities.

Openly gay John Berry runs Office of Personnel Management, which is the federal government’s personnel agency. He recently gave a speech at a LGBT conference and said that ENDA is the most important piece of legislation the LGBT movement can get passed. He told his audience:

The most important thing we can do right now is we got to … secure the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act … I believe that if we all concentrate our efforts where it needs to be concentrated, which is on the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, we can get the job done."

If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time before all the rest happens. It is the keystone that holds up the whole bunch, and so we need to focus our energies and attention there.

ENDA, (H.R. 3017) includes coverage of “gender identity.” The term “gender identity” is code for drag queens, transvestites, and transsexuals. The umbrella term “transgender” is used to describe these individuals. H.R. 3017 describes “gender identity” as “the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

ENDA describes “sexual orientation” as homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality, but also adds “gender identity” as a protected class. This is code for someone who thinks he’s the opposite sex or likes to wear opposite sex clothing. It also includes she-males, individuals who undergo only half of a sex-change operation. They are male from the waist down and female from the waist up.

By making “gender identity” a federally-protected class under the law, this normalizes what are mental illnesses, known as a Gender Identity Disorder and/or Transvestic Fetishism. It elevates what a person “thinks” he is over what he actually is.

Congress should not be passing a law that affirms special minority protections for individuals who believe they are trapped in opposite sex bodies. This mental disorder is a treatable condition, not a fixed identity that must be accorded federally-protected class status.

Congress is equating this mental disorder to being equal to African-American or Hispanic under the law. If ENDA passes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be amended to include gays, lesbians, bisexuals, cross-dressers, and she-males under the law.

During the hearing, no one discussed GID; they only discussed “gender identity” as if this were a normal variation of sexuality. It isn’t. It is a mental disorder, still listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).

Dr. Paul McHugh has been a critic of the idea that GID is normal and that so-called sex changes are normal and medically necessary. He became the psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins University in 1975 and put an end to the practice of providing sex-change operations for patients. Writing in his essay, Surgical Sex for First Things in 2004, McHugh observed: “We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it [GID].”

Dr. McHugh believes that psychiatrists are collaborating with a mental illness by approving sex change operations on individuals. The problem is one of the mind, not the body. A person who has a gender identity disorder needs therapy, not surgery. Mutilating your body is an ultimate act of self-hatred.

---

• YouTube - ENDA Testimony from Rep. John Kline (R-MN)

• YouTube – ENDA Lawyer Camille Olson

• YouTube - William Eskridge on Gender Identity

• YouTube - Gay law professor testifying at ENDA hearing, September 23, 2009

• YouTube - Craig Parshall Part 1 -- ENDA Hearing

• YouTube - ENDA Testimony -- Olson & Parshall

• YouTube - ENDA -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich

• YouTube - ENDA -- Rep. Kucinich wants gay/transgender bill to cover companies with 5 or more employees

• YouTube - ENDA Hearing -- Acting Chairman Of EEOC Speaks In Support of ENDAYouTube – ENDA Bradley Sears

---

Lawyer Notes Problems With ‘Gender Identity’ In ENDA

During the September 23rd hearing, one panelist was a lawyer who pointed out serious problems with ENDA as it relates to gender identity (Gender Identity Disorder).

Camille A. Olson, with the firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, noted that, as written, ENDA fails to define if an employer is required to modify existing restrooms and shower facilities to deal with transgender employees (those who have “undergone” or are “undergoing gender transition).

Olson also points out that ENDA doesn’t define what it means for a person to have “undergone” or who is “undergoing” gender transition. These terms can mean anything.

Does a man who dresses like a woman but has not had a sex change meet the criteria for “undergoing” transition? If so, does he get to use the women’s restrooms?

A She-Male is a mentally disordered person who “undergoes” only half of a sex change operation. Typically this is a male who takes hormones to grow breasts but maintains his male sex organs. Gay/Tranny porn sites are filled with grotesque photos and videos of She-Males engaged in disgusting sexual antics.

How is a business to handle a She-Male? What restrooms or shower facilities will they use?

News Stories Illustrate Problems With Protecting ‘Gender Identity’

A so-called ‘transgender’ teenager in Texas won the right to wear girl’s clothing to school.Rodney Evans, who calls himself Rochelle, was a 15-year-old at Eastern Hills High School in Fort Worth, Texas. Evans fought for the right to wear make-up, fake breasts and women’s jeans to school. In a Dallas News (May 19, 2007) interview, Evans told the reporter: “There was never a day when I was Rochelle for the whole day. I love makeup. I started wearing makeup because it helped to complete me more. It made me feel more like a girl. With the help of makeup, you can create your own kind of life.”

The article quotes Simon Aronoff, who served at the time as deputy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality in Washington, DC: “Transgender teens are demanding acceptance in all facets of society including school.” (Aronoff is a young woman who thinks she’s a man. She came out to her parents as a lesbian as a teenager, but is now taking male hormones and sports a goatee.)

How will businesses deal with Rodney Evans when he enters the work force? He claims that there was “never a day when I was Rochelle for the whole day.” If Evans can determine his “gender identity” from day to day, how will his behavior impact employment policies if ENDA passes?

Will Evans be a woman on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at work and a man on Tuesdays and Thursdays? What restrooms will Evans use if he doesn’t undergo a sex change operation? What shower facilities? Will businesses have to provide separate facilities for him? If Evans applies to a school to become the women’s gym coach, will the school have to hire him?

A second story out of Duke University also illustrates the problems of providing federal protection for the ephemeral term “gender identity.”

In August, 2007, the Duke University Chronicle reported that a young gender-confused male student at Duke University (who thinks he’s a woman) was given permission to use the women’s restroom at a dorm on campus. The man has not yet had a so-called “sex change” operation. (Even if he did have the operation, he would still be genetically a male, not a female.)

Lee Chauncey, a father of one of the female students said he was outraged by Duke’s willingness to permit this man to use a woman’s restroom. He contacted Duke University officials and the national media over this situation. (The gender-confused young man was eventually moved off campus.)

Chauncey told a local ABC affiliate that he didn’t think it was appropriate to have a man living like a woman and using women’s “shower and bathroom facilities.”

This incident at Duke University is a microcosm of the social chaos that will result if ENDA is passed. ENDA, by providing federally-protected status for “gender identity,” will be creating not only a third sex, but will be normalizing a whole range of bizarre sexual orientations.

A third story out of Seattle also shows the serious problems that will be created by ENDA. Transgender women invade men’s restrooms at Seattle mall.

On August 31, 2007 at a Seattle mall, two women who are taking male hormones were kicked out of a men’s restroom. They were attending a Gender Odyssey Conference at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center and were staging a “pee-in” at the 4th floor bathrooms. This was clearly a set-up.

Washington state passed a “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” protection law in 2006. These gender confused women filed a lawsuit against the mall to test the law.

According to Sean (who only wanted her last name used), “Peeing is basic. Anyone who feels a need to use a bathroom should be able to do so without something [sic] rapping on the stall while your pants are down around your ankle.” Sean and her friend Simon want to use whatever restrooms they choose.

If ENDA passes, businesses will be forced to permit “transitioning” men and women to use opposite sex restrooms. Or, face EEOC lawsuits.

Attorney Fees Problem & Due Process Violated

During the Q&A session, Republican Representative John Kline (MN) questioned Ms. Olson about the attorney fees and fines that can be levied by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under ENDA.

Olson pointed out that ENDA says that it doesn’t intend to deal with attorney fees in any way other than what is available under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, it does just that.

ENDA says that procedures and remedies will permit the EEOC to levy fines and grant attorney fees to the alleged victim of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. According to Olson, the EEOC is supposed to be an investigative body where the rules of evidence do not apply and where employees and employers share information with the hope to be able to resolve issues without litigation.

Olson notes that all other employment anti-discrimination laws give the EEOC no power to grant attorney fees in connection with any of its administrative proceedings. Under ENDA, the decision of the EEOC is not reviewable by a court and does not have to be based on any written, reasoned decision. Due process is being violated by ENDA.

Rep. Biggert Interviews EEOC Chairman

During the hearing Rep. Judy Biggert (IL) interviewed Stuart Ishimaru about attorney fees and fines. Biggert is a co-sponsor of ENDA. Ishimaru claims that ENDA permits the EEOC to do what they are already permitted to do under Title 7 for federal employees. He denies that ENDA has any of the concerns expressed by Camille Olson.

Biggert admitted that ENDA grants power to the EEOC to grant attorney fees – a power not given under other anti-discrimination legislation.

ENDA Will Normalize ‘Transgender’ Teachers & Students

The passage of ENDA will help promote Gender Identity Disorders among teachers and students. Students will be forced to accept the idea of having “transgender” or cross-dressing teachers in their classrooms.

Students at a high school in Batavia, New York faced this in 2006. The earth sciences teacher decided he was a woman and began wearing dresses to class. Students and parents who thought this was abnormal were vilified by school officials. Students were forbidden from opting out of his class. In addition, the students had to refer to him as “Mrs.”

A similar outrage occurred in 2008 in Vacaville, California. In an elementary school, a music teacher decided she was really a man and began teaching children as a man at the start of the school year. Parental objections were rejected and students were forced to be taught by a gender confused woman pretending to be a man.

In addition, sexual anarchist pediatricians are now claiming that children who are gender confused are really just being who they were meant to be. Pediatricians are suggesting that children who think they are the opposite sex should be given hormones to prevent puberty – so they can choose what sex they want to be!

Children who cross-dress will be considered “normal” in schools and anyone objecting will be considered a bigot.

ENDA will make it illegal for any parent to object to having their children taught by cross-dressers, transsexuals or she-males.

Will these gender confused individuals be swimming coaches, football coaches – and freely access opposite sex restrooms and shower facilities?

Transgender activists are actually pushing for a “restroom revolution” that will impact every school and business in America!

ENDA Includes Misleading Definition Of  ‘Sexual Orientation’

Under ENDA, “sexual orientation” is loosely defined as “homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality” in Section 3: Definitions. This makes homosexual and bisexual behaviors on an equal par with heterosexuality, which has been the norm throughout human history. Behaviors like homosexuality, bisexuality, and cross-dressing are expressions of gender identity confusion and should not be equated with heterosexuality as being “normal.”

However, in Section 4, Employment Discrimination Prohibited, ENDA says that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee “because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The inclusion of “perceived” in the definition of sexual orientation in ENDA is a recipe for legal disaster for businesses. There is no condition of sexual abnormality that may not be perceived to fall within one of these categories, including all those excluded by the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act]: transvestism, transexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders, and sexual behavior disorders. Without containing an explicit exclusion, persons with these conditions will have a certain degree of protection under ENDA. 

In fact, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) lists at least 30+  sexual orientations, which includes incest, pedophilia, and coprophilia (sexual pleasure from feces). Individuals who engage in these activities can claim protection under ENDA under Section 4.

“Gender identity” is described in Section 3 as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics or an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” This vaguely-worded definition can mean someone who:

• cross-dresses

• is undergoing a sex change operation

• thinks he or she is the opposite sex without a sex change operation

• lives as a she-male. These are sexually-confused individuals who undergo only a partial sex change operation. Usually males, they are female from the waist up and male from the waist down.

If an employee who is “undergoing” or “has undergone” a so-called sex change operation can wear a dress to work because this is his supposed “gender identity,” he can expect to be protected by ENDA. It will prove to be a nightmare for employers and normal employees who will be forced to remain silent as their cross-dressing co-workers press for the right to wear dresses to work.  Employer or employees who believe that this person is mentally disordered will eventually be forced into reeducation classes to encourage them to affirm homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexualism.   

ENDA And Restrooms/Shower Facilities

Section 8 of ENDA lays out rules for how an employer must treat a person who has a different “gender identity” than his or her biological sex. The concept of “gender identity” is misleading. Transgender activists think that they’re normal. What gay, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender activists and Congressional sponsors of this bill are not saying is that “gender identity” is actually a Gender Identity Disorder, which is still considered a mental condition by the American Psychiatric Association. Transgender activists who have helped craft this latest version of ENDA, assert that having a sex change operation is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with individuals who are supposedly trapped in the wrong body.

In veiled language, Section 8 (3) describes how employers will be permitted to establish policies on shower rooms and restrooms for “gender identity” individuals. It states that employers must “provide reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established by the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.”

A plain reading of this section means that an employer must make restroom and shower facilities available to a transgender individual that is consistent with what sex he thinks he is -- even if he’s not yet had a sex change operation. In short, if a man thinks he’s a woman, he must be given access to women’s restrooms and shower facilities – or the business may be forced to modify separate restrooms and shower facilities for a person who thinks he’s the opposite sex or is going through a so-called sex change operation.  

As Camille Olson notes, ENDA is vague on whether or not it will force businesses to modify existing restrooms or shower facilities. Section 8 says: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the construction of new or additional facilities,” but it says nothing about forcing businesses to modify existing facilities.

Either way, ENDA will be a legal and construction nightmare for businesses that will be forced to provide “adequate facilities” to these seriously confused individuals.

Section 8 (5) deals with “Dress and Grooming Standards.” The section states that the employer must permit “any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment,” to “adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.”

In plain English, this means that an employer must permit a so-called transgender employee to wear clothing that reflects his chosen sex, not his biological sex. A man choosing to wear women’s clothing is protected under ENDA.

Since “gender identity” is a state of mind in ENDA, a person who thinks he’s the opposite sex but doesn’t want to have a sex change operation, would undoubtedly be protected by ENDA by claiming the “actual or perceived” section of the bill. This would permit a man to use a woman’s restroom or shower because he “thinks” he’s a woman.

Under ENDA, someone like Rodney Evans will be free to pick whatever restroom he wishes to use under the “gender identity” protection section.

This is not a flight of fantasy. This is already happening on college campuses around the nation. The Duke University and Seattle mall cases are good examples.

In October, 2002, for example, a student group calling itself, “The Restroom Revolution,” at the University of Massachusetts, began demanding that the university establish unisex restrooms for so-called “transgendered” students. This is what businesses will face if ENDA is passed.

In June, 2001 a Latino AIDS Agency sued its former landlord for discrimination because the landlord was forcing a transgendered male to use the men’s restroom instead of the women’s restroom. The ACLU was defending the “right” of this man to use a woman’s restroom because he thinks he’s a woman. ENDA will result in endless litigation over restroom facilities.

In 2005, a man who calls himself a “male-bodied woman” and uses the name Pauline Park, won a lawsuit against the city of New York over the use of restrooms. Park’s lawsuit permits any individual to use whatever restroom he wishes, depending on his “gender identity.”

Phony Religious Exemption In ENDA

ENDA is legislation ostensibly designed to forbid “discrimination” against a person’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The bill covers any employer who is engaged in interstate commerce or has 15 or more employees.

During the September 23rd hearing, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) proposed that the exemption for employers be reduced to companies having only 5 or more employees. He thinks the exemption for 15 is too large. No Democrat challenged him on his desire to have ENDA cover nearly every business, school, and Christian company in America.

ENDA provides a supposed “religious exemption” for religious denominations or organizations operated by religious denominations– but not other non-profit Christian or other religious organizations. The bill says in Section 6, “Exemption for Religious Organizations” that “This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)).”

This is a phony religious exemption. It is legal gibberish designed to fool legislators into thinking Section 6 protects religious freedom.

ENDA would impose a substantial and crippling burden on religious organizations, both those who are non-profit groups, as well as faith-based institutions and enterprises which operate commercially. 

The religious exemption in ENDA gives a false sense of security. The courts will decide that discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered persons is equal to discrimination against a person because of his race. Once this happens, there will be no exemption in the law for religious groups.

ENDA already refuses to protect religious entities not directly affiliated with a church or denomination such as counselors, Christian camps, day camps, publishers, TV and radio stations.

ENDA will require businesses to eliminate viewpoints that are contrary to the promotion of the LGBT agenda. This will be done to eliminate a “hostile work environment” for the newly-protected classes of cross-dressers, transsexuals, she-males, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.

This will inevitably result in the suppression of free speech by Christians and religious practices such as discussing biblical morality with co-workers or discussing such topics as traditional marriage. The human resources department will function as the thought police to make sure LGBT employees aren’t offended.

ENDA will pit religious employees against activist homosexuals and transgenders in the workplace. The employer will be caught in the middle, trying to balance free speech, freedom of religion issues with the requirements of ENDA.

The employer will have to choose between suppressing the ability of employees to express their religious viewpoints, for which they have relatively little protection in the workplace (religious speech is far less protected then religious observances), and risking costly claims from homosexuals under ENDA’s broad language. Most likely, the employer will impose a rule on the workplace that, in effect, allows no criticism of homosexual or bisexual lifestyles, even among peers.

ENDA forbids any employer from failing to hire or to fire any individual because of his “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity” (Section 4). It will also forbid an employer from taking any action against an employee because of the sexual orientation of a person he may associate with outside of work. (Section 4[e].)

Advocates Of ENDA Claim Discrimination Impacts Incomes Of LGBT Persons

Bradley Sears, Executive Director of the Williams Institute at UCLA, testified in favor of ENDA (H.R. 3017) at the ENDA hearing.

The Williams Institute is described as a “national research center on sexual orientation and gender identity law and policy.” It is named after gay millionaire Charles R. Williams and LGBT agenda financier, who has given the institute more than $11 million since 2001.

In reality, the Williams Institute is a propaganda arm of the lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender (LGBT) movement designed to use research to push forward LGBT political and cultural objectives. It’s goal is to legalize gay marriage nationwide, pass ENDA, force acceptance of the LGBT agenda in public schools, and overturn the ban on gays serving openly in the military and more.

Its research is deliberately biased and designed to achieve these goals. It cannot be trusted to give legislators an accurate picture of the lifestyle or employment problems encountered by gays, lesbians, bisexuals, cross-dressers, drag queens or transsexuals.

In 2008, the Williams Institute participated in a National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) conference. Leaders from the institute led workshops, which included “Using Research to Pass LGBT Anti-Discrimination Laws.”

The NGLTF also sponsored a workshop titled “Using the Thinking: How research has a role to play in the fight for LGBT equality.”

Clearly, the Williams Institute exists to push the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender agenda by using “research” as a weapon for cultural change.

Sears’ Vacuous Testimony

At no point during Sears’ testimony, did he bother to define what “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” actually mean. And, no legislator challenged him to define these terms.

Lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) also avoided defining “sexual orientation” when she was pushing for passage of so-called “hate crime” legislation back in May 2009. Like Baldwin, Sears doesn’t want to be pinned down by a clear definition of terms.

By ignoring clear scientific definitions of these terms, legislators are simply permitting themselves to be used by LGBT activists to impose a radical sex agenda on all businesses, schools and non-profits with more than 15 employees.

A gender identity is actually a Gender Identity Disorder (GID), a mental condition still listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).

There is Gender Dysphoria, where the person believes he is trapped in an opposite sex body; then there is Transvestic Fetishism, where the person dresses in opposite sex clothing, but doesn’t necessarily want to undergo a so-called sex change.

Will ENDA cover cross-dressers (heterosexuals who dress in opposite sex clothing); drag queens (gays); transsexuals (those who have undergone a sex change); and she-males (those who undergo a partial sex change but keep their male sex organs?

The Williams Institute treats homosexual behaviors as safe and GID as merely self-expression instead of a mental condition. Homosexuals are, as a group, far more likely to suffer from serious diseases than their heterosexual counterparts. The evidence is overwhelming. And, individuals who think they are trapped in opposite sex bodies, are truly troubled and clearly mentally disordered. They need professional psychiatric help not surgery. 

Sears’ Plays With Statistics

During his testimony, Bradley Sears made the following claims:

• A survey of more than 646 transgender employees found that 70% faced workplace discrimination against their gender identity.

• 13% of 1,900 LGBT employees at state universities had experienced discrimination or harassment during 2008.

• Eleven state government agencies provided 430 cases of administrative complaints of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination between 1999 and 2007. Requests for data were made to 20 state agencies and 203 local agencies. Most did not respond. Of the 430 cases, approximately 265 were filed by employees of state and government agencies.

• Wage gaps between heterosexual men and gay men is between 10% to 32%.

• Studies show that gay men, bisexuals and lesbians who are government employees earn 8% to 29% less than their heterosexual counterparts.

• Gay men who have partners and work for state governments earn 8% to 10% less than their heterosexual counterparts.

• The Williams Institute found more than 380 examples of workplace discrimination in state and local governments over the past 20 years.

From this brief summary,  Sears claims there is widespread and systematic discrimination against LGBT individuals in state and local governments – and only ENDA can solve the problem.

Out of 20 states, there were a mere 265 discrimination cases between 1999 and 2007. Were these name-calling? And, during a 20-year period, the institute found 380 examples of workplace discrimination in state and local governments. Bradley Sears claims that these statistics show “that discrimination is widespread in terms of quantity, geography, and occupations.”

Sears is wrong. These statistics show that discrimination against LGBT individuals is minor in state and local agencies and that there is no need for federal intervention in every business in America with more than 15 employees.

In the Williams Institute report, it is claimed that a 2009 survey of 646 transgender employees, 11% of whom were public sector employees, 70% of them “had experienced workplace discrimination related to their gender identity.” What does this mean? What kind of workplace discrimination? There were 71 public sector transgenders and 70% of these experienced workplace discrimination. So, 49 transgenders were victims of workplace discrimination in public sector jobs. If this is true, then why were they discriminated against and who were these people?

Were they transsexuals, drag queens, she-males or cross-dressers? We don’t know. Were they men using women’s restrooms? Were they wearing women’s underwear or engaging in obscene sex talk at work? Were they sexual predators? Were they called names? In short, these Williams Institute factoids are meaningless.  They tell us nothing of value.

In his written testimony, Sears hedged on the completeness of his research report, saying that “we have concluded that these examples represent just a fraction of the actual discrimination.” That’s a convenient way of avoiding the fact that his research findings are minor and his conclusions are questionable. Any reputable researcher analyzing this information would conclude that his samplings are too small to reach any conclusion about “widespread” discrimination.

Poverty-Stricken Gays & Cross-Dressers?

One of the main goals of the Williams Institute report is to portray LGBT individuals as being denied gainful employment or advancement in the work place – especially in state and local governments. The underlying assertion is that LGBT individuals are being treated like African-Americans in the South before the Civil Rights Movement. As such, they earn less than heterosexuals and are promoted less frequently.

Chapter 11 of the Williams Institute report purports to analyze the “Wage Gap between LGB Public Employees and Their Co-Workers.”

The Institute claims to have discovered a significant pay gap for gay men when compared to heterosexual men who have the “same productive characteristics.” According to the Institute, “Depending on the study, gay and bisexual men earn 10% to 32% less than similarly qualified heterosexual men. Lesbians generally earn the same or more than heterosexual women, but lesbians earn less than either heterosexual or gay men.”

Yet, these statistics don’t seem to square with gay or gay-supportive marketing studies that have shown how well educated and affluent LGBT people are:

• The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce notes that LGBT individuals were likely to spend $800 more on business and leisure travel during the summer of 2009 than their heterosexual counterparts.

• The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims there are 1.2 million LGBT business owners in the U.S.

• Market researchers state that the LGBT consumers have “deep pockets” and their buying power “is growing.”

  • In 2006, lesbian and gay travelers took a projected total of 53.2 million leisure trips, spending an estimated $40 billion.   Another GLBT travel study says that the GLBT population is 5% and its estimated travel market is $65 billion annually. 

  • Gays & lesbians are spending between $40-$65 billion year on travel. (harrisinteractive.com, 2007 & ASTAnetwork, Summer 2007)

  • Gay Wired Media claims that gay adults are 6-7% of the population with total buying power of $723 billion.

• 14% of gay and lesbian adults are planning overseas travel compared to only 7% of heterosexual adults (harrisinteractive.com, 2007)

• Annual household income for gays and lesbians for 2007-2008 is $80,000. (communitymarketinginc.com)

Gay Incomes Don’t Justify ENDA

Compare the household income of gays and lesbians of $80,000 a year to the median income of blacks, Asians and Hispanics. U.S. Census statistics for 2008 (published on September 11, 2009) show that the median income for blacks was $34,218; for Hispanics it was $37,913; for Asians it was $65,637. Median income for non-Hispanic white households was $55,530.

The Williams Institute would have us believe that LGBT men and women are homeless, living in refrigerator boxes and eating out of dumpsters at the back of restaurants in our inner cities.

ENDA Will Encourage Lawsuits

States, universities and local communities that have already passed “sexual orientation” laws are already beginning to feel the severe economic impact of these laws.

• In July 2007, Fresno State University was fined $5.8 million by a jury for its alleged discrimination against a lesbian volleyball coach, Lindy Vivas. She claimed she was the victim of sexual orientation discrimination because she was a feminist activist and lesbian.

• In April 2007, a homosexual couple filed a lawsuit against the Rochester Athletic Club for refusing to grant them a family membership. The couple claimed that the club was violating the state’s Minnesota Human Rights Act and “sexual orientation” discrimination law.

• In July 2007, a jury in Los Angeles awarded a lesbian firefighter $6.2 million in a sexual orientation/harassment case. Lesbian Brenda Lee claimed she was harassed because she’s a black lesbian.

• In April 2006, a homosexual group, Colorado Legal Initiatives Project filed a lawsuit on behalf of homosexual Richard James Miller against his company, AIMCO. The lawsuit claimed he was the victim of sexual orientation discrimination. Denver has a sexual orientation policy.

• The decision of the EEOC is not reviewable by a court and does not have to be based on any written, reasoned decision.

These are just a few of the cases that have been fueled by “sexual orientation” ordinances passed by states and cities.

Once ENDA is passed, it will unleash a veritable flood of such cases in businesses, colleges, non-profit organizations and churches. The cost of litigation will potentially destroy many businesses – especially smaller businesses – without the resources to fight against well-funded homosexual legal groups.

Here are important points to consider about ENDA’s impact on businesses:

• The cost of defending—and winning one discrimination case can be enough to break a small company. Most small companies do not have insurance that covers discrimination claims.

• The Law of Unintended Consequences dictates that even laws intentionally limited in scope become expanded by the courts, with consequences never intended by Congress.

• ENDA is not a simple inclusion of sexual orientation into federal discrimination law.

• ENDA is broader than any federal discrimination law ever passed, both in its definition of discrimination and its protection of different categories of persons.

• Employers will have difficulty defending themselves against ENDA claims because the protected class is not based on a known characteristic, may be based on a behavior one can opt into and out of, and is subject to interpretation.

• Employers will be caught in the crossfire between homosexual activist staffers and employees with deeply held religious, moral, or traditional beliefs against homosexual behavior.

• Employers will have great difficulty in enforcing existing anti-harassment rules once homosexuality becomes a protected category.

• Employers will be unable to identify and prevent hostile work environments due to sexual orientation, without invading the privacy of employees.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Will Be Involved

During the September 23rd hearing, Stuart Ishimaru testified in support of ENDA. Ishimaru is acting head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal bureaucracy that enforces anti-discrimination workplace policies against employers.

If confirmed, Ishimaru may soon be joined on the EEOC by lesbian activist lawyer and college professor Chai Feldblum, who wrote the ENDA legislation. Feldblum will ruthlessly enforce ENDA against businesses and religious entities if she is confirmed for this key post.

Ishimaru began his written statement at the ENDA hearing this way:

Mr. Chairman and members of the House Education and Labor Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you at this important hearing. It is a privilege to represent the Obama Administration and the EEOC at the first hearing this Congress to consider ENDA, to voice the Administration’s strong support for legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This legislation will provide sorely needed and long overdue federal protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, who unfortunately still face widespread employment discrimination.

During the Q&A session of the hearing, Ishimaru made it clear that he looked forward to crafting government regulations that would enforce ENDA!

In short, it would be the pro-gay, pro-transgender EEOC that would serve as the enforcer for any lawsuits arising from ENDA. The biased EEOC is set up to be judge, jury and enforcer.

ENDA Is Based On A Faulty Premise

One underlying assumption of ENDA is that the ‘sexual orientation’ considered in this bill is ‘fixed,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘healthy’ in the context of American life and human action.  It isn’t. ENDA, however, attempts to impose a federal gag order on the crucial question about whether or not homosexual activity is voluntary and whether or not homosexuality has scandalous social consequences.

ENDA is based upon the faulty premise that homosexuality is normal and that individuals are “born gay.” And, now they’re saying that individuals are born bisexual or trapped in the body of the wrong sex. This “born gay” premise has recently been exposed to be a fraud by none other than homosexual researchers themselves who have admitted there is no scientific proof that a homosexual “gene” or “brain” exist.

Psychologists with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) have recently published “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” which quotes homosexual researchers and philosophers on the “born gay” theory.

In this article, NARTH quotes homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay who studied hypothalmic differences between heterosexual and homosexual brains noted: “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

NARTH also quotes lesbian activist and philosopher Camile Paglia who had the most blunt words about homosexuality: “Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm . . . Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction . . . No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.” 

Homosexuality is a behavior and a lifestyle choice. It is not genetically-based nor is it a healthy way to live. AIDS and sexually-transmitted diseases running rampant among this population are clear evidence that this lifestyle choice is not one to be protected nor encouraged by our culture. The federal government has no right to force America’s businesses, public schools , and non-profits to support a poor, unsafe lifestyle choice.

Individuals who consider themselves “transgendered” have a mental condition known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), also called Gender Dysphoria. These individuals are in need of psychiatric, psychological or spiritual counseling so they will stop rejecting their birth sex. A mental condition cannot be effectively treated by surgery nor should it be.

To put a “gender identity” protection into federal law is to affirm that these individuals are normal and must be protected and accommodated by businesses and non-profit organizations. A serious mental condition must not be accorded specially-protected minority status under the law – nor should American businesses be forced to bend to the wishes of individuals with a treatable mental condition.

TVC’s report, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream” describes the radical transgender agenda and its goal of overturning all concepts of male and female in our culture. Dr. Paul McHugh’s essay, “Surgical Sex” describes the failure of surgery to deal with what is a mental problem.  

Conclusion

If ENDA is signed into law, the homosexual/transgender movement will have won a major victory. They will have accomplished a long-term goal of having “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” given federally-protected minority status under the law.

Once this happens, efforts to oppose the LGBT will be considered a violation of federal law.

More serious consequences will ensue. Christians and other religious faiths will be forced to violate their Constitutionally-protected and firmly-held religious beliefs to bend to the will of homosexual and transgender activists. Freedom of religion will be suppressed by ruthless homosexual/transgender activists.

Every public school in America will be a target if ENDA is passed. The LGBT agenda will be implemented as early as in Head Start, pre-school and Kindergarten.

Freedom of speech will be targeted as well. Once homosexuals and gender confused individuals have minority status under federal law, criticism of their behaviors will be considered discriminatory and will be punished. The efforts to pass “hate crime” legislation will increase. So-called “Hate speech” will be considered outside the protection of the First Amendment. Lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgenders are arguing that “hate speech,” (anything critical of LGBT) provokes “hate crimes” and thus can be banned.

What homosexuals are actually targeting is “truth speech” from those who understand the dangers of homosexual sex and the impact that this behavior will have on children and the future of families in America. Transgender activists are, likewise, smearing those who tell the truth about their mental condition as being “transphobic.”

Congress, in the words of Dr. Paul McHugh, is collaborating with madness by considering passage of ENDA.

Neither homosexual behaviors nor the mental condition of gender confused individuals should have federally-protected minority status.

---

Additional Resources:
If You Hate America You Have a Lawyer — Chai Feldblum
The Agenda: The Homosexual Plan To Change America by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream
What Is A Sexual Orientation?
Summary Of ‘Peeing In Peace”
Intersex Report
Homosexuality 101
TVC Legislative Analysis of HR 2232
TVC Special Report S. 1105
Surgical Sex by Dr. Paul McHugh
The Overhauling Of Straight America

Read more >>

Globalist cover-up hiding Obama's past?

By Mychal Massie

Barack Obama has spent (or had spent for him) between $1.8 million and $3.2 million in legal fees to keep his personal records secret. These include his birth certificate, his college records and all else that could provide more insight into his past.

But why? Who spends that kind of money to keep their records hidden unless they have something to hide? And if someone (especially a political figure, not to mention a sitting president) is willing to go to such lengths, it is reasonable to believe he has something to hide. It is reasonable to believe that whatever it is they are hiding would be damning if revealed. What could it be that Obama is so fearful of having revealed?

Consider the kind of power it takes to command such silence. Let's face it – there is nothing not known that cannot be made known – Jimmy Hoffa's resting place notwithstanding.

Let's first start with what it takes to keep the cacophony of silence and complicit cover-up silent and covered up.

Joan Swirsky writes that Douglas Hagmann, in an interview with Dr. Laurie Roth, revealed, "The reason for the media blackout about [Obama's] birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media, issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations, but also from Federal Communication Commission officials. According to Hagmann and [his investigative partner] Judi McCleod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously," threats were made to fire major talk-show hosts if they mentioned Obama's birth certificate, threats were made by FCC officials to yank broadcasting licenses, and memos were circulated by corporate TV headquarters to all on-air employees advising them not to mention the birth-certificate issue, his lawyer's license or his college records. ("Who is behind quashing the birth-certificate issue?"; Aug. 26, 2009; RenewAmerica.com)

According to Swirsky, during the interview Hagmann and McCleod alluded to e-mails and other evidence in their possession – copies of which, they said, were secreted in several locations.

But the question that begs answering is: Why go to such lengths to keep documents away from public scrutiny? The birth-certificate issue is only a critical problem if, as many believe, it contradicts Obama's citizenship story. And why prevent access to college records or restrict inquiry concerning his law license? It was Michelle who mysteriously had her license suspended in 1993.

An even more pressing question is: How does a person like Obama – a nobody from nowhere – come to command such power and money so as to pull this off? Think about what it takes for a presidential candidate, and now sitting president, to have such power.

The answer can only be that Obama is the front man for something far more sinister. One person, without the strength and backing of a cabal capable of toppling governments and affecting worldwide currencies, etc., could not even consider such an undertaking, much less pull it off.

Ergo, the logical conclusion must then be that behind Obama there exists a group or organization so powerful and so sinister that they are able not just to influence global policy, but to control it. I repeat for the record, Obama in and of himself cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, singularly demand that every major media outlet ignore investigating that which could potentially make Woodward and Bernstein's investigation into President Nixon pale in comparison.

Global domination is obviously their goal, but what in Obama's background threatens to derail them if it were exposed? Rumors and suspicions abound pursuant to his citizenship, but if someone has enough power to silence a worldwide press and media, they would certainly have the ability to forge or recreate birth documents.

Also, Obama didn't go to school in a vacuum. If there were something in his college records or if he had committed a crime or whatever, other students would know it and those persons would have by now leaked same to a credible source or outlet.

But there is one thing that wouldn't be as accessible to public scrutiny and that is his medical records. If in his background there is evidence of emotional breakdown, susceptibility to breakdown, emotional instability or something similar and it became known, it is the one thing that could derail the objectives of the power behind him.

I'm not an investigative journalist. I write opinion, and it is my opinion that Obama is but the tip of something much larger, and if same were to become known it would reverberate worldwide. If he isn't, then he should make the requested records available immediately. No other president or leader – not Castro, not Chavez, not Clinton, not Khrushchev – has demanded and received the secrecy he has. No one was capable of such a feat until now.

It is time, no matter the risk or the cost, for investigators and reporters to do their jobs. The American public has the right to know the truth about Obama.

Read more >>