The Anatomy of a Political Hit

John Hosty was kind enough to let me post to his blog, so I am putting up an article I published last week out in the boondocks of Western Mass (where I live). Thanks to the internet it is getting extra play in places like Blue Mass Group and I have gotten some invitations to talk about it on the radio. An article I wrote last summer titled LaGuer Reconsidered explains some of the underlying problems with the case against the man Kerry Healey tried to turn into a winning campaign issue. LaGuer has maintained his innocence though 23 years of incarceration. His case is currently in the courts with a hearing scheduled for January.


Who Won? C'est LaGuer
The Anatomy Of A Political Hit
By Eric Goldscheider
November 9 2006
Valley Advocate

For more than two decades, Benjamin LaGuer has done everything in his power to get his claims that he was falsely convicted of rape into the public eye. Last month Kerry Healey turned him into a household name. What she neglected to mention, because it didn’t suit her campaign, was that real doubts about LaGuer’s guilt still linger. A challenge to his conviction is currently in the Supreme Judicial Court based on a potentially exculpatory fingerprint report that was withheld from the defense at trial and which emerged 18 years after that fact.

How did a case before the highest court in the state become a political football in the race to lead the executive branch? The answer is probably rooted in Worcester politics.

On September 20, when Deval Patrick’s convincing primary victory the previous day filled the headlines, what looked like minor machinations in a local Worcester county drama began to unfold. Gov. Mitt Romney nominated James R. Lemire, a longtime acolyte of retiring Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte, for a Superior Court judgeship. Lemire, a seemingly innocuous choice, happens to have been the prosecutor who convicted LaGuer in the trial where the fingerprint report never saw the light of day.

The Governor’s Council, which approves judicial nominees, held its hearing on the Lemire nomination on September 27. Peter Vickery, the western Massachusetts representative, surprised those attending by questioning Lemire about his role in the LaGuer case. Within hours of that hearing, Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella, another reliable Conte loyalist, spoke to a local Leominster reporter and fed him a one-source story on wanting to question Patrick about comments attributed to him on www.BenLaGuer.com, a website I have been editing for several years. The Patrick quote, which reads, “I therefore have serious misgivings about the integrity of the criminal justice system in this case, as I believe any citizen would,” had been raised briefly by the Boston Herald during the primary campaign in August. Patrick spokesman Richard Chacon quickly responded in an interview with the Sentinel and Enterprise, which covers Leominster. He defended Patrick’s interest in the case, adding that the comments stemmed from a time when the candidate worked for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People many years ago. The issue went away until Mazzarella resurrected it a month later.

To fully appreciate the dynamics of the LaGuer case, one has to know that through 23 years of incarceration, LaGuer has been in constant battle with Conte. The inmate became adept at asymmetrical warfare, using the media to embarrass his nemesis time and again while at the same time attracting top notch legal representation. Every time it looked like LaGuer was down for the count—even after a 2002 DNA test seemed to link him to the crime—he revived and came back with a stronger team. His current attorney, James C. Rehnquist, is the son of the late chief justice. Experts have recently gone on record to say that the DNA results look as if they stem from contaminated evidence. Through the years LaGuer won many battles, including a favorable decision by the SJC on the issue of juror racism, and the support of famous people like Elie Wiesel, William Styron, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and John Silber. LaGuer earned a bachelor’s degree with honors from Boston University while in prison and won a prestigious Pen Award for his writing. But Conte always found a way to prevail in the end and keep LaGuer in prison. He blindly defended the integrity of the conviction, never once showing a willingness to look at new evidence. Now Conte is on the way out and the long-running LaGuer case is headed for arguments in the SJC. Promoting Lemire, who would not likely have kept his job as a prosecutor in the new administration, to a judgeship can be seen as a way to help insulate him from the consequences of foul play in the handling of a conviction Conte cares about deeply.

The timing of Mazzarella’s ploy to extract a statement from Patrick condemning LaGuer makes a connection to the Lemire nomination look like more than mere coincidence. Mazzarella’s credentials for speaking about the case rest on the fact that as a rookie police officer he was one of the first to arrive at the scene of the 1983 crime. He apparently accompanied the victim in the ambulance, but there is no record of his filing a report. The story Mazzarella fed to a local reporter about his concerns that as governor Patrick might give LaGuer preferential treatment appeared in print on Thursday, September 28. That afternoon the mayor went on the Howie Carr drive time radio show to begin a relentless attack on LaGuer and on Patrick’s connection to the case.

By the end of the day, Patrick crafted out a carefully worded statement saying that in his opinion “justice has been served” in the LaGuer case. Those wanting to ensure Lemire’s confirmation, which came to fruition with Vickery casting the lone dissenting vote, were undoubtedly pleased. The issue might have gone away again had two things not happened: 1) Mazzarella’s graphic and incessant recitation of the victim’s condition, combined with a linkage to Patrick, resonated with talk radio hosts and their audiences, triggering a hate-filled feeding frenzy on the airwaves. 2) In his statement, Patrick was untruthful about the extent of his involvement in the LaGuer case, repeating his characterization of it as a minor interest of more than a decade ago.

Early the next week a bombshell hit when the Boston Globe found a letter Patrick had written to the parole board on LaGuer’s behalf in 1998 and then resubmitted at a second hearing in 2000. Later that week it was revealed that Patrick had written a large check ($5,000 is the figure used, but Patrick has yet to confirm that number) in support of LaGuer’s quest for DNA testing.

With those revelations Patrick’s high-flying poll numbers right after the primary looked to be in serious jeopardy. The Healey campaign had just unveiled a TV ad lambasting Patrick for representing a Florida man and getting his death sentence for killing a police officer reduced to life in prison. The LaGuer issue must have seemed like a gift that for the next two weeks just kept on giving. The hate mongers on talk radio led the way. Robert Barry, the son-in-law of the woman LaGuer was convicted of raping, joined Mazzarella on that circuit in continuously repeating gruesome aspects of the crime in graphic detail. Barry even turned his celebrity status into a fundraising opportunity when one radio host, John DePetro, set up a way of donating to his wife, Elizabeth Barry, based on her diagnosis of Lou Gehrig’s disease. The host spent hours hectoring Patrick to contribute to that fund.

The Patrick campaign seemed flummoxed by the day-in-and-day-out drubbing they were getting on the airwaves. Mazzarella demanded a meeting with the candidate and he complied. The Barry family created a mantra out of demanding an apology from him, prompting Patrick to call them and to offer his sympathy for pain the publicity around the 23-year-old crime was causing them. Robert Barry’s response was to publicly rebuke Patrick because he didn’t think his disavowal of LaGuer was strong enough. He and his wife invited television crews into their home and then endorsed Healey at a press conference where Elizabeth Barry, whose body is wasting from her disease, was wheeled in to appear with the Republican candidate.

The appearance meshed with Healey’s objective of somehow capturing the one-dimensional caricature radio hosts were painting of Patrick, basically accusing him of being in cahoots with a brutal rapist to continue torturing the victim’s family long after the crime. But Healey needed to figure out a way to bring this message to the wider public. She cut an ad harping not only on Patrick’s relationship with LaGuer, but on the fact that he dissembled when first confronted about it. This had the double effect of energizing her supporters while at the same time demoralizing Patrick’s constituency, shaken by the obvious discrepancies between his early statements on the case and the letters and financial contributions he later admitted to.

New polling numbers came out showing Healey pulling slightly ahead of Patrick among male voters, but still trailing significantly among women. That is when she made the fateful mistake of seizing on a Patrick’s on-camera statement that LaGuer “is eloquent and he is thoughtful.” Healey made it the centerpiece of her now-famous ad in which a woman enters a dimly lit parking garage. The tag line was, “Have you ever heard a woman compliment a rapist? Deval Patrick—he should be ashamed, not governor.”

Calculated to work the same magic with women voters as the incessant harping on the LaGuer connection seemed to be having among men, the ad backfired. It coincided with a report in the Boston Herald , widely assumed to be a Healey plant, insinuating that Patrick helped shield his brother-in-law from registering as a sex offender, prompting Patrick to give an impassioned statement ripping into what he called the “pathetic” tactics of his opponent, adding, “This is the politics of Kerry Healey and it disgusts me and it has to stop.” The bleeding for Patrick started to abate and the following week new polls came out showing him regaining a comfortable lead and more than half the voters having an unfavorable view of the Republican.

Healey opportunistically hitched her wagon to a powder keg and it blew up in her face. But she isn’t the first person to have been burned by coming in contact with the case of Commonwealth v. Benjamin LaGuer. The reason is that from the day LaGuer was arrested on July 15, 1983, it has represented a gross miscarriage of justice perpetuated by people with agendas that were less about getting at the truth than about winning and losing. At any time in the last 23 years Conte, the district attorney, could have taken a fresh look at new evidence that continued to emerge. Instead, he continually dug in his heels, allowing a festering injustice to build to explosive proportions.

That might explain why the press never bought into Healey’s strategy of using LaGuer as a frightful caricature. The Boston Herald turned to John Silber to counter the initial savaging of Patrick for writing on LaGuer’s behalf. It then ran a Sunday edition headline that screamed: “Healey Is a Hypocrite.” The lieutenant governor failed to engender credibility during four years in office and now she was coming off as shrill, shallow and disingenuous. Too many people in Boston’s newsrooms understood that the case against LaGuer wasn’t as clean as Healey made it out to be.

Those familiar with the police reports and hospital records know that LaGuer’s arrest was predicated on a lie. The lead detective, Ronald Carignan, settled on LaGuer based on his race and ethnicity and the circumstance that he happened to be living next door when the crime occurred. Once Carignan became fixated on LaGuer, the victim, who steadfastly denied knowing who it was who attacked her, corroborated his suspicions after her daughter Elizabeth Barry, according to the police report, “told her mother that she was going to stay in the apt (sic) and put herself up as bait” in order to entice the perpetrator to return.

From there the lies kept multiplying. Three weeks after the arrest Carignan, who has since died, told the grand jury which indicted LaGuer that the victim, who had a history of mental illness, identified him by name, something she strenuously denied under oath at the trial. Carignan even suggested that the crime had occurred in LaGuer’s apartment and said the victim was unable to appear at the hearing, neglecting to mention that she had already been discharged from the hospital.

The whole history of the case is rife with misrepresentations, distortions and missed opportunities (See: “LaGuer Reconsidered”, Valley Advocate , August 17, 2006). One that stands out is that at trial Carignan testified that he recovered only one partial fingerprint from the scene of a crime that was said to have played itself out over eight hours. Eighteen years later, in November, 2001, the report emerged showing that in fact four full fingerprints were retrieved from the base of the trimline telephone, the cord of which was used to bind the victim’s wrists, and that they belonged to someone other than LaGuer. Those prints, which the commonwealth has since lost or destroyed, are the basis of the current challenge to the verdict.

If Patrick spoke to his advisors familiar with Worcester politics, perhaps including Worcester Mayor Tim Murray, when Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella started nipping at his heals, they would probably have said that the LaGuer case has been a radioactive part of the county’s political scene for more than two decades. Patrick erred badly when he tried to make the questions about his involvement go away by immediately caving in to Mazzarella’s demands for a public repudiation of LaGuer. He further damaged his campaign by claiming that he had done nothing more than issue a statement on the order of 15 years ago. Patrick should have put the full extent of his involvement with the case on the table right away, rather than allow himself to be caught flatfooted by the drip, drip, drip of new revelations.

Healey, in latching onto what she obviously saw as an opportunity for political gain, chose to paint an entirely one-dimensional picture of LaGuer as a vicious animal—a word used over and over on the talk radio circuit— condemned not only by a 1984 jury but again by a 2002 DNA test. LaGuer became a seemingly legitimate target for a fusillade of hateful invective taken to a fever pitch. She cast him as a repository for the loathing of an entire state. Even uttering the words “eloquent” and “thoughtful” in connection with LaGuer was an act worthy of condemnation. The raw emotional impact of Healey’s divisive strategy was intoxicating. But a simple Internet search would have showed her that LaGuer’s case is currently in the courts and that four highly reputable experts have concluded that the DNA result is easily attributable to contamination. One of them, Harvard geneticist Daniel Hartl, went so far as to write, “There is, in my opinion, ample reason for a full inquiry into this case, and I hope that the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will agree.”

In the end, their handling of the LaGuer case in the heat of a political campaign didn’t do much for either candidate’s reputation. Ironically, the person who may have benefited the most from having been turned into a household name is Benjamin LaGuer himself. For 23 years his constant plea has been for people to look closely at the evidence and to concentrate on the facts. His case is in the Supreme Judicial Court, and oral arguments will likely be in January. If the one-dimensional image of him as a craven sociopath influences the outcome, Healey will have done LaGuer a tremendous disservice. If, on the other hand, his notoriety prompts the public, the press and the judicial system to take the time to study the history of the case and the issues currently at stake, the events of the last few weeks can only help his cause.

Amherst-based journalist Eric Goldscheider edits www.BenLaGuer.com

What I Think of the Vote

Recently, the Con Con met. One of the pieces of legislation up for vote was legislation that would allow for the people of MA to vote on whether or not the question of ssm should be allowed. The politicians, instead of voting on whether or not a vote should be allowed, politicians instead voted to discuss the issue when they reconvene. Though touted as a victory, this is not a victory in the least. The question of whether or not human rights are something that can be voted on remains unanswered. I wholeheartedly state that human rights are something that should never and can never be voted on by the people. If it ever were, it would begin this nations fall down a steep and slippery slope.

But the politicians did not vote for or against allowing human rights to be voted on by the people. Politicians, knowing what was right and proper for them to do, did not act as such. They chose to try to please all sides by putting the quesdtion off. The neocons are happy, able to claim that it is not dead, to use this issue to stir up more political fervor at a later point. Those who support SSM are happy because their rights are not being voted on. By not voting against allowing the people to vote, and instead voting to address the issue when they reconvene politicians are sending a loud message. The politicians placed their own job and popularity over what is ethically and morally right for mankind.

They should have outright voted to not allow people to vote on the rights of any individual, and specifically the right to marry.

Vote on Gay Marriage Here on Boston.com

UPDATED 11/15/06:
I have been contacted by a friend who has the inside scoop on what is happening behind the scenes with one of the major groups involved in the anti-gay marriage petition. I have been told that they have computer savvy volunteers who are tirelessly working to manipulate the poll on Boston.com to reflect what they wish the public to see. This information has been passed on to the Boston Globe who owns the site, and people are looking into these allegations. I will update this further as need be. I am sure after the rampant fraud that has been exposed during the signature collection process of the petition that this final and desperate act to try to fool people into believing their is more support for their cause does not surprise anyone.

Original post begins here:
I am promoting this poll on Boston.com in order to prove a point. If what I suspect is true, it will prove that gay marriage is in fact approved by the citizens of this state, and there is no need to drag us all into another two years of vitriol just because a few loons can't get their noses out of the Old Testament. Visit and vote, and let's just see how the vote turns out. As a side note, Massachusetts Family Institute sent out an email days ago to its followers to go to this site in order to sway the outcome, but it doesn't seem to be working. Click here.

The current battle cry of the religious right is, "LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!" I doubt even a vote from the populace would stop them from pushing their hate, but we may never know for sure if our representatives do their job correctly. There is good reason for an amendment to pass through their hands twice before going on a ballot, and weeding out potentially dangerous and illegal legislation like the anti-equality amendment it a great example of such a need.

109 People to Thank

History was made on November 9, 2006 when 109 heroes stood up for the victims of discrimination. Gay people around the country are all celebrating thanks to the courage of 109 Senators and Representatives of the state of Massachusetts who stood up to the religious right hate machine. They voted to recess instead of considering an amendment that would ban gay marriage, and would drag the state into another two years of social upheaval. Equality cannot have exceptions, and these fine legislators know this. They understand that civil rights are not something to be voted on, and they defended the liberty that our country was founded upon in spite of the threats of reciprocity they have all suffered. Religious zealots of a terrorist fashion do not have to come from abroad, sometimes they are right in our backyard. With a steely resolve that would make any true patriot proud to be American all over again, these brave souls stood for truth, justice, and once again made Massachusetts the place where liberty is born and defended. Please make time to thank your legislators that voted to recess, and to question those who did not. Let them know that they did the right thing by turning their back on this vessel of hatred, and not giving it the dignity of their attention.

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
~Martin Luther King Jr.



The complete list of Con Con call to recess votes:

Title First Last Home City Recess?
Rep. Cory Atkins Concord Y
Rep. Demetrius Atsalis Barnstable Y
Rep. Bruce J. Ayers Quincy N
Rep. Ruth B. Balser Newton Y
Rep. John J. Binienda E. Worcester N
Rep. Daniel Bosley North Adams Y
Rep. Garrett Bradley Hingham Y
Rep. Arthur J. Broadhurst Methuen Y
Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral New Bedford Y
Rep. Jennifer M. Callahan Sutton N
Rep. Christine E. Canavan Brockton N
Rep. Gale D. Candaras Wilbraham N
Rep. Stephen R. Canessa Lakeville Y
Rep. Mark J. Carron Southbridge N
Rep. Paul C. Casey Winchester N
Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera Springfield Y
Rep. Virginia Coppola Foxborough N
Rep. Robert Correia Fall River N
Rep. Michael A. Costello Newburyport Y
Rep. Robert K. Coughlin Dedham Y
Rep. Geraldine Creedon Brockton N
Rep. Sean Curran Springfield N
Rep. Robert A. DeLeo Winthrop Y
Rep. Vinny M. deMacedo Plymouth N
Rep. Brian S. Dempsey Haverhill N
Rep. Salvatore F. DiMasi Boston Y
Rep. Paul Donato Medford N
Rep. Christopher J. Donelan Orange Y
Rep. Joseph Driscoll Jr. Braintree Y
Rep. James B. Eldridge Acton Y
Rep. Lewis G. Evangelidis Holden N
Rep. James H. Fagan Taunton N
Rep. Christopher G. Fallon Malden N
Rep. Mark Falzone Saugus Y
Rep. Robert F. Fennell Lynn Y
Rep. Michael E. Festa Melrose Y
Rep. Barry R. Finegold Andover Y
Rep. Jennifer L. Flanagan Leominster Y
Rep. David L. Flynn Bridgewater N
Rep. Linda Forry Boston Y
Rep. Gloria L. Fox Roxbury Y
Rep. John P. Fresolo Worcester N
Rep. Paul K. Frost Auburn N
Rep. William C. Galvin Canton Y
Rep. Colleen M. Garry Dracut N
Rep. Susan W. Gifford Wareham N
Rep. Anne M. Gobi Spencer N
Rep. Emile J. Goguen Fitchburg N
Rep. Thomas A. Golden Jr. Lowell N
Rep. Shirley A. Gomes South Harwich N
Rep. Mary E. Grant Beverly Y
Rep. William G. Greene Billerica N
Rep. Denis E. Guyer Dalton Y
Rep. Patricia Haddad Somerset Y
Rep. Geoffrey D. Hall Westford N
Rep. Robert S. Hargraves Groton N
Rep. Lida E. Harkins Needham Y
Rep. Bradford R. Hill Ipswich N
Rep. Kevin G. Honan Brighton Y
Rep. Donald F. Humanson Westfield N
Rep. Frank M. Hynes Marshfield N
Rep. Bradley H. Jones North Reading N
Rep. Louis L. Kafka Sharon Y
Rep. Michael Kane Holyoke N
Rep. Rachel Kaprielian Watertown Y
Rep. Jay R. Kaufman Lexington Y
Rep. John D. Keenan Salem Y
Rep. Thomas P. Kennedy Brockton Y
Rep. Kay S. Khan Newton Y
Rep. Peter V. Kocot Florence Y
Rep. Robert M. Koczera New Bedford N
Rep. Peter J. Koutoujian Newton Y
Rep. Paul Kujawski Webster N
Rep. Stephen Kulik Worthington Y
Rep. William Lantigua Lawrence N
Rep. James B. Leary Worcester Y
Rep. Stephen P. LeDuc Marlborough N
Rep. John A. Lepper Attleboro N
Rep. David Paul Linsky Natick Y
Rep. Barbara A. L'Italien Andover Y
Rep. Paul Loscocco Holliston N
Rep. Elizabeth A. Malia Jamaica Plain Y
Rep. Ronald Mariano Quincy Y
Rep. J. James Marzilli Jr. Arlington Y
Rep. James R. Miceli Wilmington N
Rep. Michael J. Moran Brighton Y Leaving office
Rep. Charles A. Murphy Burlington Y
Rep. James M. Murphy Weymouth N
Rep. Kevin J. Murphy Lowell N
Rep. David M. Nangle Lowell N
Rep. Patrick M. Natale Woburn Y
Rep. Harold P. Naughton Jr. Clinton Y
Rep. Robert J. Nyman Hanover N
Rep. Thomas J. O'Brien Kingston Y
Rep. Eugene L. O'Flaherty Chelsea N
Rep. Shirley Owens-Hicks Mattapan N
Rep. Marie J. Parente Milford N Voted out of office
Rep. Matthew Patrick Falmouth Y
Rep. Anne M. Paulsen Belmont Y
Rep. Vincent A. Pedone Worcester Y
Rep. Alice H. Peisch Wellesley Y
Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry East Sandwich N
Rep. Douglas W. Petersen Marblehead Y
Rep. George N. Peterson Jr. Grafton N
Rep. Thomas M. Petrolati Ludlow N
Rep. Anthony Petruccelli East Boston Y
Rep. William J. Pignatelli Lenox Y
Rep. Elizabeth A. Poirier North Attleboro N
Rep. Karyn Polito Shrewsbury N
Rep. Susan W. Pope Wayland N
Rep. Denise Provost Somerville Y
Rep. John F. Quinn Dartmouth N
Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein Revere Y
Rep. Robert L. Rice Gardner Y
Rep. Michael J. Rodrigues Westport N
Rep. Mary S. Rogeness Longmeadow N
Rep. John H. Rogers Norwood Y
Rep. Richard J. Ross Wrentham N
Rep. Michael F. Rush West Roxbury N
Rep. Byron Rushing Boston Y
Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez Jamaica Plain Y
Rep. Tom Sannicandro Ashland Y
Rep. Angelo M. Scaccia Boston N
Rep. John Scibak South Hadley Y
Rep. Carl M. Sciortino Somerville Y
Rep. Frank Israel Smizik Brookline Y
Rep. Todd M. Smola Palmer N
Rep. Theodore C. Speliotis Danvers Y
Rep. Robert Spellane Worcester Y
Rep. Christopher N. Speranzo Pittsfield Y
Rep. Joyce A. Spiliotis Peabody N
Rep. Marie St. Fleur Dorchester Y
Rep. Harriett L. Stanley Merrimac N
Rep. Thomas M. Stanley Waltham Y
Rep. Ellen Story Amherst Y
Rep. William M. Straus Mattapoisett Y
Rep. David B. Sullivan Fall River N
Rep. Benjamin Swan Springfield Y
Rep. Kathleen M. Teahan Whitman Y
Rep. Walter F. Timilty Milton N
Rep. A. Stephen Tobin Quincy N
Rep. Timothy J. Toomey Jr. Cambridge Y
Rep. David M. Torrisi N. Andover Y
Rep. Philip Travis Rehoboth N Leaving office
Rep. Eric T. Turkington Falmouth Y
Rep. Cleon H. Turner Dennis Y
Rep. James E. Vallee Franklin N
Rep. Anthony J. Verga Gloucester N
Rep. Joseph F. Wagner Chicopee N
Rep. Brian P. Wallace Boston X
Rep. Patricia A. Walrath Stow N
Rep. Martin J. Walsh Dorchester Y
Rep. Steven M. Walsh Lynn Y
Rep. Martha Walz Boston Y
Rep. Daniel K. Webster Hanson N
Rep. James T. Welch W. Springfield Y
Rep. Alice K. Wolf Cambridge Y
Sen. Robert Antonioni Leominster Y
Sen. Edward M. Augustus Jr. Shrewsbury Y
Sen. Steven Baddour Methuen N
Sen. Jarrett Barrios Cambridge Y
Sen. Frederick Berry Peabody Y
Sen. Stephen Brewer Barre N
Sen. Scott Brown Wrentham N
Sen. Stephen J. Buoniconti Springfield N
Sen. Harriette Chandler Worcester Y
Sen. Robert Creedon Brockton N
Sen. Cynthia Creem Newton Y
Sen. Susan Fargo Lincoln N
Sen. John Hart Boston Y
Sen. Robert Havern Arlington Y
Sen. Robert Hedlund Weymouth N
Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen Somerville Y
Sen. Brian Joyce Milton Y
Sen. Michael Knapik Westfield Y
Sen. Brian Lees East Longmeadow Y
Sen. Thomas McGee Lynn Y
Sen. Joan Menard Somerset Y
Sen. Mark Montigny New Bedford Y
Sen. Richard Moore Uxbridge N
Sen. Michael Morrissey Quincy N
Sen. Therese Murray Plymouth Y
Sen. Andrea Nuciforo Pittsfield Y
Sen. Robert O'Leary Brewster N
Sen. Mark Pacheco Taunton N
Sen. Steven Panagiotakos Lowell N
Sen. Pamela Resor Acton Y
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg Amherst Y
Sen. Karen Spilka Framingham Y
Sen. Bruce Tarr Gloucester N
Sen. James E. Timilty Walpole Y
Sen. Richard Tisei Wakefield Y
Sen. Steven Tolman Brighton Y
Sen. Robert Travaglini Boston N
Sen. Susan Tucker Andover N
Sen. Marian Walsh West Roxbury Y
Sen. Dianne Wilkerson Boston Y

Gay Equality on Horizon

When trying to understand why not to bother with any more anti-gay marriage sentiment, here are some quick facts to consider:

-Prior to the commencement of signature gathering for the anti-gay marriage petition, Arno Political Consultants was paid approximately $80,000 to bring in out of state workers here who were paid by the amount of signatures they collected.

-We are expected to believe that these people were going to fairly and honestly collect signatures even though we knew that many of these workers had criminal records including fraud.

-almost 50,000 signatures have been thrown out due to fraud, and now there is an ongoing criminal investigation into this fraud.

-The supporters of this amendment still say they have 170,000 signatures instead of 123,000+ in an overt attempt to mislead people.

-Although out of state thugs collected a vast majority of these signatures instead of our own citizens, and in spite of the fact that fraud has been exposed, this petition is still heralded as the will of the people in another attempt to deceive.

No arguably sound justification has ever been given for denying gay marriage. The campaign against it is one based on emotions, lies, and fear rather than logic. We need to be ever mindful of the temptation of imposing our values on others, lest we create such social tyranny as that which we once fled so many generations ago to form this free land. In standing up for gay marriage you stand up for the principle of liberty that makes this country great. We are strong not in spite of our individualities, but because of them. There is room in America for all beliefs to co-exist peacefully, allowing us to learn things from one another and grow, rather than stagnate thinking we already have all the answers. No one religion has the right to dictate what is morally best for the rest of us, even if that opinion is shared with nearly everyone.

By honoring the constitutional mandate separating church from state, we keep the hope alive that all people are in fact equal, at least in the eyes of the government. Being gay is not a crime and it is high time we start making sure it is not treated as one. Due process is required of all courts wishing to impose judgment. Where is the due process of telling someone the only reason that you can’t get married is that you are gay? There is no honor in supporting the fears of a group of people who feel threatened and offended by their neighbor’s liberty.

Living a gay lifestyle in a straight world is hard enough without the added indignity of government sanctified discrimination. All the gay community is asking is that the government represents all of us equally. People are free to follow their own beliefs uninhibited by their fellow citizens; there need be no compromise on this. Those who say that the gay community is trying to impose their will upon you are lying, and they do so to try to get you to act out of instinct instead of logic. The citizens of this state are better than that. They are a savvy crowd that resents being lied to, and they have a history of leading the country and world in social progress.

I ask you to think for a moment if you were ever caught in a situtation where you felt different, and out of place with the others around you. Did anyone come to your defense, or comfort you when you felt this way? Now is the time for you to repay that good deed with one of your own. Reject hate and tell your representatives that you want the anti-gay marriage amendment killed, and you want them to get back to more important matters. If you don’t our state will be plunged into another year of vitriol over this issue, and all for not. Anyone who has an in depth understanding of law knows that this amendment cannot get past the Supreme Court because it creates two classes of people within the gay community. It allows gay people who are already married recognition, but denies future marriages. This is not an allowable situation. Even if you disagree with my point of view you should still be able to admit that there is no wisdom in an act of futility. Tell your representatives not to waste any more time on this amendment. Its time to move on, and we need to start talking about this with our friends so that anyone who is confused about the truth can be better informed.

We have all lived to see the folly of inaction when we don’t take our responsibility as citizens seriously. We have also just recently seen what we can do if we rise up and take a stand. Stand with me on this issue and have the pleasure, the honor, of being able to tell your future generations how you helped end the last bastion of discrimination in American history. Your place in history is not with the like of George Wallace and Strom Thurman. I call on you to stand up for what is right on principle alone. You don’t need a vested interest in this issue, delivering justice is its own reward. Its all up to those of you who have not yet spoken on this issue, the many in the middle caught in the crossfire. I trust in you to become vocal advocates for equality because you know in your hearts its the right thing to do. Remember that Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”

George Washington, 1790

Haters, Take the Short Bus Home

After the dust is settled and now that the bloodless revolution of 2006 is over, it is easier for me to make a list of those who stayed in office and are opponents of marriage equality than it is to make a list of it's supporters, but here is a list of who won in the House and Senate throughout Massachusetts:

In the Senate:

Benjamin Downing (Dem)
James Timilty (Dem)
Mark Montigny (Dem)
Robert O'Leary (Dem)
Gale Candaras (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Stanley Rosenberg (Dem)
Steven Panagiotakos (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Susan Fargo (Dem)
Brian Joyce (Dem)
Robert Hedlund (GOP)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Dianne Wilkerson (Dem)
Marian Walsh (Dem)
Harriette Chandler (Dem)
Edward Augustus (Dem)

In the House:

Cleon Turner (Dem)
Demetrius Atsalis (Dem)
Sarah Peake (Dem)
Eric Turkington (Dem)
Denis Guyer (Dem)
Jay Barrows (GOP)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
John Lepper (GOP)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Steven D'Amico (Dem)
Robert Correia (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
William Straus (Dem)
Robert Koczera (Dem)
Stephen Canessa (Dem)
Antonio Cabral (Dem)
Harriett Stanley (Dem)
Mary Grant (Dem)
Joyce Spiliotis (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Linda Campbell (Dem)
Barbara L'Italien (Dem)
Rosemary Sandlin (Dem)
Joseph Wagner (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Sean Curran (Dem)
Cheryl Rivera (Dem)
Angelo Puppolo (Dem)
Peter Kocot (Dem)
Robert Hargraves (GOP)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
David Linsky (Dem)
Peter Koutoujian (Dem)
Thomas Conroy (Dem)
Thomas Golden (Dem)
William Brownsberger (Dem)
Alice Wolf (Dem)
Stephen Smith (Dem)
Rachel Kaprielian (Dem)
James Eldridge (Dem)
James Murphy (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Louis Kafka (Dem)
Susan Gifford (GOP)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Robert Nyman (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Daniel Webster (GOP)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Allen McCarthy (Dem)
Thomas Calter (Dem)
Sal DiMasi (Dem)
Marie St. Fleur (Dem)
Michael Moran (Dem)
Lewis Evangelidis (GOP)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Stephen DiNatale (Dem)
Jennifer Flanagan (Dem)
Anne Gobi (Dem)Voted against gay marriage in 2004
Geraldo Alicea (Dem)
John Fernandes (Dem)
James Leary (Dem)

I am not sure how you count these votes, but I see only 15 opponents of gay marriage still around and able to vote on this amendment that were here and voted in 2004. The legislators would be doing us a tremendous service by killing the amendment to deny marriage equality, as it would save us from another two years of vitriol. Not one more day should be spent on this issue, but it will take just one more to end it for good. Call your representative and let him know that you don't want our state to waste any more time on this hateful amendment.

About BlogNetNews of Massachusetts

There is a new service out there for bloggers, and I am excited to share this great free service with those who have blogs or like to keep informed. On their main page they have a description of what this is, so I will defer to their well worded statement:

You've seen aggregators before. BlogNetNews jumps a generation ahead. We're not interested in reprinting your posts and we don't have an ideological ax to grind. We are going to use your feeds and the feeds of top bloggers from your online community to create new content and information that will organize this slice of the Internet making it work better for bloggers and their readers.
Our launch version offers these features:

The day's top news based solely on what news stories Mass bloggers are linking to -- no matter what mainstream news source they're in.
A micro search engine that will only search the Mass blogosphere.
A quick guide to the hottest blog comment sections in Mass.
A quick index of the day's most active Mass blogs.
A guide to the blog posts most link to by other Mass bloggers.
In one place, in one minute, you'll get an update on what's going on across the blogosphere. And your readers will be able to find the best Mass content, not based on random voters or some editors choices, but based on the real actions of Mass bloggers and their readers.

Our theory is simple: We think our tools will help new blog readers find the best content fast. A good experience means they'll come back for more. We also think a quick grasp of what's going on in the blogosphere will help bloggers get more out of the time they spend blogging.

I hope you're interested in what we're doing. In order to keep improving the site, we want your feedback. Write directly to me at editor@blognetnews.com.

Kerry Healey, You don't love MA

Kerry Healey, You don't love MA

This question was about how Mitt Romney has been going around bad mouthing the state of Massachusetts while abroad, and whether or not Kerry Healey would stand up to him, and ask him to stop. Twice asked, she would not answer. The crowd turned on her like any other loyal citizens would when faced with the sudden realization that someone who wants to lead them won't stand up for them. Christy Mihos says it all when responding to her evasions, "Then you don't love Massachusetts!"

Healey has not campaigned on her merits achieved, or told us how she will keep all the promises she's making. She dragged our state into one of the most vicious smear campaigns ever seen in the entire union. Bringing insult to injury, she would rather keep in good favor with Mitt Romney than stand up for her constituents. Kerry Healey does not deserve to lead us, and her actions are not honorable. Even when faced with a mountain of evidence that Ben LaGuer may be innocent, she STILL used this man as a weapon against Deval Patrick in the last debate. For shame Kerry, in the words of Deval Patrick, "You're better than this." Just for the record, the next time you want to pack the audience with rehearsed supporters, like it seems you did in the last debate, try not to let them sound so contrived. Everybody suddenly just starts chanting "Kerry" all at the same time? They all act as one each and every time there is an opportunity to be disruptive? How dumb do you have to be not to see right through this misrepresentation? What a sad and telling act of desperation.

My hope is that after this race she will drop out of existence as a politician, and the only times I will see her from then on is in places she can do no more harm. Kerry Healey is the poster girl for a culture of corruption, spinning her own version of the truth, then accusing Mr. Patrick of misleading people about being in the courtroom. She knows quite well that Deval Patrick job was not in the courtroom, but at a level much higher, where important decisions about how to prosecute tough crimes are made. She is counting her lies not catching up to her until after the election, and on you, the people of Massachusetts, to decide things from your emotions rather than with truth and logic. My one fear is that if other states are any indication of how easily people allow themselves to be fooled, she may be right. What's it going to be people? Are you going to let Kerry Healey, lie cheat, and bully her way into our corner office?

The Road to Healing through Halloween

This has mainly been a political site, but I wish to shake things up a little. I hope no one minds too much. After all it is called “Live, Love and Learn”, and this is an example of me attempting to do so.

Halloween has been special to our family for many years. I still remember early in my youth being excited about Halloween more than any other holiday. My Grandmother would turn her garage into a small haunted house for children in the neighborhood and friends that would be able to accompany me to her house. The memory of my Aunt opening her eyes while lying in a coffin is still with me. As the years have went by, I took the tradition of haunted houses and now my family comes to my house to put together a place I hope children will remember for many years to come.

As I’ve put together our haunted house, the past years I’ve always excluded a certain member of my family and her husband. About 10 years ago there was a huge argument where I threatened her husband and my sister said that she hates our family. At that point I made certain that I would no longer speak to her, or even be around her, no matter what the occasion was for. As I look back on the argument I could have easily handled it better if I had just tried to be more diplomatic about the situation, but diplomacy was not an attribute I used very well in that time.

As of late, I’ve started coming around to the idea of forgiving my sister (or maybe she needs to forgive me) in hopes of having a more complete family, but I have found it difficult to say everything that I know needs to be said. I still have much to work on.

This year I must admit, I wasn’t in the spirit of Halloween. I didn’t feel like going through the effort of putting the house together and taking time off of work and other ventures to complete our annual undertaking. My wife persevered and forced my hand to get it done. She said it was for her benefit, but as I look now, she did it because I needed it. So we went and got our place set up and ready for a haunted house. I invited my sister and her husband to come and be a part of our program. It was a little tense at first, but as the night progressed, smiles became more natural.

With my sister on board, along with help from other family members, my son’s friends and help from some local children we had a great night. I let my sister do my regular job of being the guide through the house. With so much help available it allowed me the freedom to step back and do what I really like to do; take pictures. I took pictures of everyone I saw that I could get, whether they were actors for us or just families wanting to see what we did this year. My brother-in-law started off behind the scenes, but as he saw the fun everyone was having he became a center figure in our house. He grabbed the chain saw yelling and chasing people from our back yard. I think he ended up having a good time despite the tensions between us.

Halloween became part of the healing process for my sister and me. We still have a ways to go before the trust we once had can be fully realized, but the road to healing can take many turns.

Gay Marriage Fears Laid to Rest

My friend John emailed me an article from the Wall Street Journal this morning that I wanted to share. The primary drive against gay marriage comes from the religious right. Knowing America's Constitution provides against putting religious beliefs into law, they have decided to try to scare people into voting against gay marriage. They say that if gay marriage is made legal it will create a slippery slope effect and we will have people marrying their dogs, and other such strange situations. Divorce is supposed to increase, heterosexual marriage is supposed to decline, out of wedlock children and STD's are supposed to increase. Society itself is supposed to come to the brink of destruction if we allow two people in love to marry, settle down together, and have equal benefits from the government if they are of the same sex. Sound silly? It is:

"Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or "man-on-dog" unions."

Kerry Healey Should Have Read BenLaGuer.com

When Kerry Healey used Ben LaGuer as a reason to keep Deval Patrick from office she unexpectedly opened up a huge can of worms for herself. Ben LaGuer seems to be an innocent man that was put behind bars through a series of gross assumptions, poor investigative efforts, mismanagement of evidence, and a tone of racial prejudice that extends all the way to the jury itself. Let's review a few facts that we know:

-Ben LaGuer has five eyewitnesses of his location at the time of the attack that were never called to testify of his behalf.

-Fingerprints that do not match his were known about since days after the crime and were suppressed from evidence until 2001.

-A known rapist with a history of mental illness lived in the same building as LaGuer.

-This rapist matched the description of LaGuer.

-The victim describes how the attacker said he came from Worcester, as did this same person who matches LaGuer's description and has this violent history.

-None of the physical evidence linked LaGuer to the crime scene.

-DNA collection was as much a fiasco as the rest of this case, and experts call DNA evidence inconclusive.

-"I frankly do not understand why you and your colleagues have been refused information by the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, the Clerk of Courts in Worcester, and the Worcester District Attorney. There is, in my opinion, ample reason for a full inquiry into this case, and I hope that the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will agree." ~DNA expert Professor Daniel Hartl, Harvard University.

-It seems that the only evidence that links Ben LaGuer to this crime is the victim's ability to identify him. She was given a police photo line up while still in her hospital bed that included Ben LaGuer, who was her neighbor, and simply asked, "Do you recognize any of these men?" The man who's name I have withheld and a true suspect was not in the line up. As it turns out the daughter of the victim admits she had schizophrenia, yet another point that was never argued at his trial.

-1985 (Wednesday September 18) In court, Carignan (the investigating officer) admits to destroying his original extemporaneous investigative notes, substituting them with police reports authored weeks after LaGuer's arrest.

-1991 (November) LaGuer receives information that the rapist he had suspected was the perpetrator of this crime all along allegedly twice told a local bartender that he committed the crime for which LaGuer stands convicted.

-The fingerprint evidence from the telephone is now missing.

This case could well turn out to be greatest injustice of the Massachusetts Justice system in the twenty-first century, and I find it hard to believe and impossible to excuse that someone of Kerry Healey's education in criminology can overlook all these facts to make Ben LaGuer's case her sword against Deval Patrick. It is not Deval Patrick who should be ashamed, it is Kerry Healey. It is my personal opinion that Kerry Healey not only has no place being our governor, she should never be in any leadership role again.

Oddly enough the SJC Appellate Court case has been pushed back yet again... until right after elections.

A letter to the New Jersey Legislators

Dear Representative,

Thank you in advance for you valuable time and attention, I will try to be brief. There are fewer people by the day that refuse to understand that equality is an unconditional birthright as an American citizen. The fundamental freedoms provided for us in the Bill of Rights declare we are free to follow what path we choose for ourselves so long as this path does not harm others or their property. It is every one's right to their own belief as to why God made us who we are, and what we should be doing while on Earth. Being able to live based on that belief is another inalienable right. Some people would say that simple majority gives them the right to intervene into the lives of others and dictate what others can or cannot do based on their beliefs, and this precedent is seen in other forms of discrimination from our history. It is time we lay rest to this dinosaur of our past and provide a more positive foundation for future generations by not allowing prejudice to continue as law. Watering down civil rights for a class of people, or delaying, and graduating rights only perpetuates this problem and the social division felt. People who feel the need to force their will upon others are not worthy of leading such a diverse and rich culture as our own. Only those with a healthy respect for individuality should be in charge of creating policy for all. It is bravery that is needed to take action on defense of freedom when fear has been used to whip the masses into the frenzy we see. Sometimes leadership needs to stand on higher ground and provide the light to see by.

Since I have started advocating for gay equality it has occurred to me that whatever the government decides to do has a great impact on what the citizens think and act on. The word "Marriage" has a strong meaning to traditionalists, yet to deny it to a group of people based solely on their sexual orientation seems to be government approved discrimination. Since you are trying to create a state of complete equality, and since the citizens will argue over the nature of this word, My suggestion is you leave it up to each couple to decide for themselves what to call their own contract. You can have both terms on the same application, give them the right to choose for themselves, and circumnavigate around this future political firestorm. Perhaps in this way people will start to understand that unconventional does not mean unequal in the eyes of our government.

Thank you and may God guide you in your decision.

Sincerely,

John Hosty
LiveLoveLearn247.blogspot.com

Fired for Opposing Gay Marriage?

According to Agape Press:

Luis Padilla was reportedly terminated from his employment at a Cargill Foods plant in Harrisonburg because of a written message on the rear window of his pickup truck that read: "Please, vote for marriage on Nov. 7." That is the day when voters in Virginia will be considering a proposed amendment to the state constitution protecting traditional marriage.

The article goes on to complain that this is example of PC run amok. Obviously, there is more to this story than meets the eye, and I am not going to pretend to have all of the facts. Read the story if you can; it's a tough read because the reporting style of Apgape Press oozes bigotry. I have read numerous accounts of this story and all but a few miss the real story entirely.

The story is not about Mr. Padilla's free speech rights; he has none in this case. The story is not about political correctness. The story is not about a company defending itself from lawsuits, although all these things add to the drama. This is about blatant hypocrisy on the part religious conservatives.

This is the bottom line;
The folks at Apgape Press believe that they should be protected when then speak out for their values, but they won't give the other side the same protection. The religious conservative believes that a company reserves the right to fire gay employees just because they are gay, but expects their bigotted views to be protected by law.

That is hypocrisy, and we should call it out.

Taken from Boston Globe's Boston.com

It seems that this blog has taken on my challenge of being more respectful in the interest of understanding what we can learn from one another. Thank you. All too often on blogs I see attitudes flare and exchanges reduced to the level of road rage shouting out of the window. It limits intelligent debate and quite frankly we all need to call an end to it if we are to respect ourselves as mature and educated adults.

There is so much to talk about here, and I find the original question that started the thread a bit limiting, so if no one minds I would prefer to speak freely on related matters. First I would like to thank Tom8675309 for bringing to this discussion some of the videos I referred to. These are real news documentaries that are hard to refute and give anyone interested in understanding the truth behind the Ben LaGuer case some facts to think about. I personally agree with greenbrier that all too often people hear a sound bite or only part of a story and base their opinion on half truths rather than bother to look into things more fully. This man has no other criminal record and served his country faithfully as an honorably discharged soldier in the Army. I think the fact that we have FBI agents like Richard Slowe and great minds like John Silber stating very matter of factly that this case was not properly investigated that there is reasonable doubt enough to re-open the case and verify we have the right man. Ben LaGuer would not be the first person behind bars for decades, yet innocent, if it is true. The fact that he has been in jail for twenty years should not weigh in as a measure of his guilt.

The rabble over Healey's ad campaign is worth addressing. I disapprove of any smear tactics, and if it were left to my decision I would limit the candidates to speaking about what they have accomplished and what they intend on contributing if we put them in office. Candidates should win office based on their merits achieved and the quality of their platform, not because they scared you more than the other candidate did. Healey's ads don't just hurt Deval Patrick, they could be harming an innocent man's chances of having a twenty year wrong against him corrected, and to me that is unconscionable. If Ben LaGuer turns out to be innocent Healey's political career is over, and if I were her advisors I would have picked a better case than this because of that fact.

Does everybody remember how the cities and towns got into the fiscal crisis they are now in? It was the current administration that started to cut state aid to local government that forced local taxes to go up in the first place. The funding for what we want has to come from somewhere and anyone that tells you that they can offer the same services without collecting the money for it is playing a "shell game" with you. Instead of telling us that she is going to cut taxes I would have rather heard Healey tell us about how she is going to invest in our state in order to keep our money well spent instead of wasted. Christy Mihos made a great point in the last debate when he said that there are certain businesses that will never leave our state, and we should invest in them heavily. The fiscal responsibility of Healey is suspect to me because she and Romney have had four years to iron out the Big Dig, yet I have seen no real accountability for all the misappropriated and misdirected funds even though Romney was supposed to be able to come in and solve our financial woes with his genius. Like many other republicans in leadership I think he helped his friends in high places when he could, turned a blind eye to their wrongs when he could get away with it, and I see Kerry Healey sitting quietly in the background while all this takes places.

Kerry Healey wanted to be in this office so badly she put aside her own principles in order to run with a governor that is pro-life. The fact that we are the only state to support full marriage equality is something I am very proud of, and the fact that she is the only candidate that does not support equality is another contention I have against her. When she was asked at the last debate if she would address with governor Romney the fact that he has been bad mouthing our state while away and ask him to stop, she avoided answering the question, twice. From the boos in the audience I feel I am not alone in thinking that her answer was a politician's "no" and that sits poorly with me that someone who wants to sit in our most powerful office is not able to stand up for us. This is a valid reason not to vote for someone, as it shows neither leadership nor loyalty to the people. I don’t believe she is running to better our state, and I don’t believe in her ability to create positive change or to lead. She has had fours years to do so, I see very little accomplished by her that she alone can lay claim to. I put my money where my mouth is am in the spirit of this great commonwealth I fight fiercely for what I believe in. I do not see this same spirit in her, and I don’t trust she will do what is best for the common man, but rather I believe she will make decisions that are in her best interest and in the interest of her friends.

That being said, I would love to hear an intelligent rebuttal as the only thing I am sure of in life is how little I really know.

Richard Slowe on LaGuer Investigation

More evidence in favor of Ben Laguer's innocence.

Ben LaGuer and the Missing Fingerprint Report

Here is something else Kerry Healey doesn't want you to know about.

John Walsh on Kerry Healey's recent negative ad

Listen closely to the end where Mr. Walsh talks about republicans jumping ship in disgust. Hear the gasps in the crowd as he describes the new hate ad Healey released. No one that resorts to these tactics should be rewarded for them, and they certainly don't deserve to lead our state! The worst part of all this is the growing evidence that Ben Laguer is innocent. She is trying this man in the court of public opinion before we get to hear the new evidence. If this man is innocent her ads will serve to make his cry for justice less well heard. She doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself, and using this man's case is just another example in a long, long list of reasons not to vote for her.

Vote Healey, Get Bush!

Republicans have been proving to me for twenty years they are willing to do anything, include lie, in order to get the office they seek. I distinctly recall in 1988 George H.W. Bush saying how he would not raise taxes. Isn't that what Kerry Healey is saying now? Bush said:

"And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, 'Read my lips: no new taxes."

How chillingly reminiscent of the elder Bush that Kerry Healey would be attacking her opponent's character and be telling us she won't raise taxes. How will she fund a change for the better in education? Perhaps she intends on using the money she saved from charm school. Mud slinging seems to me the desperate, unscrupulous act of some politicians who are willing to resort to treachery in order to get what they want, and are unable to obtain by their own merit. Quoting the great statesman John Randolph of Virginia referring to a contemporary, Healey is "of splendid abilities but utterly corrupt, being like rotten mackerel by moonlight that both shines and stinks at the same time." In my opinion Kerry Healey is not an honest person, and another reason she does not deserve the greatest position of importance in our commonwealth because she is prideful to the point of hubris. The horror stories of doing business with her trail behind her wake, like any other diva.

Thankfully, from our disillusionment with Healey, like in most tragedies, erupts comedy. Let's smile when remembering how to vote and think of some possible slogans for her:

"read my lips, no new taxes."
"No Billionaire Left Behind."
"The only thing we have to offer is fear itself."
"Because I haven't finished screwing up the Big Dig."
"Fooled you once, shame on...oh hell, I can fool you again!"
"Because Leona Helmsley isn't running."
"Because I hate gays more than you."
"Democrats do, Republicans rule."
"My actions speak for my character."
"Because you get the government you deserve."
"I'm Pro-choice, just like Mitt."

Truth is Not Healey's Strong Point

Women's questions
By Eileen McNamara, Globe Columnist | September 27, 2006

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey can try to run from Governor Mitt Romney's record, but she cannot walk away from her own words.

Among the many miscalculations made by the Republican candidate for governor in Monday night's first televised debate was her assertion that abortion is now and always has been the biggest policy disagreement between her and Romney. Healey must be confused. Given the governor's shifting position on abortion rights in the last dozen years, it would hardly be surprising if his deputy had trouble recalling where he stood when.

However, she should have less trouble remembering what she said when.

``There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien," Healey told the Associated Press about her running mate and his Democrat opponent when she was helping to market Romney as an abortion-rights supporter in the 2002 campaign that sent them both to Beacon Hill.

If that was true then, what is true now?

``Well, I think where we disagree is pretty clear. We've always disagreed on choice, and I think those differences have only become more stark over time," she said of Romney on Monday night during the debate with her rivals for the governor's office, Deval Patrick, the Democrat; Christy Mihos, the independent; and Grace Ross of the Green-Rainbow Party.

``Either she wasn't honest then, or she isn't being honest now," said Angus McQuilken, public affairs director for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. ``Either way, what we need is real leadership on these issues, not political posturing."

What has become starker over time is the willingness of both Romney and Healey to say whatever suits them politically about abortion at any given time. He will not get away with it in his delusional bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, any more than she will this fall in her uphill race for governor. Romney likes to assert on the national campaign trail that he has been ``a prolife governor in a prochoice state," but Michael Murphy, a former Romney political adviser, blew the governor's cover last year when he told an interviewer: ``He's been a prolife Mormon faking it as a prochoice friendly" in Massachusetts.

It is not unreasonable to ask whether Healey has been faking it, too. Earlier this year, the Boston Herald reported that in a videotaped debate rehearsal in 2002, Healey said she favored lowering the age of consent for abortion from 18 to 16, the same position that cost O'Brien critical support that year. Healey has never repeated that position in public and has endorsed current state law, which establishes 18 as the age of consent.

She has consistently supported the 1973 US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, but isn't it fair to ask whether she turned a blind eye to Romney's real feelings about abortion out of political expediency four years ago? If so, what does that say either about the depth of her commitment to abortion rights or her capacity for political independence? If not, why hasn't she denounced the governor for intentionally misleading Massachusetts voters?

Those are some of the questions abortion-rights activists have been trying, without success, to ask Healey. She has refused to fill out their questionnaires or to meet with representatives of Planned Parenthood or NARAL Pro-Choice.

Melissa Kogut of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts said it is not enough for Healey ``to say she has always been prochoice. She has no voting record of her own, and she has been serving in an antichoice administration. We're frustrated. Why wouldn't she take every opportunity to talk about her views on the full range of reproductive health issues?"

Why, indeed. Much has been made of the historic contest in Massachusetts this year between a female and a black man for the corner office in the State House. The election of a woman or an African-American would be a first for the Commonwealth. A woman won't get there ducking women's questions.

Eileen McNamara can be reached at mcnamara@globe.com.

Protest of Liberty Sunday Huge Success!

Liberty Sunday - Anti-Gay Rally in Boston



Hundreds of protestors gathered peacefully outside Tremont Temple Baptist Church last night in response to Liberty Sunday. While James Dobson and his evil cohorts from around the country all tried there best to scare America and incite the crowd outside, we held a candlelight vigil, and we sang, and introduced ourselves to one another. Some familiar faces I saw included: Tom Lang, Director of KnowThyNeighbor.org; his husband Alexander Westerhoff; KTN treasurer Greg Kimball; Co-director and webmaster of KTN Aaron Toleos with baby in arms; Cherie Johnson, a founding blogger of KTN and her wife Niki; Chris Mason, webmaster of TakeMassAction; and of course myself with my partner of 12 years Raymond. Special thanks to our friends Matt Mitchell and David Joly for coming out to support their gay friends.

The atmosphere was electric with positive energy, and you could tell that everyone that came down to support our cause walked away feeling something very good and very special about this event. I believe that God does work in mysterious ways, and one of those ways He likes to work best is when He can take the power of hate and turn in into something beautiful and positive. One clear image I walk away from this vigil with is that we may not be able to make everyone understand how important our individual paths are to us, but we can show them they don't have to fear us, and more importantly we can show each other we are no longer afraid of them. Get out there and shake some hands, now more than ever our efforts are paying off, and the time is now for us to capitalize. Make a new friend, write your local paper, pick up the phone to an old friend, and write on the blog, just be active in whatever way you feel most comfortable. Thank you for all the emails and support, I appreciate the kind thoughts.

Article 8 Alliance Turns Feral, Attacks Own

Article found on website MassResistance.com:

Yes: Gov. Mitt Romney started same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts

Same-sex "marriage" is still NOT legal in Massachusetts, and was NOT created by the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge ruling.

In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for same-sex "marriages" taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only issued an opinion and advised the Legislature to act (which it never did). Even the Court acknowledged that it had no power to change the law.

Governor Romney created these "marriages" through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new "marriage" licenses), and through his legal counsel threatened to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) "new law". He was not required by any constitutional mandate to do these things. On the contrary, his actions clearly violated his oath to uphold the laws of Massachusetts.

Governor Romney has it within his powers to rectify these serious unconstitutional acts which have done so much harm to our state and country. He can reverse these fraudulent policies before the end of his term. And he can issue an Executive Order correcting the misinterpation of the law and rightfully declaring these unlawful “marriages” null and void.

(Moreover, the Massachusetts Constitution does not need to be amended. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would make things much worse. It would effectively legitimize the current illegitimate same-sex “marrriages” by assuming that the Goodridge decision had changed the law, and by its wording only bans future same-sex “marriages”.)~End Article

Commentary: We have been told by these same people, like Tyler Dawbin, who is a self-proclaimed member of Article 8 Alliance, for over a year that they do not want to see our gay marriages dissolved, they just want to put our right to marry to a vote. They say the vote will not change the status of our marriages that have already been given, but as you can read, they don't really intend to leave it at that. We should thank these people for this article as it can be used later if Romney decides in his hubris that he is going to be the next king of America.

Sweatshops, Forced Abortions & Corruption, Republicans Fool All

Wednesday, January 4th, 2006
Forced Abortions & Sweatshops: A Look at Jack Abramoff's Ties to the South Pacific Island of Saipan & How Tom DeLay Became An Advocate for Sweatshop Factory Owners

We speak with ABC News' Brian Ross who exposed in 1998 the horrific labor conditions in the U.S. territory of Saipan. At the time, Jack Abramoff was Saipan's hired gun on K Street and Tom DeLay was one of the island's chief advocates on Capitol Hill. DeLay backed the sweatshop owners even though it was exposed that the factory was forcing women to have abortions and treated workers like indentured servants.

Controversy is nothing new to Jack Abramoff. The Los Angeles Times reports Abramoff’s first political scandal dates back to 1972 when he ran for student council president at the Hawthorne School, an elementary and middle school in Beverly Hills California. Abramoff was reportedly disqualified for exceeding the spending limit in the race. In college Abramoff teamed up with two students who would become household names in Washington to take over the College Republican National Committee. They were anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, founder of the Christian Coalition. After college Abramoff’s resume was diverse, from his brief Hollywood career to his secret dealings with the South African apartheid regime.

A 1995 investigation by Newsday revealed that Abramoff helped run a think–tank called the International Freedom Foundation. The organization was set up in 1986 and its goal was to improve the white South African apartheid government’s image in the West while demonizing Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress as communist tools. The Newsday report also quoted sources saying that the South African military helped finance the 1988 movie "Red Scorpion" which Abramoff wrote and produced. The movie was a sympathetic portrayal of an anti-communist African guerrilla commander and loosely based on Jonas Savimbi, the Angolan rebel leader who was an ally of both South Africa’s apartheid government and the U.S government.

We turn now to Abramoff’s special relationship with the South Pacific island of Saipan and how it connects to his ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Saipan is an American territory in the South Pacific also known as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In the mid-1990s Abramoff was on the payroll of Saipan officials aiming to stop legislation that would crack down on sweat shop conditions, which run rampant on the island. In 1997, Abramoff arranged a lavish trip to the island of Saipan for Delay.

The Delay trip was originally reported by Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC News. We are going to play 2 excerpts from the report that aired on ABC’s 20/20 on March 13th, 1998. In this first excerpt, Ross interviews Allan Stayman, a Clinton administration official in the Department of Interior who was investigating labor conditions in Saipan. Brian also talks to a worker in one of the factories and ends with Eric Gregoire, a human rights worker. Most of the workers in these factories are from mainland China. {Thanks to WITNESS/Oxygen for providing addittional footage.) ~End Article

Commentary: Somehow people will try to put a spin on this. Anything but admit guilt and suffer the consequences of one's actions, that's just asking too much! Don't wonder why America is so hated when we allow things like this to go unanswered. For shame. This is the party that reffers to itself as the "moral majority".

Lying to Confuse Voters

Putting a "D" for democrat next to Rep. Foley's name is no coincidence, it is a bold faced lie in order to try to confuse voters. It seems the republicans will stop at nothing to win their seats and maintain control over Congress. How can they look themselves in the mirror and call themselves the moral majority? It is our responsability as voters to remember these lies and vote accordingly. There is a saying that we generally get the government we deserve. Let's hope we come to our senses. Fox News, the National Enquirer of television.

"Liberty" Sunday, October 15

From the President of the Family Research Council:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"So begins the Bill of Rights with the first amendment to our Constitution--one that guarantees a God-given freedom. For over 200 years the light of the church has illuminated this freedom, but now a radical agenda seeks to extinguish that flame.

The expansion of non-discrimination laws to include homosexuality inevitably constricts our right to express and act on our religious beliefs. Recently, there has been a string of incidents involving government intolerance against those who live out their faith in the public square.

To respond to this growing threat, I'm pleased to announce that on October 15, 2006, FRC will host a nationwide simulcast from Boston, Massachusetts called "Liberty Sunday: Defending Our First Freedom." I invite you to join us as we examine the cultural and legal influences that threaten to erode religious liberties and muzzle free speech."

Tony Perkins

Liberty Sunday Video

These people are coming here, to our own back yard, to use our freedom to marry who we choose as a scare tactic against the rest of the country. I believe this calls for action, but if we are to assemble we should be carefull not to give them the free-for-all we saw last year at the "Love Won Out" conference. I urge everyone who is gay, has gay friends or family, or simply wants to put an end to the insanity of religious control in our government to come to the Liberty Sunday conference on October 15th, and position yourself in silent vigil. Peaceful protest cannot be turned against us and used to create fear.

"The expansion of non-discrimination laws to include homosexuality inevitably constricts our right to express and act on our religious beliefs." There is no truth to this statement, but our opposition knows well that they do not need truth when fear is much more powerfull a tool. In no way does the marriage of two people of the same sex interfere with someone else's religion, unless that religion calls for them to force their beliefs on others. This is exactly what is taking place. The fact that Tony Perkins would try to take the freedom of religion quote from our Bill of Rights, the very article that protects us from religious tyranny, and try to use it as a reasoning to force Christianity upon the unwilling shows just how powerful fear can be. The greater the fear the more the heart will rule over the mind, and logic is lost.

As I have said many times before our lives are being destroyed by those using gay marriage as a divisive tool. They do this to promote fear, and to gain political favor just like race was used to divide our country in the 1950's and 1960's. Their promotional video itself incrimniates them by stating that this conference is being done just prior to voting across America. I think they chose Boston because they want to film a riot, and they want a fresh new dose of fear for the rest of America to feel just before going into the voting booths. Let's not give it to them. Let's beat them at their own game by being unified, peaceful, and visible.

Tribute to All the Great Videos Emailed to LLL

Since we have started posting a few videos our email has gone crazy with a bunch of great new videos people would like to see us post. Here are some of them lumped together, please take time to watch them all as they convey quite a bit. Love and blessings to all those fighting for your freedom wherever you are, and remember to pray for your fellow man that does not understand where our strength comes from. Only by giving the love that we do not recieve can the chain of hatred be broken that weighs mightily upon our society.


Get this video and more at MySpace.com


Get this video and more at MySpace.com


Get this video and more at MySpace.com


Get this video and more at MySpace.com


Get this video and more at MySpace.com


Get this video and more at MySpace.com


Get this video and more at MySpace.com

Fighting Against Hate, Peacefully

Get this video and more at MySpace.com

ChristianExodus.org

Just when I thought I had heard everything silly under the sun along comes something even more bizzare. Round up the haters that can't stand the thought of having gay neighbors as equals, we've got ourselves a road trip! I will buy anyone a one way bus ticket if they promise not to come back! Here is an portion of what is said:

ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Hate Kills Kids, But do we Care?

The artist that puts this together is in it, has been there, and you can talk to him if you want help, or have no one else to talk to. I also was there once, and I pray that if you are in this type of pain that you don't try to destroy yourself. You are an equal and worthy person, and as bad as things may seem if you hang in there things will get better.

Suicide is the third largest killer of children in America, and gay kids are three times more likely to die because of their fears of living in such a hostile society. We have to see the value of changing this, for their sake. My email is salemmaman@gmail.com and I answer every single email personally, because I care.

Posted By:Silver Pheonix

Get this video and more at MySpace.com

On Children's Rights, We Stand in the Company of Iran

Author: Susan Webb
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 05/17/02 13:18


In the United Nations Special Session on Children, May 8-10, the Bush administration stood virtually isolated from the world community because of its opposition to comprehensive reproductive health services and sex education for teenagers.

The session concluded with a compromise declaration of goals to improve child health, protection and education over the next decade. The U.S. failed in its efforts to get the document to include a specific statement against making abortion available to teenagers, and to emphasize abstinence in sex education. It also failed in efforts to define the family as a married man and woman.

But the Bush administration did succeed in weakening the language of the document and downplaying the importance of the landmark 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S. is the only country opposing this treaty. U.S. right-wingers claim it undermines parental authority, and also oppose it because it condemns capital punishment for minors. The U.S. prevented the final document from including a ban on such executions.

The U.S., supported only by the Vatican, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria, opposed references to "reproductive health services" because it said this phrase could be interpreted as condoning abortion. The final wording did not reject abortion, but it omitted the term "reproductive health services."

Katherine Hall Martinez, acting director of the International Program at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, told the World the "obsessive attitude" of the U.S. delegation toward reproductive issues "is another clear indication of how extreme this administration is, and how much it is in the pocket of a very small minority that is out of sync with the mainstream."

The right of young people to sexual and reproductive health information, education and services was recognized at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, with support from the Clinton administration.

While advocates for child and adolescent rights expressed relief that much of the Bush administration agenda was rejected by the U.N. session, they also voiced dissatisfaction with the U.S. success in watering down the document, which, said Hall Martinez, "serves as a blueprint for what the world's governments understand their responsibilities to be."

"With respect to child rights and adolescent health and reproductive rights it is an extremely weak document," said Adrienne Germain, International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC) president.

"Our colleagues feel very strongly that they need the strongest, clearest language possible so they can keep pushing forward," said Francoise Girard, an IWHC senior program officer. The wording of the plan matters, she says, because it gives non-governmental organizations power to hold agencies and governments accountable for their policies.

The watered-down document, Hall Martinez said, "belies the fact that we have a crisis." Pregnancy-related deaths are the leading cause of death among 15- to 19-year-old girls worldwide, according to U.N. figures. In developing countries, women face a 1-in-48 risk of dying as a result of giving birth. Every hour, 300 people under the age of 25 become infected with HIV. In some nations adolescent girls are infected at a rate five to six times higher than boys. Every minute, 10 girls in that age group undergo an unsafe abortion, according to the World Health Organization.

In a letter to The New York Times, Linda Blaydon Olson, a U.N. representative of the World Young Women's Christian Association, said, "The success of the Bush administration in weakening the language of the United Nations declaration on children reflected the desires of a small minority of Americans whose actions are dictated by religious ideology rather than compassion."

The author can be reached at suewebb@pww.org

BBC discussion of "Jesus Camp"

you've been telling us about a new documentary called Jesus Camp. It's only been shown at a film festival or two, but already it's one of America's biggest talking points.

Now onto Church Camp, the controversial documentary making waves in America.

Cliff Vaughn from Nashville, Tennessee, gave us a run down of the film. A couple of vox-pops taken from YouTube:

"Looks to me like Hitler is alive and well in this country.....scares me to know there are people out there doing things like this "

Linda isn't a fan of the film:

"Children that young need unconditional love, not be made to feel that if they don't get on board the Jesus express, they will be condemned."

AJ thinks there's a contradiction that should be addressed:

"It strikes me as more than ironic that, at a time when our current president shrilly rails against "Islamo-Fascism," we have a film released about precisely the same sort of phenomenon on the rise here in the U.S"

Aaron Scott, hosts a radio programme in West Virginia:

"God is love, but you can't force someone to embrace religion."

Tarro in the United States is also sceptical:

"Just what the War on Terror needs, a group of nut-case Christian extremists with the collective I.Q. of a cucumber attempting to revive the Crusades"

Edwin runs an Atheist camp for children. Cliff questioned the need for such a camp and asked why he was teaching children that bible stories were "scary".

Rick texted us to say:

"If they're worshipping George Bush, that is the biggest sin a Christian can do"

And Sam in Ohio asks:

"Praying to a false icon? Hardly sounds Christian to me."

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

The airtime on this report was shared with a debate about Saddam's trial, so since those comments are not related to the topic they have been removed:

3. At 06:55 PM on 29 Sep 2006, marc wrote:
I must take issue with the confusion evidenced between 'charismatic' and 'Pentecostal'. They are different realities in religious life that ought to be distinguished consequently.

Not having seen the film, I don't know what the George Bush cut-out business refers to. The Pentecostals I know are convinced that GWB is 'on God's side' but the idea that they would 'worship' an image of him is nonsense.

Pentecostals think that salvation evinces itself in the emotions as well as in the intellectual assent to faith, with the former emphasized, perhaps. They shout out the praises of the Lord during services, jump and run, dance in a ritualized sort of way. Far from Roman orthodoxy, of course, but involving the 'manipulation' of children in such a way that this can be characterised as 'abuse'? But I haven't seen the movie, and to extrapolate universally from my personal experiences isn't very reasonable, is it.

4. At 06:55 PM on 29 Sep 2006, Fred Edwords wrote:
Thank you for taking up this important topic of "Jesus Camp."

Having seen news reports and trailers for the film Jesus Camp, and being an American who's had to grow used to this sort of thing, I get the general idea without actually having seen the film.

Now, no doubt, many will view with repugnance the strong evangelizing of children revealed in this film. I know I do. But feelings of repugnance can't completely guide us here. If no existing child abuse laws or other statutes are being broken, then the concepts of religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech must hold sway. After all, human rights mean nothing if they only grant people the right to do things we support or agree with.

So, while I think bringing children up to think for themselves is a far healthier child-rearing choice than radicalizing and organizing them into militant religious cadres, I'm just going to have to convince those who don't agree with me to voluntarily change their minds. I know I raised my own children to think for themselves. And I sent them to a free thinking summer camp called Camp Quest, where they were encouraged to question authority. They are adults now and I must say I'm pleased with the results.

Fred Edwords
Director of Communications
American Humanist Association

5. At 07:02 PM on 29 Sep 2006, Alex wrote:
It is ironic that someone who deplores 'Harry Potter' would have children worship false god, as part of indoctrination attempts.

6. At 07:22 PM on 29 Sep 2006, Michelle from Lincoln, Nebraska wrote:
I have not seen the Jesus Camp documentary, but from my own experiences with members of my family - as well as having lived in a very conservative and very Christian city in eastern Tennessee for the past three years - I can see that the extremist Christian movement in America is growing. I have seen members of my own family become ever more judgemental and condemning of the lives of those around them, cutting off contact with those who do not fit in their rather narrow definition of moral purity. I have also witnessed, in the college classroom as well as in the workplace, a sort of "bullying" of ideas, wherein what I would call extremist Christians have again and again - loudly, aggresively and often offensively - asserted that their way of viewing the world is the only correct way. It seems to me that within the last several years, particularly since the reign of George W. Bush began, it has become more and more acceptable for extremist Christians to forcefully proclaim their way of viewing the world as the only correct way. To believe that one particular way of viewing the world is the only correct way and that all who disagree with this view are your enemies is the very definition of extremism. Extremist Christianity has insinuated its way into far too many American institutions and it would be a disgrace to the very ideas upon which this nation was founded to allow these extremists to further destroy our freedom. The international reputation of America has been greatly damaged because members of the current administration, namely George W. Bush, have used this extremist form of Christianity as the basis for all their decisions regarding foreign policy and national security. Thus has our integrity as a nation been jeopardized and our civil liberties violated. America is on the wrong path. Extremism is not the way to defeat terrorism. If we allow ourselves to become extremists, we lose the very essence of what it means to be American.


Andrew LaFollette from Silver Spring, MD Writes:

I saw this film at the Silverdocs festival, expecting it to be little more than an oddball slice of Americana, but I was pleasantly surprised.

"Jesus Camp" revolves around a pentecostal minister who hosts a summer camp for children in North Dakota, and the sectarian Christian conservative families who send their children to this camp. Directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady wisely chose to avoid the polemical tone of most politically-motivated films, and instead opt to present a mostly unfiltered glimpse of this odd subculture. But through carefully selected images and the use of talk radio commentary as a framing device, they construct a subtle, yet damning narrative about a religious movement that isolates its children from mainstream culture, indoctrinates them into right-wing causes, and uses them as political props.

At Jesus Camp, the daily activities include standard camp fare such as spelunking and go-karts, but they also include speaking in tongues and smashing coffee mugs emblazoned with the word "government". Children learn that "science doesn't prove anything," and learn to consider themselves part of an Army of God. They are compelled to pledge that they will fight to end abortion. They are even pushed into publicly confessing their impure thoughts, and many of them cry and wail charismatically.

The camp director explains that she admires the way Islamic cultures raise children so devoted they will risk their lives for their faith. When we ultimately see several of the campers being placed by their parents on the steps of the Capitol with tape over their mouths, protesting abortion, the real purpose of this camp is driven home.

But the most touching scenes are the ones where the children are alone, and we see the ways that this indoctrination creeps into the most innocent elements of childhood. 11 year old Tori loves dancing to Christian rock, but frets that it's not always easy to dance for God instead of "dancing for the flesh." On an outing to the bowling alley, 9 year old Rachael feels compelled to walk up to strangers and awkwardly evangelize to them, without being prompted. A roomful of boys telling ghost stories after dark are interrupted by an adult who warns them about stories that don't glorify God.

No doubt some viewers will accuse the filmmakers of the dreaded liberal bias. But this is not a work of fiction, nor is it slanted reporting. These are real people and real events, captured on film. If the evangelical movement comes off badly in this film, the people on screen have no one but themselves to blame.

Stuffed Animal on Mark Foley

Here's how the extreme Right Wing is spinning the Mark Foley affair. The quote comes from Linda Harvey:

"Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids...open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected! The problem with homosexuals is that they frequently don't have common sense and don't acknowledge appropriate boundaries. Weird sex, public displays of "affection" and nudity, and sex with youth are built into the "Gay" sub-culture. Witness any pride parade, stroll around any predominantly "Gay" neighborhood, or visit "GLBT" websites and you quickly see the problem...we are insane to allow suspected or open homosexuals to assume positions as public officials, pastors, teachers, camp counselors or coaches. Then there are the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. The Girl Scouts have caved on this, as lesbians now are common among leadership!"

Meanwhile, Foley has publicly declared himself Gay for the first time, and is claiming to be a victim of childhood molestation. Nobody but his therapist needed to know about that! With prosecutors all but breathing down his neck, he's trying to drum up sympathy, and it's obvious. If somebody very high-profile doesn't step up to the mike and draw a clear distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, I fear we're all going to suffer for Mark Foley's sins. "Gay = Pedophile!" I can hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity doing the math right now. Newt Gingrich has already finished working the equation.

Stuffed Animal

What hate causes

Principal Shot, Killed In Rural Wisconsin School
Rhonda Erskine, AP

A teenager brought two guns to his rural school and shot the principal to death Friday after a struggle with adults and other students, authorities said.

The 15-year-old was taken into custody and charged with first-degree intentional homicide, the district attorney said. No one else was hurt.

The homecoming weekend shooting comes one day after Weston Schools Principal John Klang gave the student, Eric Hainstock, a disciplinary warning for having tobacco on school grounds, the criminal complaint said.

Hainstock had told a friend the principal would not "make it through homecoming," the complaint said.

Hainstock said that a group of kids had teased him by calling him "fag" and "faggot" and rubbing up against him, the complaint said, and the teen felt teachers and the principal wouldn't do anything about it.

So Hainstock decided to confront students, teachers and the principal with the guns to make them listen to him, according to the complaint.

So Friday morning, he pried open his family's gun cabinet, took out a shotgun and then took a handgun from his parent's bedroom, the complaint said.

The complaint said he shot the principal intentionally 3 times.

The shooting took place two days after a gunman took 6 students hostage in a Colorado high school and killed one before shooting himself.

A custodian and teacher saw Hainstock enter Weston School with a shotgun before classes began Friday morning, according to witnesses
and investigators. Hainstock pointed the gun at a social studies teacher, but the custodian wrested the gun from the teen. When Hainstock reached for another gun, the custodian and teacher ran for cover.

Then Klang went into the main hallway and confronted Hainstock. A teacher said after the shots were fired, Klang, already wounded, somehow wrestled Hainstock to the ground and swept the gun away, the complaint said.

The 49-year-old principal died Friday afternoon at University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison after being shot in the back of the head, chest and leg, authorities said. An autopsy was scheduled for Saturday.

Sauk County Sheriff Randy Stammen called Klang a hero after announcing his death.

"The heroics of the people involved in this can't be understated," he said.

The school's homecoming football game, dance and parade were canceled or postponed, and crisis counselors were brought in for students, authorities said.

Hainstock could get life in prison if convicted, District Attorney Patricia Barrett said. Wisconsin does not have the death penalty.

Detectives were executing a search warrant at Hainstock's house late Friday, Stammen said. The teen was scheduled to make an initial appearance in Sauk County Circuit Court on Monday afternoon.

About 370 children from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade attend the school near Cazenovia, a community about 70 miles northwest of Madison.

Klang and his 3 children graduated from Weston School. Klang taught, then farmed for about 18 years before returning to teaching and taking over as principal in 2004, his father Don Klang said. He was being groomed to take over the superintendent position next year.

Custodian Dave Thompson said that when he saw Hainstock enter the building early Friday, the student said he was there to kill someone.

"He was calm, but he was on a mission," said Thompson, 43, who has two children at the school.

Sophomore Shelly Rupp said she heard 5 shots and ran out of the school, but turned around and saw Klang as he was shot.

"He was laying on the ground in the hallway," the 16-year-old said at a nearby gas station where students and townspeople gathered following the shooting. "He had just a pile of blood by his leg."

School officials said Klang has more than 20 years of experience with the district, beginning as a school board member, and described him as kind, compassionate and soft-spoken.

Resident Laurie Rhea, 42, said Klang had spent last weekend at the gas station washing cars for a homecoming fundraiser.

"It's horrible. All the kids just loved him," she said.~End Article


Commentary: First of all the act of forcably dry humping is akin to rape, and was probably committed in front a a group of laughing, geering peers. It is no stretch to imagine that a mind that is not fully developed may see this as an act worthy of war, especially when teachers don't take the student's feelings seriously. Secondly, this society has demonized the gay community so badly that to be put into this catagory by your peers is a social death sentance.

The other John on this site had this to say: "The worst of it is that teasing and bullying is flat out condoned by anti-gay groups:

'On the contrary, don't interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world.'

Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.'"

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/08/narth_scientifi.html

If you practice such teachings you should consider yourself as responsible for this child's actions as if you had pulled the trigger yourself. Hatred leads to violence, and it is the opposite of what Christ calls us to do. How many times does this have to happen before people put an end to discrimination?!

Column: Hate is a four-letter family value

“All our future lies with our children and the youth of tomorrow. That is why this organization is based upon family values and the education to our youth of tomorrow.”

- National Socialist Movement (American Nazis) -

“I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

- Psalm 139:22 -

When the National Socialist Movement (NSM) rallied in Madison this August to proclaim its hatred for Jews, African Americans, Latinos and homosexuals, a photograph taken by Brian Ebner appeared in The Capital Times. In the picture a dozen beefy, tattooed skinheads in brown military style shirts and swastika armbands are giving the fascist salute while shouting, “Sieg Heil.”

One of the storm troopers is holding his skinhead son, who looks to be no more than three or four years old. To the boy’s credit, his arm is not raised.

Six years ago this October, members of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church along with their children rallied at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year old gay college student who was brutally beaten, tied to a fence and left to die along a lonely stretch of road outside Laramie, Wyo.

Just yards from Shepard’s gravesite and grieving family and friends, the Westboro flock held up placards that read; “God Hates Fags,” No Fags in Heaven,” “Matt in Hell.” The Rev. Phelps staged a sermon spewing out his hatred for homosexuals.

In both the Nazi and the Westboro Baptist church “hate fests,” a family value was being passed from one generation to the next, like the willing of a precious heirloom.

As members of a sentient species we are born equipped to hate. As members of a particular family we may be born into hate. But we are not born hating. Our first hates, big and small, must be learned; and who better to teach us than our parents. The words they choose as we learn our native tongue prepare us to parrot their hate, and then to feel it.

But even the most hate-filled and articulate parent needs help passing the torch. It is too large a blaze for one person to carry.

On Martin Luther King Day, 2002, the National Alliance, a white supremacy group, began advertising the videogame, “Ethnic Cleansing” on its web site. The object of the game is to kill “sub-humans” (Blacks and Latinos) and their Jewish masters. “This game is just what the White teens of the world need . . . I LOVE IT!!” Suzan R. wrote and posted on the National Alliance web site.

Also available exclusively from NSM Records is “Zog’s Nightmare,” a videogame in which “whitey’s” job is to defend the NSM Party headquarters against Abraham Kikenstein’s terror team and “black gangsters lusting for white blood.” The advertisement reads, “With plenty of bullets, blood and bodies it’s a bad day to be a jew [sic].”

Coming out this October in time for the Christmas season, the Christian videogame, “Left Behind: Eternal Forces,” is based on the first four novels of Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins’ Dominionist bestselling “Left Behind” series. Over 65 million copies have been sold worldwide, placing the series second behind the Bible in sales of Christian texts.

The action in the game takes place during the seven years of tribulation following the rapture. The object of the game is for members of the Christian Tribulation Force to either convert or to kill the infidels (anyone rejecting Jesus as their personal savior) roaming the streets of New York City. Each time an infidel is blown away the shooter shouts, “Praise the Lord,” and the body is left to rot where it falls.

One million advanced copies of the game will be distributed to churches nationwide. “We hope teenagers like the game,” LaHaye said. “Our goal is to leave no one behind,” or, it would seem, no child left untouched by their bigotry and hate.

Which of the “training” videogames is the most reprehensible? In one, hate goosesteps proudly before the swastika and smacks us on the right cheek. In the other, it hides behind the cross and kisses us on the left.

Storm troopers in brown shirts and jackboots are caricatures of hate. They are dangerous, to be sure. But they are easy to pick out of a crowd. We can choose to avoid them or to defend ourselves. We must never let them become the crowd, however.

It is hate with the face of a parent or a neighbor or a teacher or a pastor that is the most insidious and difficult to defend against. It is the normal face of “everyday” hate that will not “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin.” It cannot. It is never that discriminating.

Hate is not an ideology. It is not a creed. It is a human emotion and, too often, a family heirloom.

Robert Weitzel lives in Middleton. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison and several magazines. ~End Article

My blood ran cold as I read about these video games. Chilling.