House Republicans accuse Muslim group of trying to plant spies...

By Jordy Yager

Republican members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have tried to plant “spies” within key national-security committees in order to shape legislative policy.

Reps. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), citing the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, called for the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether CAIR had been successful in placing interns on key panels. The lawmakers are specifically focused on the House Homeland Security Committee, Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee.

“If an organization is connected to or supports terrorists [and] is running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related offices, I think this needs to be made known,” said Broun, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee. “So I join my colleagues here today in calling for action.”

But the Office of the House sergeant at arms said that it has received no such request from any of the four Republicans and declined to speculate on how a request of that nature would be addressed.

“We have not received any request at this time,” said Kerri Hanley, a spokeswoman for the House sergeant at arms office. “Until we know of the exact request, a determination cannot be made on how it will be handled.”

The book, which was written by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry with a foreword by Myrick, is scheduled to be released on Thursday.

A representative of CAIR called the accusations unfounded and worried that they would tarnish the improving relations between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans.

“God forbid American Muslims take part in the political process and exercise their rights,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, in a telephone interview. “I suppose they’re going to investigate the Muslim Staffers Association next.

“If these people weren’t so hate-filled, it would be laughable, but unfortunately they have an audience and, given their positions, it’s going to get picked up by the hate blogs.”

While the Republicans said they did not know of specific legislation that CAIR had affected, Franks, a Judiciary Committee member, said he wouldn’t be surprised if it was trying to amend the Patriot Act.

“One of the target policies that they might be concerned about is the Patriot Act itself — those things that give us the greatest tools to be able to surveil those conversations outside of this country … and I think organizations like CAIR would like to diminish that.”

The GOP accusations come as Congress is considering reauthorizing expiring provisions in the Patriot Act, which has been attacked by critics on both the left and the right.

The Republicans also called on the IRS to launch a full investigation into CAIR’s lobbying activities, “to judge if they are in violation of their federal nonprofit status.”

Hooper said that CAIR is in full federal compliance with its status as a 501(c)3 nonprofit group, and that the group devotes less in terms of resources than the maximum legal limit allowed.

“We’ve always stayed within our legal limits,” he said. “If anything, we don’t have enough staff to lobby as much as we legally can.”

Gaubatz, the co-author of Muslim Mafia, could not be reached at press time. On his website, daveg.us, he asks supporters for money to “legally destroy CAIR.”

“CAIR will use their routine and expected ‘smear’ campaign to discredit me,” Gaubatz wrote on Wednesday morning. “It will not work. I have one foot on CAIR. I tell the truth. They simply lie and we have the proof.

“Please support me in these eforts [sic] to help shut this terror supporting organization down. donate all weekend. We need to raise $25,000 to put more research in the field and to bring more intelligence agianst [sic] them … If you want to protect your children and America, then help me now.”

Citing the book, Myrick requested that the Justice Department share with all lawmakers and their chiefs of staff an executive summary of the findings that led the department to name CAIR as a co-conspirator in an anti-terrorism case.

She said the Justice Department identified CAIR as an “un-indicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation case in Dallas, which concluded with the sentencing of the two founders of the foundation to life in prison for funneling $12 million to Hamas, which the U.S. has labeled a terrorist organization.

“We need to know that information so that we can discern whether we want to take interns associated with that group into our office,” said Myrick.

Earlier this year, the FBI cut off communication with CAIR out of concern that the group had ties with Hamas.

Hooper said that CAIR welcomed the scrutiny from the Republican lawmakers and that he was disappointed to see them associate with Gaubatz, whom he called a “hate-monger.”

“It’s a shame to see elected officials take part in a smear campaign based on bigotry,” Hooper said

A call for comment from the Justice Department was not returned.

Read more >>

Mom Arrested for Washing Kid's Mouth With Soap

A Florida couple is behind bars for some old school discipline

By TODD WRIGHT

A Palm Bay woman and her boyfriend were arrested Monday for child abuse after the couple went old school to punish their 8-year-old daughter for swearing.

They washed her mouth out with soap.

We don't know about you, but we would petition President Obama and Congress to make it mandatory for every parent to carry a bar of Irish Spring in their back pockets with all the profanity kids use today.

Police claim Adriyanna Herdener and Wilfredo Rivera went too far by placing a bar of soap in the girl's mouth and letting it stay for 10 minutes. Herdener did not intervene in the discipline.

The girl eventually vomited and Rivera took her to the local hospital, where hospital staff called police.

No one wants a child to be hurt or inhumanely punished, but parents' discipline choices in this country have come down to calling Dr. Phil or hiding the joysticks to the Wii.

Next time your kid has a potty mouth, just give them some gum.

Read more >>

OBAMA SAYS: ONE TIME $250 BONUS FOR SENIORS

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.

It would mark the first year without an increase in Social Security payments since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

"Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession," Obama said in a statement. "This additional assistance will be especially important in the coming months, as countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis."

Obama's proposal is similar to several bills in Congress. The $250 payments would also go to those receiving veterans benefits, disability benefits, railroad retirees and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.

The White House put the cost at $13 billion. Obama said he would not allow the payments to come out of the Social Security trust funds, further eroding the finances of the retirement program. Social Security already is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in each of the next two years.

However, Obama did not offer any alternatives to finance the payments. A senior administration official said Obama was open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal budget deficit. The official, who requested anonymity, was not authorized to speak on the record.

Obama also announced Wednesday that the IRS would soon issue tax guidance preventing reductions in contribution limits for certain retirement funds, including 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts. There has been concern among some in the financial industry that federal law could require the limits to be reduced because inflation will be negative this year.

The $250 payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Several key members of Congress have said they are open to providing relief to seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security payments.

"We're looking at a way to address it," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Social Security. "I'm not sure what the exact answer is yet, but we're looking at ways to address that."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he supports the $250 payments, as did Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security in the House.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has introduced a bill calling for similar payments.

"I think that the Obama administration and many members of Congress understand that we simply can't turn our backs on senior citizens," Sanders said.

Other lawmakers said seniors shouldn't get the extra payments because the formula doesn't call for it.

"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.

Advocacy groups said the payment will be welcomed by seniors hit hard by falling home values and shrinking investment portfolios.

"The likelihood of losing an average annual COLA increase of about $200 to $300 in 2010 may sound like no big deal to some, but for millions of seniors who've already seen a third of their Social Security eaten up by health care costs, this proposed COLA relief could truly make the difference" said Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

AARP CEO A. Barry Rand said, "For nearly 35 years, millions of Americans have counted on an annual increase in their monthly Social Security checks to make ends meet."

Read more >>

President Obama Promises To Fulfill Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Political Agenda

President Obama gave the keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) dinner on October 10 – the evening before a poorly-attended LGBT march on Washington, D.C.

TVC staffers attended the LGBT march and were shocked by how many anti-Christian signs were displayed and there was a strong anti-Christian theme of the march.

The overarching theme of the march was about overturning the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

“President Obama’s HRC speech is no surprise to me,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “During the Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama gave a similar speech to LGBT delegates and promised them everything they’ve wanted.

“Obama, of course, continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. When he was discussing gay marriage with Pastor Rick Warren before the election, he expressed support for traditional marriage. Clearly, he didn’t mean it. Now, he’s admitting he wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

“Obama has also made it clear in his HRC speech that he’ll protect such extremist gays as Kevin Jennings, the safe schools czar and lesbian fanatic Chai Feldblum, who has been nominated to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”

In his speech, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, promised to implement every major goal of the LGBT movement.

---

YouTube - President Obama gives keynote speech at HRC Dinner

YouTube - President Obama speaks at HRC dinner -- Part 2

YouTube - President Obama speaks at HRC dinner -- Part 3

Text of Obama’s speech to HRC

---

President Obama assured them:

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.  You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

Obama promised to:

• Sign a hate crimes bill into law.
• Sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act into law.
• Overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This will jeopardize traditional marriage in every state.
• Defend every LGBT activist who is nominated for a federal post.
• Rescind regulations banning HIV-infected foreigners from entering the country.
• Overturn a law passed by Congress that reaffirmed a long-standing policy that forbids gays from serving in the military. (Clinton implemented the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – which violated the law passed by Congress.)

During his speech, Obama praised the Stonewall Riot, which launched the gay activist movement in 1969. He described the Stonewall Riot this way:

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.

Obama’s history is wrong about the Stonewall Riot. What he’s celebrating is a drag queen riot that took place outside of a sleazy Mafia-owned gay bar in New York City. Police had entered the establishment over liquor license violations. The drag queens inside rebelled against the police and began throwing rocks, bottles, trash cans and whatever else they could find in the streets to injure the police officers.

As a result of this riot, the Gay Liberation Front was born and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, drag queens, and transsexuals have been agitating for their supposed “rights” ever since.

Pictures from the Gay Rights March, Washington, DC, Sunday, October 11, 2009

---

Additional Resources:  
The White House - Remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner
YouTube - President Obama gives keynote speech at HRC Dinner
YouTube - President Obama speaks at HRC dinner -- Part 2
YouTube - President Obama speaks at HRC dinner -- Part 3
TVC’s ENDA Report
Briefing Paper On The LGBT Agenda
Homosexual Urban Legends
Obama Administration Celebrates ‘Gay, Lesbian, Transgender Pride Month’ 

Read more >>

TVC Special Report On ENDA Is Available Now!

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) threatens all businesses and Christian businessmen.

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

The House Committee on Education and Labor held a propaganda hearing on September 23 to push for passage of the pro-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

Passage of ENDA is considered a key legislative battle for the LGBT movement. Once this is passed, sexual behaviors (including the 30+ sexual orientations listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) will also have federally-protected minority status under our  civil rights laws.

Two of our staffers arrived early at the September 23 ENDA hearing in order to make sure we all had seats for the LGBT-engineered dog and pony show. When I arrived, Democrats refused to let me into the hearing. Of course, the room was full of male-to-female and female-to-male transsexuals or she-males, but I was apparently considered a threat to their agenda. I firmly refused to be denied a seat at the hearing. Fortunately, with the help of the Republicans on the committee, I was finally given a seat so I could monitor the entire event.

The hearing was a farce. Republicans had two witnesses who testified against ENDA; the Democrats had seven witnesses. One of them was a male-to-female transsexual, she-male, or cross-dresser. I’m not sure what he was. He may have had a so-called sex change operation or he may have just been dressing like a woman and was still anatomically a male. In either case, he was a sad sight to see. Clearly, the man is psychologically disturbed or he wouldn’t be rejecting his birth sex to pretend to be a woman.

Witness after witness on the Democrat side testified about how important ENDA was to provide protection for lesbians, gays, and transgenders. They repeatedly referred to the importance of protecting a person’s “gender identity,” – which is code for cross-dressers, drag queens, transsexuals and she-males.

What the witnesses carefully avoided was the term “Gender Identity Disorder,” (GID) which is a mental disorder still listed in the DSM-IV-TR. The she-male testifying before the committee was displaying GID.

This is a treatable mental condition. GID individuals should never be considered a minority class under federal law. They need therapy not surgery or politically-motivated protection in our civil rights laws.

TVC’s ENDA Report

Traditional Values Coalition has just published its latest update to our report on ENDA and it is now posted on our web site.

Please download this report and email the link to your U.S. Senators and Representative. They need to understand GID, the LGBT agenda and the threat this legislation poses to every business owner with more than 15 employees in the U.S.

Here are some of the main points in the ENDA report:

• ENDA strategists are using an incremental approach to impose the LGBT agenda on all Americans. They’re satisfied to get parts of their agenda in a bill and then return later to get other segments of the agenda enacted.

• ENDA will be enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is headed by a pro-ENDA chairman. A lesbian activist, Chai Feldblum, may be on the EEOC as well. She wrote ENDA.

• ENDA will force businesses to provide restroom and shower facilities for she-males and transsexuals.

• ENDA will affect all public schools.

• ENDA will invite costly lawsuits against business owners.

• ENDA will create a hostile working environment for non-gay, bisexual, lesbian, or so-called transgender employees. Individuals who are critical of these sexual behaviors will be forced into retraining sessions to change their opinions.

• ENDA is based on the false premise that homosexuality is in-born and that a person’s “gender identity” can be different from his birth sex. ENDA is legalizing and protecting a mental disturbance known as a Gender Identity Disorder.

• There is no widespread and systematic of discrimination against LGBT individuals.

• Sexual behaviors are not the same as race or other immutable characteristics.

• ENDA threatens religious freedom.

Be sure to read our reports on two of the key witnesses at this ENDA hearing: Bradley Sears and William Eskridge.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators and Representative today and ask that they vote NO on ENDA in any form it takes. This legislation is unneeded and threatens the workplace.

Read more >>

A Sexual Anarchist Testifies At ENDA Hearing

Yale Law School Professor William N. Eskridge provided testimony at the ENDA (H.R. 3017)  hearing on September 23 before the House Committee on Education and Labor in the House of Representatives. Republicans had two panelists to testify against ENDA; Democrats had seven.

Eskridge claims that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) must be passed in order to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees from workplace discrimination – especially in state the local governments. According to Eskridge, “ENDA abrogates the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, pursuant to Congress’s authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.   The Supreme Court has said that Congress has Fourteenth Amendment authority to create a remedy for state violations of constitutional rights and to establish prophylactic rules to head off harder-to-discern constitutional violations. The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a certain degree of sovereign immunity for states. ENDA would undermine this amendment and give the federal government power to use the 14th Amendment against the states in employment matters.

In plain English, Eskridge wants to use ENDA to violate the right of states and local governments to set their own employment policies.

During a portion of his ENDA testimony, he referred to the effort of citizens in Colorado to keep LGBT individuals from receiving special rights in Colorado law. He noted that:

The arguments in favor of the constitutional initiative included the following:  so-called “homosexuals” are promiscuous (“[t]heir lifestyle is sex-addicted and tragic”) and consumed by venereal disease (according to the official Amendment 2 ballot materials, the average gay man dies at 42 years old, the lesbian at age 45); they are predatory, seeking to invade decent people’s houses and schools, take away their jobs, recruit their children, and “destroy the family”; and Coloradans should undo “special rights” given by some communities to “homosexuals and lesbians” that disrupt traditional family values and good institutions such as churches.  The sponsors of the initiative believed that these were “moderate” arguments—but in fact they are open appeals to anti-gay prejudice and invoke deeply erroneous stereotypes of LGBT people as diseased, predatory, and disruptive. 

Even when they are not so explicitly set forth as they were recently in the Colorado campaign, these anti-gay tropes—immorality, predation, and disruption—still motivate state officials to discriminate against sexual and gender minorities  

In his spoken testimony, he denied that any of these Amendment 2 claims were true. However, he misstated the facts. Here are the facts – from medical journals and other reputable resources.

• Average gay man dies at 42; lesbians die at 45.

• The gay lifestyle is sex-addicted and tragic.

• Gays are consumed by venereal diseases.

• Gays are predatory.

• Gays and public school children.

• Gays want to destroy the family.

• Gays want to disrupt good institutions such as the church.

Professor Eskridge wrote an amicus brief for the Lawrence v. Texas case that became the philosophical justification for the Supreme Court to overturn all state laws against sodomy in 2003.

Eskridge is author of Dishonorable Passions, a history of sodomy laws in the United States from 1861 to 2003. In 2003, the Supreme Court issued its Lawrence v. Texas decision. He is a long-time activist on behalf of LGBT individuals who engage in sexual behaviors that have resulted in the spread of venereal diseases and AIDS not only among gays, but bisexuals who have spread AIDS into the heterosexual community.

Eskridge is not only an LGBT activist but an advocate for the abolition of the concept of marriage altogether. He has support Sweden’s efforts to normalize homosexuality and polyamory – the sexual arrangement that includes any number of males or females in a sexual arrangement. Eskridge warns against “fetishizing” the institution of marriage as a one-man, one-woman union.

Professor Eskridge is also author of Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet. In it, he criticizes laws against prostitution, sado-masochism, pornography, and some forms of intergenerational sex (sex with minors).

According to Eskridge, “…most adolescents are ready for sex and have had sex by aged fifteen but are still not mature decisionmakers; intergenerational sex within a family can be extremely disruptive, but legal intervention may deepen rather than alleviate the disruption.” (Gaylaw, page 267)

Eskridge thinks that sex with pre-teens should be illegal, but he’s not overly concerned about: An adolescent girl who has sex with a related male adult; a teenage girl who has sex with a male adult outside of the family; an adolescent boy who has sex with a related adult; or an adolescent boy who has sex with an adult outside of the family. (Page 267)

Eskridge claims that criminalization of incest and intergenerational sex “allows sex-negative groups to oppose spending state money on sex education and victim-centered therapies without admitting that they are beggaring a solution.” (Page 270)

In short, Eskridge is a sexual anarchist who favors adult-teen sex and the abolition of certain laws that regulating sexual activities between adults and teenagers.

Eskridge compares religious liberty to sexual orientation and believes the Constitution protects a person’s sexual orientation in the same way that it protects religious liberty. He claims that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution should be used to invalidate all laws that “discriminate” against sexual orientation.

In Eskridge’s 1997 essay in the Yale Law Journal, “A Jurisprudence of ‘coming out,’: religion, homosexuality, and collisions of liberty and equality in American public law,” he once again compares religion to sexual orienatation. He writes:

Although the law has most often been deployed as an instrument of suppression, there is now a public law concensus to preserve and protect the autonomy of religious and ethnic subcultures, as well as the ability of their members to self-identify without penalty. One thesis of this Essay is that this vaunted public law consensus should be extended to sexual orientation minorities as well.

Eskridge that the “religion clauses of the First Amendment as they have been developed in the last generation are a model for the state’s treatment of sexuality.”

He continues to place sexual orientation on the same level as religion and believes both are protected by the Constitution.

But, what happens when religion clashes with the gay agenda? Eskridge believes the law should be changed to include “gaylegal” concepts of jurisprudence.

He also believes that the government has a duty to reduce “historical discrimination” that justifies burdens on the First Amendment.

He cited the 1983 Bob Jones University case that gave the IRS the power to strip the university of its exemption as a charitable institution because it forbade interracial dating.

This and other cases are used by Eskridge to argue that it’s okay to violate religious freedom when discrimination is involved. He uses this argument to promote the idea that “sexual orientation” discrimination claims will trump religious freedom claims. When religious freedom clashes with the gay agenda, the gay agenda should win, according to Eskridge.

Yet, Eskridge also says: “That the state as employer ought not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in its own employment and contracting policies, perhaps as a matter of constitutional law, does not mean that the state also must require private institutions to follow the same non-discrimination policy. When the state seeks to censor my expression or discriminate against me, I am on strong constitutional ground in resisting; when the state seeks to impose my expression on your turf or to silence your opposition to open homosexuality, I am on much weaker constitutional ground. The continuum from nuclear family to the regulatory state parallels a continuum of defensible imposition of public equality goals, with the state being most defensible and the family being least.”

ENDA, however, would impose these pro-LBGT anti-discrimination policies not only on privately-run businesses, but on Christian-run businesses as well.

His gaylaw ideas would routinely trump religious freedom in favor of imposing the LGBT agenda on any business with more than 15 employees.

This is the philosophy of the Democrats’ “expert witness” who testified on behalf of ENDA on September 23, 2009 in the House of Representatives.

---

Additional Resources:
TVC’s ENDA Report
YouTube - William Eskridge on Gender Identity
YouTube - Gay law professor testifying at ENDA hearing
YouTube - ENDA Excerpt Of Testimony Of William Eskridge

Read more >>

Here We Go Again: Gays Misleading With Statistics

Bradley Sears, Executive Director of the Williams Institute at UCLA, testified in favor of ENDA (H.R. 3017) on September 23, 2009 in the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor.

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.

The Bottom Line

The Williams Institute was created to use research to push the LGBT agenda. It is partisan, biased, and non-scientific. Its work cannot be trusted.

For accurate, science-based information on issues involving gays, lesbians, bisexuals and so-called “transgender” persons, access the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality web site. It’s latest report, “What Research Shows” is a survey of 125 years of research on homosexuality.

Access TVC’s ENDA Report, Special Reports, Homosexual Urban Legends, and our searchable database for accurate information on the gay and transgender agenda.

Read more >>

California Governor Schwarzenegger Establishes ‘Harvey Milk’ Day!

On Sunday night, California Governor Arnold Schwarzengger signed two pro-gay laws to push the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda on California.

SB 54 overturns the will of the voters over gay marriage. It grants to gay couples moving to California who were married in other states all of the privileges and rights of marriages that were available prior to Proposition 8 passing. Prop. 8 was a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman. SB 54 would allow for all homosexual marriages performed in other states prior to Prop 8’s passing in 2008 to be valid and recognized here in California.

The second bill is SB 572 which declares May 22 as “Harvey Milk Day” throughout California. Harvey Milk was a gay San Francisco politician gunned down in the late 1970s. Milk has admitted that he cruised for gay sex in public parks when he lived in New York City.

“Governor Schwarzenegger has, once again, aided the LGBT agenda in California by signing these terrible bills into law,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “He has ignored the will of the voters by signing SB 54 and will subject children to gay propaganda every May 22.

“This is an outrage. Harvey Milk Day will open the floodgates for the glorification of controversial homosexual leaders and the homosexual lifestyle in all California schools. 

“Harvey Milk died in a political, workplace disagreement that had nothing to do with homosexuality. He is no martyr and no school kid should have to listen to stories about his involvement in the homosexual movement or about his sexual affairs with young men. Milk and his lifestyle have no place in California’s schools. Harvey Milk is not the pride of the Golden State; rather, he is an embarrassment.”

 “Surely there are more worthy individuals to honor with their own day. Why not honor the contributions of such accomplished Californians as Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, John Wayne, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Joe DiMaggio, George Lucas, Mark Spitz, Hiram Johnson, John Fremont, or Walt Disney?

“Why pay honor to a man for how he engages in sex? California’s children will be taught about the gay lifestyle every May 22 instead of learning the three Rs.”

Read more >>

If Obama had told us before his election

By Phyllis Schlafly

"If Barack Obama had campaigned on what he has actually done in his first 300 days in office, would he have been elected? That's the question so many are asking today.

If Obama had told us he would appoint 34 czars, reporting only to himself and not vetted or confirmed in the constitutional way, building a powerful unitary executive branch of government, would he have been elected? What if he had told us that his green jobs czar had been a communist, that the science czar wrote in a college textbook that compulsory "green abortions" are an acceptable way to control population growth and that the diversity czar has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities?

If Obama had told us he would take over the automobile industry faster than any socialist dictator ever nationalized an industry, fire the CEO of General Motors and replace him with a Democratic Party campaign contributor, would Obama have been elected? If Obama had campaigned on closing down thousands of profitable car dealers, nearly all Republicans, would we have believed that this vindictive financial retaliation against those who didn't vote for Obama could happen in America?

If Hugo Chavez, the communist who nationalized most of Venezuela's industries, had said before the election that "Comrade Obama" would nationalize the U.S. automobile industry and Chavez would "end up to his right," would anybody have believed it? If talk shows had warned against such a socialist takeover, would the Obama-loving media have accused them of McCarthyism?

If Obama had told us he would spend $3 billion in a Cash for Clunkers program that would use taxpayers' funds to buy mostly foreign cars and grind up the used American cars traded in to make them unusable, would he have been elected?

If Obama had told us that his stimulus package is a sham because it does not create private-sector jobs (as a tax cut would do), so that the unemployment rate has risen to nearly 10 percent, with 15 million Americans unemployed plus another 11 million underemployed, could he have been elected?

If Obama had told us his Supreme Court pick would be a woman who said repeatedly that a "Latina woman" would make better decisions than "a white male," that his pick for chief State Department lawyer would be a transnationalist who wants to integrate foreign law into law binding on U.S. citizens and that his pick for regulations czar argues that animals are entitled to have lawyers to sue humans in court, would Obama have been elected?

If we had known that Obama would be totally incompetent as commander in chief of his chosen war in Afghanistan, and would not speak to the general in the field for 70 days, ignoring his dire report for six weeks, would Obama have been elected?

If Obama had told us he would have the government guarantee 90 percent of all U.S. mortgages, imposing $5 trillion in off-budget debt on U.S. taxpayers who had faithfully made their own mortgage payments, would he have been elected? And what if Obama had told us he would have the taxpayers take over 80 percent of all student loans at a cost of $1 trillion over the next decade?

If Obama had told us that he would make the U.S. government a major shareholder in Citigroup (one of the world's largest banks), would you have believed he could get away with this socialist takeover?

If Obama had admitted that his health care plan would include the same provisions for which he ran negative TV ads against Hillary Clinton (a federal mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance) and against John McCain (a tax on high-cost employer-based plans), would Obama have been elected?

And what if Obama had told us that his federal health plan would pay for all abortions without regard to the Hyde Amendment and provide full health care (including private doctor visits) to immigrants without requiring proof of legal residence?

If Obama had campaigned on increasing federal spending and debt from a multibillion-dollar level to multitrillions, would he have been elected? And what if Obama had told us that his promise to "spread the wealth around" would balloon his first year's budget deficit to $1.6 trillion?

If Obama had told us that his promise to "spread the wealth around" meant wiping out the Republican welfare reform of 1996 and increasing annual welfare spending by 39 percent to almost $1 trillion a year by the end of his first term, would he have been elected?

If Obama had declared during his campaign that his first major speech abroad would be to the Muslim world and that he would proclaim in Muslim Turkey that "one of the great strengths of the United States is ... we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," would he have been elected?

Read more >>

GOV'T VS. PRESS: White House Escalates War of Words With FOXNEWS...

Anita Dunn, White House communications director, calls Fox News a "wing of the Republican Party," after the White House began using its government blog to criticize "Fox lies."

Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization. 

"What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." 

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett. 

"It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming," Clemente said. "It seems self-serving on their part." 

In recent weeks, the White House has begun using its government blog to directly attack what it called "Fox lies." David Gergen, who has worked for President Bill Clinton and three Republican presidents, questioned the propriety of the White House declaring war on a news organization. 

"It's a very risky strategy. It's not one that I would advocate," Gergen said on CNN. "If you're going to get very personal against the media, you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you're going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you're attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature." 

He added: "The press always has the last barrel of ink." 

Gergen's sentiments were echoed by Tony Blankley, who once served as press secretary to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. 

"Going after a news organization, in my experience, is always a loser," Blankley said on CNN. "They have a big audience. And Fox has an audience of not just conservatives -- they've got liberals and moderates who watch too. They've got Obama supporters who are watching. So it's a temptation for a politician, but it needs to be resisted." 

Nia Malika Henderson, White House correspondent for the Politico newspaper, also questioned the White House offensive against Fox. 

"Obama's only been a boon to their ratings and I don't understand how this kind of escalation of rhetoric and kind of taking them on, one on one, would do anything other than escalate their ratings even more," she said. 

Dunn used an appearance on CNN's "Reliable Sources" over the weekend to complain about Fox News' coverage of the Obama presidential campaign a year ago. 

"It was a time this country was in two wars," she recalled. "We'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN." 

Ayers was co-founder of the Weather Underground, a communist terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other buildings in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1995, Ayers hosted Obama at his home for a political function and the two men later served together on the board of an anti-poverty group known as the Woods Fund. 

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which once had close ties to Obama, has been accused by a variety of law enforcement agencies of voter fraud. In recent weeks, the Democrat-controlled Congress moved to sever funding to ACORN after Fox News aired undercover videotapes of ACORN employees giving advice on how to break the law to a pair of journalists disguised as a pimp and prostitute. 

As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative. 

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points. 

Although Dunn accused Fox News of being a "wing of the Republican Party," she said the network does not champion conservatism. 

"It's not ideological," she acknowledged. "I mean, obviously, there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal, centrist -- and everybody understands that." 

Still, Obama refused to appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on Sept. 20, the day he appeared on five other Sunday shows. At the time, the White House characterized the snub as payback for the Fox Broadcast Network's decision not to air an Obama prime time appearance. But last weekend, Dunn blamed Fox News Channel's coverage of the administration for Obama's snub of Fox News Sunday. 

"Is this why he did not appear?" Dunn said. "The answer is yes." 

Wallace has called White House officials "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington." 

Dunn was asked by CNN's Howard Kurtz whether Obama would grant an interview to Fox News by the end of the year. 

"Obviously, he'll go on Fox, because he engages with ideological opponents and he has done that before, he will do it again," Dunn replied. "I can't give you a date, because frankly I can't give you dates for anybody else right now." 

But last week, Fox News was informed by the White House that Obama would grant no interviews to the channel until at least 2010. The edict was relayed to Fox News by a White House official after Dunn discussed the channel at a meeting with presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs and other Obama advisers. 

"What I will say is that when he (Obama) goes on Fox, he understands he's not going on it really as a news network, at this point," Dunn said on CNN. "He's going on to debate the opposition. And that's fine. He never minds doing that." 

Dunn also strongly implied that Fox had failed to follow up on a New York Times story about a scandal swirling around GOP Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, although Fox News broadcast the stories on numerous shows, including Special Report with Bret Baier. 

Clemente questioned the motives of the White House attack, which comes in the wake of an informal coffee last month between Fox chairman Roger Ailes and Obama adviser David Axelrod. 

"Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality," he said. "Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about." 

Blankley suggested the war on Fox News is unpresidential. 

"It lowers the prestige," he said. "If you're president or speaker, at a certain level, you don't want to be seen to be engaging that kind of petty bickering. If you're just a congressman, maybe you can do it." 

In an interview over the summer, Obama made clear that Fox News has gotten under his skin. 

"I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration," he told CNBC's John Harwood. "You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front." 

At the White House Correspondents Dinner in May, Obama even mocked the media for supporting him. 

"Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me," Obama said, spurring laughter and applause from the assembled journalists. "Apologies to the Fox table." 

Gergen said the White House should delegate its attacks to outside support groups. 

"Why don't they take this over to the DNC, over to the Democratic National Committee, and have their struggles like that fought out over there and not out of the White House?" Gergen said. "I have real questions about that strategy." 

Read more >>