The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our sacred constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes ENDA no less unconstitutional.
J. Matt Barber
Today’s Democratic leadership is a predictable lot. They’ve cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic tinkering. It’s a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the “forked tongue test.”
If Dems say “Fairness Doctrine,” expect unfairness in spades. When Harry Reid tags Obamacare the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” we know that the patient gets hosed, and the “care” breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the “No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act,” bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol Rotunda.
And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House). According to its leftist proponents, ENDA – which is under consideration in both houses of Congress – would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination. But in truth, this legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.
ENDA would force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology.
This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an “out and proud” adulterous “swinger.” It’s a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.
During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional nature. “[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” noted the statement. “The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard.”
The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our sacred constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes ENDA no less unconstitutional.
Chai Feldblum (pronounced “high” as in “stoned”) is a lesbian activist and sexual anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is like having Michael Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Feldblum – ENDA’s chief framer and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its enforcement – has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.
Feldblum believes that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka, “gay rights”) is a “zero sum game,” meaning that the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. One must triumph over the other. (Guess who wins in her twisted analysis?)
When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Feldblum snapped: “Gays win; Christians lose.” And where Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of “gay rights,” Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Of course Feldblum’s analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent.
In fact ENDA would – for the first time since the Constitutional Convention – extend special, federally preferred government status to individuals based upon a changeable and objectively aberrant sexual lifestyle, rather than requiring that such status be delineated by immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color or gender.
Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”
But Ken Hutcherson, a prominent, well respected African-American pastor from the Seattle area, summed it up even better stating, rather incisively: “Don’t compare your sin to my skin.”
now that it’s put up or shut up time and Obama gave such a tepid speech that one can be sure the Taliban and al qaeda are shaking in their boots while waiting for the clock to run out
Guest
Anyone who knows even a little about war understands that in most wars there is more than one front. When I hear politicians speak about two wars it tells me they are either stupid or are intentionally misleading people. That is true not only of politicians, but of the media in general, as well. On the other hand there were some, a pathetic few who get it right. The “War on Terror” was until the present cast of characters emerged, a multi-front, i.e. Africa, Asia, South America, Europe, a multi-faceted war with two main fronts, one in Afghanistan the other in Iraq. It is not, except among the partisan, intentionally ignorant, two wars.
Whether there is, or ever will be, agreement on how the war was waged until “Neville Obama,” is another thing. But it is useful to debunk the oft stated claims that “we were lied to about the reasons for invading Iraq.” This is a baseless allegation that is issued loudly and often by the left, most recently repeated by Ohio leftist Representative Dennis Kucinich. One need not be enamored by the rationale used by the Bush Administration justifying invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power, to recognize that it was a brilliant strategic move. However, I was and remain disappointed in the post invasion handling of the occupation, less so of the transition to Iraqi sovereignty although there was much room for both to have been done better. It is one thing to disagree with the judgment and decision as to how to prosecute the War on Terror, and quite another to make allegations that are on their face, fabrications to suit the democrat political agenda.
It is evident from how the strategic portion of the war unfolded during the Bush years that the two most visible efforts, Afghanistan and Iraq, were designated major and minor, with the major effort being Iraq. Whether or not there is ever consensus on where the war should have been fought is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the people of Iraq are now free and for the first time in half a century in a position to determine their own destiny. More important, removing Saddam and his association of socialist thugs from power positioned U.S. forces to apply pressure on Iran.
As has often appears in these essays for the last eight years, bin Laden is dead, he was killed during the attacks on Tora Bora. The pathetic political nonsense spewed by Senator John Kerry and his lackeys that the Bush administration allowed bin Laden to walk unmolested into a Pakistani sanctuary is hogwash, no, it’s bovine scatology. However, the administration probably knew that bin Laden was dead, as does this current one, a notion reinforced by a statement made during the waning months of the Bush Administration by Vice President Cheney to that effect; and for that reason among others the Administration chose make Iraq the main effort in the War on Terror. To the dismay of the loony left, it was successful, and that fact drives them nuttier. It is also evident from the way it was sourced that Afghanistan was a holding action.
Obama’s recent claim that requests for more troops for Afghanistan were denied during the Bush era is not borne out by available facts. In fact, Bush Administration, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld challenged Obama’s assertion, urging Congress to investigate as well as issuing a challenge to Obama to produce documents that would support his assertion. (Succinctly put, Obama lied about it, so what’s new for this “most transparent Administration in history?”) Whether or not the Bush Administration chose the best strategy will be political grist for decades.
However, here are two indisputable facts: 1. Democrats did everything possible in the public debate, to undermine the war effort; and, 2. the US was not attacked again during Bush’s two terms in office.
Now, Obama has announced his plan for Afghanistan. In stark contrast to his rhetoric during the election campaign, Afghanistan Hawk, Obama now comes across as a pansy. From reports, civilian leadership at the Pentagon and military leadership believe that the 30,000 troops plus the additional 10,000 Obama expects to receive from NATO will be sufficient to do the job. However, it is evident that Obama’s strategy is designed to begin withdrawal of forces in time for Afghanistan to be off the table as a 2012 election campaign issue. Consider the fact that most of the forces will not be in place until the Spring of 2010, then overlay the mission of training sufficient Afghan forces to secure their own country from that point in time until the summer of 2011. There are too many tasks, they are too expensive and too demanding to get them all done, so we’ll see how it progresses. Hopefully, it will work but one has doubts.
Here’s my assessment: Afghanistan is and has been for centuries a loosely connected array of tribes scattered across some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth. There is no national transportation, communications, or security infrastructure. Outsiders have tried their hand at dominating Afghanistan for centuries, Afghanis remain, outsiders are gone or are dead. There are probably a million tribesmen all of whom know how to fight on foot in the Afghanistani environment. Their interest in politics is sufficient to know that they want freedom from foreigners, aside from that they are more interested in eking out a living and procreating than what political party, or who is in power. When it comes to foreigners in their land, they put aside their disparate tribal interests to evict the “invader.” It matters little that a foreign force may not intend to stay, what matters is that there are foreigners in their country trying to control them.
Putin recently asserted that U.S. lead NATO forces cannot win in Afghanistan. That is probably a valid statement absent the will to remain there for a generation: a generation of teaching, hand-holding, butt kicking and expenditure of great treasure. Does Obama have the will? Judging from his speech the answer is, “No.” He is so far over his head that it’s pathetic to observe and scary when understood. Should we care? Obama asserted for the better part of his career in the Senate and during the campaign that Afghanistan is vital to U.S. security, so the answer should be, “Yes.” But now that it’s put up or shut up time and Obama gave such a tepid speech that one can be sure the Taliban and al qaeda are shaking in their boots while waiting for the clock to run out. On the other hand, they may be so impressed with his ability to read a teleprompter that they will lay down their arms and assemble in peace. One thing is certain, it’s going to be interesting, there and at home.
How much disparate and significant news can manifest itself in one week? This week may be among those which reach high, high to quantify.
Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.
President Barack Hussein Obama’s dramatically announced decision about American military participation in Afghanistan continues to avoid a fundamental: What would constitute victory? What would we do then? What would constitute defeat? What would we do then? So much for avoidance of some lessons of history and of basic military strategy.
At home there is no lack of specificity about another subject.
As Senator A. Mitchell (Mitch) McConnell (R-KY) phrases it, “ . . . For the very first time in U. S. history, the Federal Government will now use taxpayer dollars to pay for research that relies on and promotes the destruction of human life at its earliest stages. Americans may disagree about the morality of embryo-destructive research. But one thing we should all agree on is that taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for it.”
The announcement yesterday from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and [In?] Human Services, is clear and startling: “NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D . . .announced the approval of the first 13 human embryonic stem cell . . . lines for use in NIH [meaning taxpayer]-funded research under the NIH Guidelines for Human Cell Research [published on July 7, 2009] . . . . [T] stem cell lines were derived from embryos that were donated under ethically sound informed consent processes. More lines are under review now, and we anticipate continuing to expand this list . . .”
The foregoing procedures are consistent with and in implementation of the President’s Executive Order 13505 (March 9, 2009): Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. Initial participation as Provider is announced to be that of George Q. Daley, M.D., Ph. D., of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Much more utilization of human stem cells for research, financed by American taxpayers, clearly is to follow.
Will the next Federal incursion upon human life be utilization of American taxpayer funds to provide abortions?
The Free Congress Foundation for more than thirty-two years, until last year under the inspiration of the late Paul M. Weyrich, has sought to educate about, encourage and defend a culture of life and liberty. The mission continues - more direly needed than ever.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Nancy Morgan
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2007, his backers frequently compared him to former president John F. Kennedy. After a year in office, however, President Obama's words and actions align more closely with China's despotic Chairman Mao than with JFK's.
When Mao Tse Tung conquered China in 1949, his secret goal was to dominate the world. When Obama was elected President, many started referring to him as President of the World. Both Obama and Mao had carte blanche to set out a path of radical change.
As part of his strategy, Mao informed his top echelon, "There has to be a personality cult...it is absolutely necessary."* With the aid of the state media, Mao crafted an iconic image of himself as the savior of the common man. Propaganda was everywhere - including the fields where workers could listen to messages from Mao as they worked. Sound familiar?
In 1958, Mao kicked off what he called The Great Leap Forward, an extraordinarily creative intervention in China's economic development. Mao planned to abolish wages and put society on a non-cash basis. He then set about abolishing private property.
The ownership of tools, animals, and other means of production were taken over by the state - in the name of the people. Just as the ownership of the auto, banking and insurance industries of today have been taken over by our government.
Chairman Mao, in the name of the people, also took over China's health care. The 'state' determined who would receive this essential service. The elderly were moved into "houses of happiness" so that they could be looked after - by the state. Much like the proposed government takeover of America's health care today.
Chairman Mao's government also plunged the country into a deep debt by drastically increasing spending on the development of heavy industry. But the state-sponsored industry that developed was not only non-productive, it ended up wasting money and resources on a massive scale without producing anything of value. Much like the bloated government behemoth Obama's policies are producing today.
Mao, through a cult of personality and firm control of the levers of government, had the ability to impose his own version of reality on China. Just as Obama has today.
Mao believed that collectivizing agriculture would lead to a new 'utopia.' Obama's campaign promise of 'equality' for all Americans is the modern vision of Mao's utopia. Which, by the way, not only failed, but failed spectacularly.
One year after Mao launched China's Great Leap Forward, things in China started to go wrong. Politics increasingly took precedence over commonsense. Mao's utopian dream turned into a nightmare as the central leadership grew increasingly out of touch with reality.
By the spring of 1959, in theory China was awash in grain. In reality, it was not. Rural communal mess halls that had been handing out free food, ran out of food. China's grain reserves were exhausted and the famine began.
Scholars have estimated that somewhere between 16.5 million and 40 million people died before Mao's experiment came to an end in 1961, making the Great Leap famine the largest in world history. Even Mao himself was forced to acknowledge that he had been wrong. Oops.
By late 1960, private ownership of land was reinstated and a modicum of capitalism was re-introduced. Peasants were finally given incentives to produce as much spare food as was possible by allowing them to sell their excess on the open market. Socialism had failed, yet again.
Chairman Mao never had to pay the price for his failed social engineering. The Chinese people paid it for him. Leaving Mao free to regroup, repair his image, and emerge back on the national scene in 1966 with yet another bold plan. The cultural revolution - which resulted in yet another failed social experiment and untold human suffering. The beat goes on.
The similarities between Chairman Mao and President Obama are too numerous to ignore. Like Obama, Mao's philosophy of how to 'change' China was clear from the outset. "...the country must be...destroyed and then reformed." "People like me long for the destruction because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn't that better?" Quick - whose philosophy is that - Mao, or Obama's buddy Bill Ayers and numerous Obama appointed czars? Answer: Both.
All of Obama's actions as president to date reflect the same mindset - the destruction of traditional values, the unwillingness to learn from history, the utter reliance on theory instead of reality. And the belief that man takes precedence over God and thus has the ability to shape reality according to man's whim.
Hubris and a charismatic personality allowed both Mao and Obama the freedom to implement costly social and economic 'change.' Change which is not change at all, but another futile attempt to revive the failed model of socialism.
Like Mao, Obama will most likely never be held to account when the socialist, big government policies he has championed fail. And fail they must. History shows us that. The American people will, once again, be forced to pay the very real price for Obama's naive attempt to prove socialism is a workable theory, as long as its Obama's version.
* Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com She lives in South Carolina
Sex acts between preschoolers among subjects of books touted by openly gay Obama adviser
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following includes descriptions of adult themes and objectional subject material.
A new report is raising alarms that the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, a homosexual advocacy organization founded by Kevin Jennings, now head of the U.S. Office of Safe Schools for the Obama administration, is recommending XXX-rated sex writings for children as young as preschoolers.
"We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren't merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between preschoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air," said the report.
"One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one's self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview," it advised.
The team whose members assembled the report said a handful of books from the more than 100 titles on GLSEN's recommended reading list for school children were picked randomly. Writings were reviewed with titles such as "Queer 13," "Being Different," "The Full Spectrum," "Revolutionary Voices," "Reflections of a Rock Lobster," "Passages of Pride," "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian," "The Order of the Poison Oak," "In Your Face," "Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son" and "Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth."
"What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless," the report said.
"Read the passages … and judge for yourself … The language is explicit, the intent is clear," the report said.
The result was "Becoming Visible," which opens with, "Why teach gay and lesbian history? … Indeed, as lesbian and gay studies has emerged as a discipline over the last two decades, its dramatic discoveries have shown it to be one of the most exciting fields in contemporary historical scholarship."
Researchers at Mass Resistance reported Sasha Alyson of Alyson Publications sought out Jennings to do the book.
In Jennings' acknowledgments for the book, he writes, "Writing this part of the book has caused me more anxiety than any other. It simply is not possible to express my gratitude to the many people who have helped make this book possible. ... With apologies to anyone omitted, here we go! The obvious place to begin is with Alyson Publications. First, Sasha Alyson had the vision to conceive of this project, and I had the good luck to be the person he sought out to complete it. I am deeply appreciative of being afforded this opportunity."
WND also has reported concerns by Mission America over subject material in books recommended by GLSEN for school children.
The group's Linda Harvey warned, "GLSEN believes the early sexualization of children can be beneficial. This means that virtually any sexual activity as well as exposure to graphic sexual images and material, is not just permissible but good for children, as part of the process of discovering their sexuality."
Her report cited one passage from a book recommended for students in grades 7-12: "I released his arms. They glided around my neck, pulling my head down to his. I stretched full length on top of him, our heads touching. Our heavy breathing from the struggle gradually subsided. I felt …"
What follows in "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian" by Malcolm Boyd is a "graphic description" of a homosexual encounter.
The new report posted on Gatetway Pundit explained the material is what GLSEN wants children to read and learn about.
"GLSEN's stated mission is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students. It encourages the formation of Gay Student Alliances and condemns the use of hateful words. GLSEN also strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying," the report said.
"To that end, GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims 'furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students,'" the report said. "In other words, these are the books that GLSEN's directors think all kids should be reading: gay kids should read them to raise their self-esteem, and straight kids should read them in order to become more aware and tolerant and stop bullying gay kids."
The organization also offers online links to buy the books.
"We can only vouch for what's in these 11 books, since these are the only ones we've read through," the report said. "Are there other books on the GLSEN reading list that are similarly outrageous? We can't say for sure, but it seems very likely."
The review team said the issue isn't about homosexuality or censorship.
"It's about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. We're perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults; we only start to worry when these books are assigned to children," the report said.
"According to Kevin Jennings and GLSEN, books about a 13-year-old getting 'my c--- sucked and my a-- f-----' are not just acceptable, they're highly recommended."
The website notes, "All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content."
Most of the objectionable excerpts cited in the report cannot be included in a WND report. But among the mildest:
From "Reflections of a Rock Lobster:" "My sexual exploits with my neighborhood playmates continued. I lived a busy homosexual childhood, somehow managing to avoid venereal disease through all my toddler years. By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory…"
An illustration in "Revolutionary Voices," shows two Boy Scouts pointing at and looking at two adult men engaged in sex.
From "Queer 13:" "Soon I was spending a great deal of time hanging out in shopping malls and cruising the rest rooms for sexual encounters."
The report includes links to the original GLSEN promotions of the various books.
On the blog, a forum page participant wrote, "I can, with all confidence, say that's pornography and IMHO not fit for adults let alone children. If you want to destroy a society, this is how you would do it."
"Why is this ------- in the position he is in in the Obama Administration? Obama? Explanation needed. Obama? Waiting … waiting … waiting…" said another.
"After scrolling through that rubbish that seemed to go on forever, I actually saw a positive aspect to being illiterate," said another.
It also has been reported Jennings' organization has included in one of its "lesson plans" for school children a recommendation for the film "Gay Pioneers."
The lesson plan describes "Gay Pioneers" as "a documentary focused on the first public protests for equal rights for gay and lesbian people, staged at governmental offices and historic landmarks in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. between 1965 and 1969, through archival footage and interviews with the participants who are still living."
The report suggests many parents might be surprised, however, to have their children being given messages of endorsement for the activities of Franklin Kameny, Jack Nichols, Nancy Tucker or Randolfe Wicker.
Kameny, for example, is "founder and president of National Consumers Association for the Advancement and Protection of Pornography, Inc.," the report said. And the report also cited the movie's portrayal of Nichols, who edited the pornographic magazine "Screw."
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League wrote, "On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama's Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher.
"What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of Act Up, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick's Cathedral (in New York City) in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O'Connor were posted," he continued.
"Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of Act Up. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, 'Act Up New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,' currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of 'dialogue,'" he said.
"The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard – that's old hat – the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling – he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters," Donohue said.
"Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings."
A YouTube video revealed Jeff Davis, Jennings' "partner," addressing a banquet and saying of Jennings, "He was a member of Act Up. Act Up! So it's like – you know – here's a big gay activist. BIG gay activist!"
According to "The Marketing of Evil," by WND's David Kupelian, Act Up was extreme from its outset:
The defiant, storm-trooper tactics of in-your-face groups like Act Up (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) may or may not have been successful in pressuring the federal government to increase its commitment to combating AIDS. But such tactics definitely were successful in giving activist homosexuals a very bad name.
One infamous incident was the assault on New York's famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While Cardinal John O'Connor presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of Jesus.
"You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us!" screamed one protester, while signs called the archbishop "Murderer!"
Then it got really ugly. Scores of protesters entered the church, resulting in what many in the packed house of parishioners described as a "nightmare."
"The radical homosexuals turned a celebration of the Holy Eucharist into a screaming babble of sacrilege by standing in the pews, shouting and waving their fists, tossing condoms into the air," recounted the New York Post. One of the invaders grabbed a consecrated wafer and threw it to the ground.
Outside, demonstrators, many of them members of Act Up, carried placards that summed up their sentiments toward the Catholic Church: "Keep your church out of my crotch." "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries." "Eternal life to Cardinal John O'Connor NOW!" "Curb your dogma."
Clearly, the young movement was flirting with oblivion if it persisted in such ugly, indefensible tactics. It needed a new, more civilized direction if it ever hoped to convince Americans that homosexuality was a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle.
According to Mass Resistance research by Amy Contrada, the Act Up organization also:
Staged a "die in" at Massachusetts General Hospital to protest the unavailability of PCP drug AP.
Protested Astra Pharmaceutical Products' refusal to release the experimental antiviral drug Foscarnet.
Disrupted opening night at the San Francisco Opera.
Protested design of clinical trials planned by Harvard School of Medicine.
Jammed phone lines of health insurance database company protesting their use of "sexual deviation" classification.
Halted Boston's trolley service and traffic in front of Harvard School of Public Health to press the federal government into approving two new AIDS drugs.
Messages WND has left with Jennings' office during its coverage of these issues never have been returned.
