Thursday, July 2, 2020

MassResistance Tribute to Lou Sheldon, Pro-Family, Anti-LGBT Activist

Rev. Lou Sheldon, a giant force in the early pro-family movement, passes away.

The nation’s top figure opposing the LGBT movement for nearly 40 years.

Powerful national organizer - kept Congress from passing many terrible bills.

July 2, 2020
ALT TEXT Taking them on: Rev. Lou Sheldon on CSPAN debating athiest activists on "Separation of Church and State" in Washington, DC in 2003.
Rev. Lou Sheldon, the nation’s top figure opposing the LGBT movement for nearly 40 years beginning in the 1970s – and a great friend of MassResistance – passed away on May 29 from a longstanding illness. He was 85. He provided the muscle for the pro-family movement in the U.S.
Rev. Sheldon understood the sweeping dangers of the homosexual movement at a time when few took it seriously. He fearlessly sounded the alarm and successfully opposed their early efforts to change the culture through legislation and other means. He was never afraid to tell the truth. He had tremendous energy and drive – and made things happen.
His organization, Traditional Values Coalition, was the  best known national pro-family grassroots organization in the 1980s and 1990s. He brought together an active alliance of churches. Sheldon was also an outstanding and tireless political advocate for the pro-family cause. He worked closely with Newt Gingrich, William Bennett, Trent Lott, William Dannemeyer, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and many other key political figures.
Many have said that America’s political landscape would have been much different if not for Sheldon’s efforts. He stood out against the moderate nature of the pro-family establishment. Even now, whatever “guts” this movement has can be credited to him.

His early life

Louis Philip Sheldon was born in Washington, DC in 1934. He was a track and football standout at Roosevelt High School, where he ran the 100 yard dash in 10.0 seconds – one of the fastest schoolboys on the East Coast.
He met his wife, Beverly, at Michigan State University where he went on a football scholarship. But when he saw that only about 15% of the team graduated, he quit the team to concentrate on his studies and took various jobs to support himself. He graduated in 1957 with a degree in history. He then studied at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey, where he graduated in 1960. At the seminary, he led the fight against the growing liberal faction which he called the ”Princeton cemetery” during his graduation speech.
After graduation, he pastored in two churches in North Dakota. In 1965 he moved to Milford, Delaware, where he pastored the largest church in town. When he got there, the public schools were racially segregated. He was instrumental in forcing integration of the town’s schools – against the wishes of many political leaders.

Beginning activism

In 1969 Sheldon moved to Orange County, California. He pastored a local church and became an incredible statewide organizer, coordinating pro-family political advocacy by hundreds of California churches. They fought California’s repeal of the anti-sodomy laws and other early pro-LGBT legislation. It was permitted in the 1970s for anybody to go on the floor of the State Legislature and speak, and Rev. Sheldon spent much time in the state capital, Sacramento, making the pro-family voice heard. And he traveled the country extensively to spread the word.

Bible studies with Jimmy Carter

During Jimmy Carter’s 1976 Presidential campaign, Rev. Sheldon was introduced to Carter on several occasions. They quickly became close friends, and the two of them would have regular Bible studies over the phone. Carter told Sheldon that he would appoint pro-life Christians to a list of key administration positions (a list known as the “Plum Book”). But as the election drew near, Carter called him and reneged on that promise – likely under pressure from liberals in the party (led by Walter Mondale). As a result, Sheldon withdrew all support for Carter and voted for Gerald Ford.

Helping start Regent University

In 1976, when Pat Robertson was starting CBN University (later renamed Regent University), his first hire was Sheldon as its Provost. In that role, he hired all the initial staff, built up the library, and prepared it for accreditation. The following year when that work was largely done, he returned to California.

Traditional Values Coalition

In 1980, following Ronald Regan’s election as President, Rev. Sheldon formed Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), based in Anaheim, CA. It quickly became a major national pro-family force, largely due to Sheldon’s communication skills. He put out regular newsletters, faxes, and personal letters, and he visited large numbers of churches around the country. At its height, TVC was affiliated with over 43,000 churches across America. This became a huge lobbying force for TVC and the pro-family movement.
Within a few years, TVC established a second headquarters in Washington, DC. The organization purchased an historic townhouse two blocks from the US Capitol for its offices. Rev. Sheldon’s daughter, Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, was also a formidable pro-family lobbying force. The two of them were a regular sight in Senate and Congressional offices. Sheldon also visited the White House for meetings approximately 70 times over the years, and often met with the President.
ALT TEXT The logo at the top of TVC's website - it was a go-to place for information and activism.
Rev. Sheldon and Andrea were skilled at leveraging their huge base of supporters when necessary. According to reports, much legislation in Congress went the “right” way because key Congressmen were threatened with primary opponents if they voted anti-family. This is rarely, if ever, done by pro-family groups today. But it worked. They defeated early versions of ENDA, a sweeping national pro-LGBT anti-discrimination bill. Homosexual leaders often complained that their legislative agenda would have been accomplished much sooner if not for Rev. Sheldon.
William Bennett, Reagan’s Secretary of Education, described Rev. Sheldon’s undiminished vitality to the New York Times: "He's here, he's there, he's everywhere," Bennett said. "He usually likes to operate where the odds are against him."
John Ashcroft, former US Attorney General laid it out this way, “A strong voice of the traditional values that have been the foundation of America’s greatness is essential if we are to have good government policy. We need to have these values expressed and no organization does that better in Congress than Traditional Values Coalition.”
TVC’s headquarters near the Capitol also had another useful purpose. It was illegal for members of Congress to do political strategizing in their government offices. So many of them, including Newt Gingrich, would walk over with their staffs to hold strategy meetings in the TVC conference rooms.

Powerful video and book

In 1989, Sheldon and TVC produced a powerful video titled “Gay Rights / Special Rights” showing in detail the dangers of the homosexual movement, and warning America. Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, William Bennett, Ralph Reed, and former US Attorney General Edwin Meese were featured in the video. It captured the interest of much of the country, and was duly attacked by the mainstream media.
But Sheldon continued to hold his ground. He told the New York Times that Speaker Gingrich did not "want kindergarten children or elementary school children being taught, where Federal dollars are involved, that the homosexual life style is just another kind of diversity."
2005, Rev. Sheldon published his landmark book, The Agenda – The Homosexual Plan to Change America. It is still considered among the best descriptions and analyses of the homosexual movement, its makeup, its strategies, its public health dangers, and its goals for society.
ALT TEXT This book should be in every serious pro-family activists bookshelf!

The Massachusetts “gay marriage” battle – meeting with MassResistance

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made Massachusetts the first place to force “gay marriage” on the population. TVC did an extensive report on the ruling and its implications. He began working with members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee to craft a federal marriage amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Over the next few years, as there were some attempts to pass a state constitutional amendment to overturn the “gay marriage” ruling, Rev. Sheldon made several trips to Massachusetts. He would often stop and visit the MassResistance office. We got to know him quite well. He was really an amazing, insightful person, and we are blessed to have known him.
Starting in around 2010, Sheldon turned over much of the TVC operation to Andrea and her husband James Lafferty, a seasoned Washington pro-family figure who had worked in the Reagan administration as well as for Newt Gingrich and other top legislators. (MassResistance has also worked closely with him on various projects.) 

He was one of a kind

Rev. Lou Sheldon was a pioneer and a pro-family giant. He was there when the “Religious Right” opened its doors. He was always on the front lines, and never part of the pro-family establishment.
ALT TEXT Rev. Sheldon was relatively soft-spoken - but would take on anybody, and usually came out on top!
He was not at all intimidated by LGBT activists or their hard-left allies. And he was unafraid to fight back whenever necessary. Once, the famous liberal New York Daily News columnist Jimmy Breslin simply made up a nasty quote from him and published it in the paper. Sheldon was relentless in confronting the publishers. Finally, they issued a retraction and an apology.
Unlike so many today, he was personally invested in this movement. It wasn’t just a business – as it seems to have become today for the big groups that don’t accomplish much. And he naturally understood retail politics and grassroots organizing, skills largely lacking in today’s pro-family establishment. He was a huge inspiration to MassResistance.
A few months before he died, a former Governor of California visited him and said, “Lou, I want to apologize to you. You were right and I was wrong. It is that bad.”
Rev. Lou Sheldon is survived by his wife, Beverly, four children, and eleven grandchildren. We will all miss him.
Facebook Twitter Email Print
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!
Our successes depend on people like you.
Your support will make the difference!

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Torrance Police Chief Eve Berg Enables Black Lives Matter Lawlessness, Must Resign NOW!

On June 23, 2020, a neighbor in the city of Torrance called me.

He lives near the Torrance City Hall, and he was telling me that a large group of Black Lives Matter protesters were walking down the street, and they were stationing themselves outside of city hall.

Black Lives Matter has been harassing the Torrance City Council and the residents in and around the city for the last year and a half, since Christopher De'Andre Mitchell was shot by Torrance police officers for refusing to follow orders, after he was caught in a stolen vehicle with an air rifle at his feet.

For a year and a half, BLM protesters have been showing up, barraging the city council with demands for a civilian oversight commission, for lots of money, and for the two police officers who shot Mitchell to be fired.

The LA County District Attorney declined to prosecute the two police officers, and no one should be surprised. The police officer took the measures that he took because Mitchell looked as though he was going to reach for the firearm at his feet. It was a very tense situation in the video.

A year and a half of this abuse.

Last year, BLM protesters took over the city council chambers a number of times. On May 7th, 2019, they stood in the center of the chambers holding hands. They announced empty slogans like "We have the right to fight for freedom!'

Freedom for themselves? Freedom for whom? Definitely not for the residents of the city of Torrance. Definitely not for the stakeholders. Then came May 14th, 2019. I tried to speak at the podium, speaking on behalf of the Torrance police officers and detectives who went to every length to find the murderer of the four black lives who were gunned down in the Gable House Bowl two weeks prior. Instead of respecting those black lives, the BLM haters shouted me down and forced the mayor to recess the meeting and clear the room.

That time, the police officers took out their batons and forced the BLM protesters in the city council chambers to leave. Four of them were arrested, and then a fifth one, Evan "Fake Priest" Bunch was also arrested, since he assaulted me, damaged my property, and threatened my life.

Fast forward to this year, fast forward to June 23. 2020.

Black Lives Matter protesters met at a local park. They walked together in a large group blocking traffic on the different streets. They walked up to Crenshaw Blvd. and then walked along Torrance Blvd until they got in front of Torrance City Hall.

Instead of protesting peacefully on the sidewalk, however, the BLM mob took up the street. Yes, they stood in the street and blocked traffic. Instead of removing the protesters or having them arrested for trespassing and blocking traffic, the police officers blocked off Torrance Blvd. between Maple Ave and Madrona Ave.

What is this madness?! This is total lawlessness. They have a right to protest, but they do not have a right to take up the street and block traffic. If they wanted to stage a parade, then they needed to obtain a permit, which apparently they had not done.

I contacted the Torrance Chief of Police, Eve Berg.

Here's the first email that I sent to her and to the Torrance City Council:

Dear Torrance City Council, Mayor Furey, Police Chief Berg, and City Manager Jackson:

I understand that Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters lined up and demonstrated in front of City Hall last night, June 23, 2020.

I have also learned from a number of residents who live across the street from the Torrance City Hall that the BLM protesters not only arrived in front of city hall to protest (which is their First Amendment right), but that they walked from one of the local parks, up Crenshaw Blvd in the streets, and then stopped in front of City Hall -- BLOCKING TRAFFIC in the process.

I understand furthermore that the police department was ordered to block traffic from entering eastbound and westbound on the street between Madrona and Maple Ave, in order to enable the protesters to stand in the street.

They do not have a right to do that. That is not peaceable assembly at all. Such actions violate the rights of every individual who wanted to travel on Torrance Blvd. Such actions are not protected as part of the First Amendment.

This is an appalling abuse which these protesters engaged in, and a complete dereliction of duty from the city leadership to permit this to take place.

Whose decision was it to permit the BLM protesters to stand in the street and block traffic in front of city hall?
Whose decision was it to order the police department to block traffic on Torrance Blvd from Madrona Ave to Maple Ave last night?
Why are our police officers not permitted to arrest disruptive elements in the midst of these protests?

I demand answers, accountable, and action to correct this lack of authority. We cannot allow these individuals to break the law in the name of social protest.


Arthur Christopher Schaper

I then sent the Chief of Police a specific letter:

Dear Chief Berg:

I would like to meet with you regarding the ongoing BLM protests and disruptions that have become a near-constant nuisance.

I did not receive a response from you regarding the email that I sent to you last night.

I am more troubled about the current response from city leadership, and I am interested in knowing what steps the police department is taking to ensure that First Amendment rights AND freedom of travel and movement are respected.

Please contact me. My cell is -----------------.

If you are not available, I have no qualms about speaking with the next available representative or officer who can speak on your behalf.

She eventually responded to my second email:

Good Morning Mr. Schaper,

Thank you for your email.

In complying with COVI19, I am unable to meet with you in person at this time.  Therefore, I will address your concerns in this email.

In regard to your previous email, I want to ensure you that I made all of the operational deployment decisions based on the conditions and circumstances that were presented during the dynamic and fluid situation on the night of June 23, 2020.  No one from council ordered the officers to block traffic or whether or not to arrest anyone. As the Police Chief, and in conjunction with the Incident Commander’s updated briefings, I monitored the entire incident and made decisions accordingly.

The police department is acutely mindful of First Amendment rights and consistently takes steps to ensure that those rights are adhered to as well as respected.

I hope this email has successfully addressed your inquiry.  If you should have any further questions or need more clarification, please don’t hesitate to call me.


Eve R. Berg
Chief of Police - Torrance Police Department

For the longest time, I had believed that it was Mayor Furey who was directing the chief of police and the police officers to stand down, to let the BLM brats get away with disrupting the meetings in the city council chambers.

Then I received a phone call from the Chief of Police. She had called me this past Monday, but I missed the call. I called her back earlier today, then she called me. At least we did not have to play phone tag this time.

She told me that yes indeed the BLM protesters blocked Torrance Blvd.

She made the call to let them block the street, and thus to close the street to traffic for everyone else between Maple and Madrona Avenues.

She acknowledged that "the buck stopped with her" when it came to the operational decisions and actions taken by the police.

I was unsparing in my criticism of the Chief of Police. I hammered home to her a number of times: "That was not acceptable!"

The chief of police actually claimed that Trump rallies had included people who were standing in the street and blocking traffic. That it a total lie. I have been to at least three rallies in the city of Torrance in the last three weeks, and not once did anyone block traffic.

There is no comparison to the peaceful rallies which residents of the city have engaged in, compared to what Black Lives Matter has been doing in the city of Torrance for the last year and a half.

The chief then insisted that it was her job to serve and protect the community, and to make sure that no one was hurt.

That is a nonsense argument. Lawlessness and willful disregard for the rights of others is creating more lawlessness, undermines the rights of others to attend city council meetings, to speak out on issues, to have their concerns heard. The BLM movement has shut down the city council meetings a number of times, depriving other individuals of the opportunity to attend the meetings and be heard, as well.

I asked her point black: "Are you saying it's OK for someone to rob my house, as long as I am not in the house, and therefore would face no risk of getting hurt?!"

She pushed aside my argument, pointing out that there is a difference between blocking traffic and stealing from someone's home. Granted, but the notion that the police should not get involved in stopping crime or disruptions or violations of other people's rights just because someone isn't "harmed" is quite a disingenuous argument.

I also pressed the chief of police about CCWs. She is responsible for deciding who gets a CCW, and she stated that the individuals cannot have a felony on their record, they have to undergo a background check, and they have to show good cause. That last part is particularly unconstitutional. There is no better cause than self-defense, not just from criminals and potential threats but an overreaching government.

I was astounded how she justified allowing the BLM protesters to break the law, to disrupt traffic, to violate the rights of others. She refused to give any full justification for the reason for allowing the disruptions, but simply stated that the conditions and circumstances warranted allowing BLM to block the street in front of city hall.

The truth is this: bad behavior simply breeds more bad behavior. Allowing these miscreants to disrupt the rule of law, to undermine the rights of others, to violate the clear strictures of the First Amendment -- all of this is simply unacceptable.

I asked the chief of police one last question: "When are you submitting your resignation?"

It's time to demand Eve Berg, the Chief of Police, to stand down. She refuses to do her job. She has refused to uphold the rule of law and to defend the rights of the residents, the citizens in the city. She is allowing BLM protesters to get away with all kinds of lawlessness, both within the city council chambers as well as without. There is no excuse for this dereliction of duty!

Contact the Torrance City Council, the City Manager. Tell them to remove Chief of Police Eve Berg.

Demand that they start upholding the rule of law and bring regular order back to the city council chambers and the city as a whole.

Torrance City Council Contacts

Pat Furey (;
George Chen (;
Tim Goodrich (;
Aurelio Mattucci (;
Sharon Kalani (
Mike Griffiths (;
Heidi Ashcraft (;

City Manager Leroy Jackson (;

City Council Phone:   (310) 618-2801

Torrance Chief of Police Phone: (310) 618-5705

Chief of Police Eve Berg (

Friday, June 26, 2020

CA MassResistance Derails Pro-LGBT Pedophile Bill SB 145

MassResistance derails horrible bill in California Legislature that would allow homosexual adults to sexually prey on children without registering as sex offenders

Part of LGBT movement’s larger goals: Repealing age of sexual consent laws.

Other pro-family groups seemed afraid to take this on.

June 21, 2020
ALT TEXT California State Assemblyman Al Maratsuchi (left) gets the message loud and clear from California MassResistance at his "town hall" event in his district.
A huge nightmare for parents is that their young teenage boys might be lured into homosexuality by “gay” older youth and adult males whom they might encounter. We have seen this first hand from anguished parents who have come to us over the years with their stories. The “chicken hawk” – a homosexual man who seduces boys – is part of the homosexual vocabulary. As far back as 1972, the homosexual movement called for the repeal of age of [sexual] consent laws.

Homosexual adults mingling with children

Unfortunately, it’s no longer in the shadows. State sanctioned events that allow adult homosexuals to mingle with teenagers (and younger children) has become a disturbing trend.
Public schools routinely steer young teenage boys (and girls) who are “unsure of their sexuality” to gay-straight alliance“clubs, annual LGBT youth dances, and so-called “Youth Pride” events that all have hideous homosexual men involved (often as official chaperones). The results are often tragic.
ALT TEXT An all too common sight at a "Youth Pride" event in Boston. [MassResistance photo]
Merging underage youth with adults has now even become an official part of the annual adult “Gay Pride” events in many cities. For example, last year:
LA Pride and the Los Angeles LGBT Center are once again hosting the FREE Youth Pride Dance for folks 24 and younger to kick-off LA Pride Weekend 2019! This circus-themed party will include food, drinks (non-alcoholic), giveaways, and so much more!

Frightening attempt to change the law in California

The LGBT movement in California is now attempting to push the envelope even further. This session, openly “gay” State Sen. Scott Wiener introduced a frightening bill, SB 145, in the Legislature.
Currently in California, if an adult (age 18 or over) has heterosexual relations with a teenager (age 14-17) and the age difference between them is less than 10 years, then the adult is not required to be a registered sex offender. But if the adult has homosexual relations with a teenager, then he is required to be registered as a sex offender. This rightfully recognizes the depraved and destructive character of homosexual sex (both physical and mental) and how it affects a child much more profoundly.
This disparity has long angered the homosexual movement, which has always been obsessed with getting access to young teenagers – and with being seen as normal.
SB 145 would eliminate that distinction for homosexual sex. Thus, adult homosexuals could prey on young teenagers sexually – as happens so much – and not be considered sex offenders. Many people have called it the “Sex Offender Freedom” Act.
Wiener represents one of the most LGBT districts in the country: the entire city and county of San Francisco, CA. He is one of the most vocal members of California’s LGBT Legislative Caucus and aggressively pushes “groundbreaking” LGBT legislation.
ALT TEXT Openly “gay” State Senator Scott Wiener (left) and “friend” at a recent San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.

The bill started out very strong …

Wiener introduced SB 145 in January 2019, at the beginning of the current two-year legislative session. It began in the State Senate, one of the most pro-LGBT in the country. The bill quickly gained momentum.

… And MassResistance jumped into the battle

This is another one of those situations where various pro-family groups raised the alarm and complained – but MassResistance was actually on the ground with people taking direct, confrontational action. And it paid off.
To start, California MassResistance began a full-court press on Sen. Wiener’s office with letters, emails, phone calls, etc., from across the state to urge him to stop the bill. The California MassResistance team in his district even attended Sen Wiener’s town hall event in San Francisco to personally communicate to him their outrage.
But early on, California MassResistance could see that the best strategy was not to focus on the Senate, but to begin pressuring the State Assembly (similar to the House of Representatives in other states). In March, April, and May 2019, California MassResistance activists throughout the state targeted key Assembly Members in their districts. They even showed up at the Assembly Speaker’s town hall event in his district.
ALT TEXT California MassResistance activists at town hall event in Gardenia, CA.
ALT TEXT Activist about to enter Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez' local town hall event.
ALT TEXT At town hall event for Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva in Orange County.
For most of those Assembly members, it is rare that pro-family conservatives in California actually show up and demonstrate their fierce opposition to a bill. The legislators are not used to it at all. It clearly had a pretty big effect.
As expected, SB 145 sailed through three Senate committees. On May 28, 2019 it passed the full Senate 25-3.
From there, SB 145 went to the State Assembly. California MassResistance stepped up the pressure even more, and things quickly started to slow down for SB 145.
ALT TEXT At an outdoor legislative town hall event.
ALT TEXT We also distributed information sheets about SB 145 to people who came to these events.
On July 10, it was approved by the Assembly’s Public Service Committee and was sent to the Appropriations Committee, where it basically ground to a halt. There was a committee hearing set for August 30, 2019 that was postponed. Nothing further has happened with it.
Right now, during the continued COVID-19 situation, the California Legislature is moving at pretty much a snail’s pace. And constitutionally, the entire session must end for good on August 31, 2020.
It’s looking now like SB 145 likely won’t be passed. But MassResistance is continuing to pressure the Appropriations Committee – and the rest of the Assembly – not to let adult homosexuals prey on children. We have a feeling they’re getting pretty tired of us. And we like it that way!
But make no mistake – without strong pro-family pressure, this bill would probably have been passed and signed into law last year. MassResistance will continue to be vigilant and on the ground ready for action!
Facebook Twitter Email Print
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!
Our successes depend on people like you.
Your support will make the difference!

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Polish President Calls LBGT What It Is: Soviet Indoctrination

The people of Eastern Europe experienced communism and repressive tyranny for decades. World War II may have ended well for the United States, but the nations of Eastern Europe had to continue fighting. After getting rid of the Nazis, they had to push back against the Soviet genocidal bigots of the Eastern Front.

It was decades of undeground fighting and vicious guerrilla warfare against communistic tyranny, the residents of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and elsewhere in the region are more than happy to take a stand against any form of Marxist evil.

And nothing portrays this evil more than the LGBT Agenda, which is barricading its way throughout Western Europe and the Western World. This is very serious. They understand the clear and present danger posted by this hateful, sex-fueled ideology.

So much so, that the incumbent for President of Poland is speaking out forcefully against the ideology, comparing it to Soviet Indoctrination:

President Andrzej Duda

BRZEG, Poland (Reuters) - Poland’s president compared LGBT “ideology” to communist doctrine in a campaign speech on Saturday, as LGBT rights become a hotly debated issue ahead of a June 28 presidential election in the staunchly Catholic country. President Andrzej Duda is an ally of the ruling nationalist Law and Justice Party (PiS), which dismisses the promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights as a foreign influence undermining Poland’s traditional values.

LGBT perversions are very much foreign influence. They are foreign to the human species, in that such behaviors undermine the public, community health concerns, and the legacy of all countries.

Indeed, no country should give an inch on these perverse behaviors. None.

On Wednesday, Duda introduced a “Family Card” of election proposals, including a vow to not allow gay couples to marry or adopt children and to ban teaching about LGBT issues in schools. “My parents’ generation for forty years fought to eliminate communist ideology from schools, so it couldn’t be forced on children. So youth, children, soldiers and youth organizations couldn’t be indoctrinated,” Duda told a rally in the southwestern town of Brzeg.

It is essential to point out that open marriages, false marriages are all extensions of communism, of cultural Marxism without any hint of doubt. There should be no promotion of such perversity. None.

“They didn’t fight for this so that a new ideology would appear that is even more destructive.”

Opposition candidates and LGBT rights groups condemned Duda’s speech.

Tough! They should all be ashamed of themselves for promoting such evil amongst the Polish people. President Duda shows considerable, commensurate respect and right for taking a stand against all that anti-family nonsense.

Love Does Not Exclude, a Polish rights group, told Reuters Duda’s proposals were similar to the Russian government’s decision to ban “homosexual propaganda”. The Left’s presidential candidate, Robert Biedron, the first Polish politician to openly identify as gay, called on Duda to “be done with this hatred” in a tweet posted after the speech.

Love does exclude. When a man and a woman say "I do" to each other, they say "I don't" to everyone else. Love means doing what is best for others, not giving people what they want all the time, every time. Good parents who raise godly children will not let them do whatever they want, nor allow them to hang out with people who would harm them. Indeed, love DOES exclude.

Poland is a former satellite state of the Soviet Union and was the first country to shed communism in the region in 1989. This year the country was voted the worst in the European Union for LGBT rights in a poll by Brussels-based NGO ILGAEurope.

God bless the nation of Poland. No country should roll out protections or promotions of LGBT perversions. No country. We need more countries to take the lead on fighting this perverse evil, outlawing those behaviors if necessary.

Gorsuch v. Gorsuch

Gorsuch vs. Gorsuch - An alien legal being seems to have captured the Justice.
By The Editorial Board    June 16, 2020 7:38 pm  

An alien appears to have occupied the body of Justice Neil Gorsuch as he wrote Monday’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, which sometimes happens when Justices breathe the rarified air of the Supreme Court building. But perhaps he’ll snap out of his living Constitution trance if he’s shown his own previous work.

In Bostock, Justice Gorsuch updated the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity. But in 2018 in Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. U.S., the Justice decried this approach to judging:

“Written laws are meant to be understood and lived by. If a fog of uncertainty surrounded them, if their meaning could shift with the latest judicial whim, the point of reducing them to writing would be lost. That is why it’s a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction’ that words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.’”

And don’t forget New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira in 2019 where he quoted himself: “‘[I]t’s a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction’ that words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking their ordinary . . . meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.’” He added: “After all, if judges could freely invest old statutory terms with new meanings, we would risk amending legislation outside the ‘single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure’ the Constitution commands.”

Yes we would, and nicely put. So what happened in Bostock?

One answer, we suppose, is that the other cases were obscure while Bostock was politically charged. But it’s in these high-profile cases that a Justice makes his reputation for standing on legal principle—or not. We still prefer the alien explanation, and we’re available for a legal exorcism upon request.

MassResistance Exposes Sham SCOTUS Ruling, Renews Call for MassResistance!

Analysis: The US Supreme Court ruling on Bostock v Clayton County: What you need to know about it – and what we must do now.

Bizarre ruling changes legal meaning of "sex" in Civil Rights law to include LGBT behaviors. Far-reaching effects beyond just employment.

Yes: We need to start actually resisting. This ruling is not law.

June 17, 2020
ALT TEXT These men came to the Massachusetts State House in 2009 to lobby for a bill that would have forced all businesses to allow active "transgender" employees. Now the US Supreme Court says they can become "waitresses" at your local restaurant or kindergarten teachers at your children's school. [MassResistance photos]
“To restate what was once self-evident to everyone, including most homosexuals themselves: men using one another as women constitutes a perversion. To my unreconstructed mind, this is as true as ever; and so far as I am concerned, it would still be true even if gay sex no longer entailed the danger of infection and even if everything about it were legalized by all 50 states and ratified by all nine Justices of the Supreme Court.”
- Norman Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine, November 1996
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex, among other things. Yesterday, in Bostock v Clayton County the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that “sex” also includes homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) and transgenderism (“gender identity”). Thus, all companies must now allow openly homosexual or transgender employees – and can be sued for “discrimination” if the employees don’t receive the treatment they claim is their right. There are no “religious exemptions.”

What does this mean to citizens?

This ruling will create a storm of employment lawsuits. But make no mistake: It will soon go far beyond employment. The absurd legal redefinition of the word “sex” to include LGBT behaviors by the US Supreme Court will soon be used to legally force that horrific agenda into every realm of society (including, of course, transgender athletics, and restrooms).

Ruling took everyone by surprise

This ruling took virtually everyone by surprise. The case seemed like an easy decision about what “sex” means. No one seriously thought the US Supreme Court would go this far. It was similar to the 2003 “gay marriage” ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – which even the “gays” didn’t expect.
Moreover, on three occasions since 2007, Congress has considered adding “sexual orientation” to federal non-discrimination laws. But no bill has passed both houses. So instead, the Supreme Court, in true activist fashion, has decided to ignore the separation of powers and act on its own.

How did our legal system get to this point?

If we honestly look at this ruling from its logical beginning, it shouldn’t be too surprising that we’ve reached this point. This is only the latest phase in the left-leaning government officials’ re-shaping the Constitution for their own social-justice ends.
Let’s start with the 1964 Civil Rights Actwhich is the focus of this ruling. Though well intentioned, it was clearly unconstitutional, as various prominent members of Congress explained at the time. For example, Senator Barry Goldwater was sympathetic to the aim of the bill. He was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and helped integrate the Phoenix public schools and the Arizona National Guard. But he voted against it.
Goldwater (and others) insisted that according to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no legal right to interfere with whom people hired or fired or to whom they sold their products. That “power” lay with the states, and with the people. From a constitutional standpoint he was correct. But the emotional momentum of the time was in the other direction.
ALT TEXT Senator Barry Goldwater (right) appeared with William F. Buckley on Buckley's show "Firing Line" to explain why he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Originally, the word “sex” was not even in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was added to the bill near the end of debate as a “poison pill” by Southern Dixie Democrats. They hoped that including “discrimination based on sex” would make the bill offensive to most legislators and get it killed. But that didn’t work and it passed anyway. And the Civil Rights Act has opened the door to Congress passing into law whatever other nationwide social agendas it wants, generally ignoring any constitutional restraints in the process.
(Later, Phyllis Schlafly rightly fought against the “Equal Rights Amendment” because she understood how the word “sex” could be twisted in the future. We now see how prescient she was.)
Moreover, in 1964, homosexuality and transgenderism were deemed mental illnesses by every medical organization in the world (as they had been since at least the founding of our Republic). Those standards were not changed through any scientific inquiry, but through brutal campaigns of threats and intimidation starting in 1973 against medical authorities. 
Furthermore, the world’s major religions consider homosexuality and transgenderism as out of moral bounds (as the Bible says, “abominations”). All of America's founders were religious and understood that a Republic could only last if its citizens were God-fearing. (Unfortunately, on the US Supreme Court, only Justices Alito and Thomas appear to be now.)

The Supreme Court's judicial activism

This week’s bizarre US Supreme Court ruling didn’t happen in a vacuum.
The Court was never meant to be a powerful unelected body that creates and shapes laws for the country through its rulings. It was meant to be the least powerful branch that adjudicated between disputing parties. But over the years Americans have allowed it to usurp enormous power (without fighting back) – and we are living with the consequences. The Justices are now ruling without restraints.
Recent prominent examples of this judicial overreach are:
  • Roe v Wade (1973) ruled that there was a constitutional right to abortion.
  • Lawrence v Texas (2003) declared that sodomy laws across America were unconstitutional.
  • Obergefell v Hodges (2015) declared that state marriage laws and even state constitutional amendments that defined marriage as one man and one woman were violations of the US Constitution.
All of these rulings arrogantly pushed a leftist social agenda by distorting the Constitution to a point where it became unrecognizable.

The milquetoast conservative movement

For decades, the mainstream conservative movement has meekly allowed the political and legal establishment to frame “culture war” issues in their own distorted ways. In fact, the conservatives usually participate in it and become part of the problem.
For example, we all recognize that there are males and females, blacks and whites. But in truth, there is no such thing as “gay Americans” or “transgender Americans.” There are Americans with homosexual problems, and Americans with gender-identity psychological dysfunctions. But those “orientations” or “identities” are political inventions of the LGBT movement. However, our side rarely challenges these radical concepts, but instead goes along with the charade. So the legal and political system has an easier time going forward with it.
And it appears that none of the “conservative” lawyers in this case brought up the obvious glaring Constitutional problems with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and similar legislation. Why not? Conceding that gave up a huge part of the case.

Trump’s so-called “conservative” judges

Was the 2016 election the beginning of the era of a sane US Supreme Court? We all hoped it would be.
But President Trump’s “conservative” Supreme Court judges have been a big disappointment, to say the least.  They were, of course, recommended to him by prominent conservative groups such as the Federalist Society, which is as mushy as mud on pro-family culture-war issues.
Justice Neil Gorsuch not only voted for this ruling; he wrote the majority opinion. Recall that Gorsuch was touted as a conservative Constitutional “originalist” – one who pays close attention to the original intent. Well, not so much. If you read his majority opinion in this ruling, you will see pages and pages of utter nonsense as he vainly tries to weave a convincing legal argument out of illogical mush. It’s not even worthy of a serious analysis.
Of course, Gorsuch actually comes by his prevaricating ways honestly. As many of us observed when he was nominated, he was a member of a far-left pro-LGBT Episcopal church whose female pastor officiated “gay” marriages, according to press reports. (We wonder how Gorsuch will handle it if his daughters have disturbing encounters with "transgender" boys in their locker rooms.)
We were also betrayed by Chief Justice Roberts who voted for the ruling.
And then there’s Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Even though Kavanaugh voted the right way on this, he wrote his own dissent that concluded with this frightening tripe:
Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the [ruling].
In other words, Kavanaugh fully believes that the false concept of “gay” and “transgender” identities should ultimately be part of our laws. We can see what’s coming down the road in future rulings. And he’s one of the “conservatives.”
The other two voting against the ruling were Alito and Thomas.

Where do we go from here?

As columnist Daniel Horowitz observed today, “The ‘conservative’ legal movement, which has promoted the idea of ‘appointing better judges’ rather than fighting the entire concept of judicial supremacism, has failed miserably. This was its Waterloo.”
It’s time to adopt a completely different response to this crisis. The long string of abuses perpetrated by the Supreme Court – on prayer in the schools, abortion, sodomy laws, “gay marriage,” and now this – must be defied by citizens, their local governments, and by the states.
We must stop agreeing with far too many so-called “conservatives” who insist that Supreme Court rulings constitute “the law of the land.” There is nothing in the Constitution that remotely indicates that. The courts give opinions and rule in specific cases between disputing parties. Only Congress creates the law of the land.
We must constantly confront all judges at all levels who ignore the laws and Constitution, and simply concoct rulings to please their personal “social justice” yearnings. Impeachment, a constitutional remedy, should become part of the solution.
We must confront, in whatever matter we can, unconstitutional laws. The US Constitution was meant to work through every person – each legislator, judge, and citizen – following the laws and Constitution on his own. It was not meant that legislators would pass whatever they wanted, and then leave it up to the courts to decide what was actually constitutional.
Should bad laws and US Supreme Court “rulings” that are clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional be blindly followed? Maybe not.
Here’s the sort of defiance that there must be more of:
We’ve often said that Judge Roy Moore is the greatest pro-family figure since Phyllis Schlafly. After the ridiculous Obergefell ruling, Judge Moore (as Alabama’s Chief Justice) ordered the state’s probate judges to obey the state Constitution and refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. He had earlier placed a Ten Commandments monument in his court building, despite phony “separation of church and state” orders by another court.
Because of that, Judge Moore was hated by the Republican establishment, who stood by and watched as he was hideously vilified by the Left when he recently ran for US Senate in Alabama. He would have been their worst nightmare as a US Senator, boldly standing up for the truth in that political cesspool.
Don’t despair. Don’t give up. Begin fighting back.
In our daily lives, as much as possible, we all need to say NO and do what is right – and confront our officials and judges to do what is right. That is the direction MassResistance is taking – especially regarding this latest ruling. We will be discussing more of this in upcoming articles. If enough people get involved, amazing things can happen!
Facebook Twitter Email Print
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!
Our successes depend on people like you.
Your support will make the difference!