ICYMI: How Pro-Family Activists Defeated Gay Marriage Movement in North Carolina (2012)

Lessons from the defeat of "gay marriage" in North Carolina

POSTED: May 15, 2012

The stunning 61-39 percent victory for real marriage in North Carolina -- making it the 32nd state to ban "gay marriage" at the polls -- sent a clear message: Every time Americans vote on "gay marriage" it gets defeated. (Thirty-one states have voted for constitutional amendments on marriage. One state, Maine, voted to reverse a "gay marriage" law passed by their legislature.)

This major NC pro-family website (like many others) also linked to MassResistance's pamphlet "What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts."  Many activists have thanked us for that!

The polls had shown strong support for the amendment. But because Barack Obama won North Carolina in 2008, and the Democrats felt so confident that they scheduled this summer's national convention in Charlotte, the homosexual movement was emboldened to launch an enormous campaign to defeat it. They also got a boost from squishy RINOs who opposed the amendment because of its principled wording.

New strategy of dishonesty by homosexual groups against amendment

The pro-homosexual groups raised nearly 70% more money -- a million dollars -- than the pro-family groups. The mainstream news media was uniformly and aggressively against the amendment. And celebrities like Bill Clinton were doing robo-calls to defeat the measure.

The homosexual lobby took a different approach in North Carolina than we've seen before. Usually they talk tirelessly about "loving gay families," "civil rights," "equal protection," and the like. But this time they took a "scorched earth" approach against the amendment itself by inventing a flood of horrific but patently false reasons why the amendment would be destructive for families in general. They said it will cause suicides by "gay" children, women would be discriminated against, domestic violence victims and senior citizens would be hurt, etc. And they portrayed their side as "pro-family" -- that they were protecting families from a destructive bill.

Deceitful, dishonest TV commercial against Marriage Amendment

Homosexual lobby's "pro-family" website against Marriage Amendment

In fact, none of the things they were warning about have happened in any of the states that passed nearly identical marriage amendments.

It was an extremely devious and deceptive strategy, and they went all out pushing it with media advertising saturating the entire state. Even for a largely religious state like North Carolina it was a daunting onslaught.

Images like this went all over the state.

Squishy pro-gay "conservatives" opposed the strong NC amendment

The wording of the Marriage Amendment is unequivocally "one man and one woman" and does not compromise for political correctness. The amendment bans civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar phony "marriage" constructs. Here's the wording they voted on:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

As we've seen across the country, squishy pro-gay RINO "conservatives" insist on marriage-like "rights" for homosexuals and actually opposed this amendment.

For example, two nationally prominent "pro-traditional marriage" spokesmen David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt published an article againstthe amendment in the Raleigh newspaper. Posing as conservatives, they said,

"We are native southerners and we oppose legalizing same-sex marriage. . . But as marriage advocates, we oppose the state marriage amendment now being debated in North Carolina. We hope that when North Carolinians go to the polls on May 8 they will defeat this measure. The proposed amendment states that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." That's a big mouthful, and it goes well beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.

"For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing."

Read entire article HERE

In other words, they are saying that it's fine for the state to force citizens to legally recognize homosexuality and homosexual relationships as legitimate. They just want to protect the word "marriage."

In addition, they'll often claim (without statistical justification) that a "strong" amendment is much harder to pass than a "soft" amendment which allows marriage-like "rights."

Mitt Romney declined to endorse the North Carolina Marriage Amendment, though he didn't give a reason. The media never pressed him on the issue. However, he refused to endorse a nearly identical "strong" Massachusetts amendment in 2002 because, he told the press, it did not allow for homosexual domestic partnerships. In 2004-2005, Gov. Romney lobbied Republican state legislators for a proposed amendment which would have embedded "civil unions" identical to marriage in the state constitution! (That proposal was later voted down.) Then in 2005, Romney endorsed a "soft" marriage amendment in Massachusetts (VoteOnMarriage) which allowed domestic partnerships and civil unions, and would have allowed previous "gay marriages" to stand. (That proposal was also later defeated by the Legislature in 2007.)

Unfortunately, this kind of RINO rhetoric tends to demean conservatives who understand the destructive nature of homosexuality and its related behaviors, and diminish the marriage argument in general. For homosexual activists, civil unions are seen as a sometimes required stepping stone to full-fledged "gay marriage" recognition.

Pro-family grassroots energy not bottled up by political correctnes

Luckily, the pro-family movement put up a strong fight of its own. And it was an interesting dichotomy. Our friend Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, spent a month in North Carolina prior to the election working full time helping mobilize people. He shared some of his observations with us. An important factor was the makeup of the pro-family coalition on the ground. He said that there were two major factions on our side, both of which played important roles.

(1) The mainstream pro-family establishment raised money, gathered political endorsements, promoted the Marriage Amendment, and was generally the public face of the effort. But more important, they produced ads to counter the incredible stream of outrageous lies about the Marriage Amendment that the opposition flooded the airways with.

But like in so many other states, the North Carolina pro-family establishment did not want to talk about homosexuality or homosexual behavior -- only about the word "marriage" and platitudes like "every child needing a mother and father." They insisted on that strategy. But luckily they were completely unable to enforce it among the larger coalition of groups and churches.

(2) The heavy lifting on the ground was done by the churches, both black and white, which played an outstanding role in organizing, energizing, and mobilizing people across the state on this issue. They put an enormous amount of effort into making sure people understood how important this was, and got as many people to the polls as possible.

But in particular, the churches were directly and unapologetically willing to take on the issue of homosexual behavior. The churches refused to be constrained by any "approved talking points" which the mainstream groups tried to impose. The black churches, especially, had no interest in being "politically correct." This helped energize many, many people who might have otherwise not bothered to care about the issue or get involved. 

One black pastor who put in enormous energy (and with whom Peter LaBarbera worked with) is Pastor P.L. Wooden of Raleigh. Pastor Wooden went all over the state debating, evangelizing, and discussing the Marriage Amendment. He was uncompromising in his positions and his discussions of the destructive nature of homosexuality and what it brings to society. Pastor Wooden and very well received wherever he went. It was churchmen like him -- both black and white -- who really carried the day for this amendment. Their points really resonated with people, as opposed to the "sanitized" marriage talking points.

Pastor P.L. Wooden

Lessons to remember:

1. Be prepared for a "scorched earth" strategy by the homosexual lobby. Be ready for a flood of very emotional but extremely dishonest claims of how a ban on "gay marriage" or the legal codifying of homosexual relationships will ruin civilization as we know it -- as the homosexual lobby portrays itself as the true "pro-family" movement. 
2. Don't allow subversion by pro-gay "conservatives." There is a growing threat to the pro-family movement from so-called conservatives who support the concept of homosexual behavior being part of our legal system, and want to protect only the word "marriage". (Unfortunately, this includes presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney and much of the pro-family establishment across the country.)
3. It's ultimately about the behavior. "Telling it like it is" and not caving into political correctness are of paramount importance in these kinds of elections. Platitudes alone do not communicate effectively. "Gay marriage" is ultimately about homosexuality and the homosexual movement -- NOT the word "marriage".

This is a prelude to the other state state marriage battles coming up this fall!

Privacy, Morality, and Biology in Massachusetts: Stop Transgenderism in the Bay State

The Economist: A system of gender self-identification would put women at risk It would threaten single-sex spaces and female political autonomy, writes Kristina Harrison Dear Arthur --  In Case You Missed It... Kristina Harrison works for the National Health Service. She is a political campaigner and a post-operative transsexual (someone who has surgery and hormone treatment to be treated as if a member of the opposite sex). She argues that moving away from a diagnostic system of legal gender recognition to one of self-declaration would fail some vulnerable youngsters, undermine women’s sex-based protections and harm trans people themselves. Britain’s Conservative government, despite somewhat rowing back on earlier statements, proposes to press ahead with reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004, with support from the opposition Labour party and a mainstream transgender movement imbued with what many see as an intolerant, even fundamentalist gender ideology. This has crystallised a whole series of concerns, particularly from women and increasing numbers of transsexuals. The label “transgender”, and the terms “trans man” and “trans woman”, are more nebulous terms for any biologically female person who identifies as a man, and any male who identifies as a woman. This is a much broader category: an umbrella term including, as well as transsexuals, males who identify as women but wish to retain their male bodies, people who are “gender fluid” (identifying as women some days and men other days), and people who would previously have been known as cross-dressing men, some of whom fetishise women’s clothing and bodies. Perhaps you can begin to understand the concerns of many women when it is increasingly being asserted in practice, if not fully in law, that simply identifying as a woman means being able to access women’s and girls’ private, formerly single-sex, spaces—toilets, rape-crisis centres and so on. We worry about the nature, influence, methods and implications of the ideology at the heart of this transgender movement. We are also opposed to any proposal which would mean that a man is legally recognised as a woman if he makes a simple self-declaration that he is, and vice versa. That would enshrine a quite extreme gender ideology in law, and effectively amount to a comprehensive redefinition of what it is to be female, or male. These changes, after thousands of years of sex-based definitions, are happening with a minimum of political scrutiny. Public debate about them is deliberately impeded by a toxic and authoritarian atmosphere in which serious, repeated attempts have been made to silence and sideline dissenting voices, particularly those of women. This is despite huge implications for women and transsexuals, as well as for democratic politics and everyday cultural pressures. The allegation of transphobia is not only being made against those who are actually hateful towards trans people, but is now used for anyone who dares dissent from the claims of this ideology or who supports sex-based rights. Being labelled transphobic can lead to harassment, and harm one’s reputation and career. That fear greatly affects people’s willingness to speak out. It is surely no coincidence that not a single female MP, and only one male MP that I’m aware of, have publicly questioned any aspect of these controversial proposals. This is not healthy for democracy, and does not serve trans people well. Similar fears may already be affecting the willingness and ability of organisations to use the exemptions provided for in the Equality Act of 2010. This recognises that women as a sex are a disadvantaged, vulnerable group, and upholds their right to single-sex spaces and services. Domestic-violence shelters, for example, are places where women and their children can find refuge after attacks, almost always carried out by males. Many survivors feel strongly that the Equality Act needs to be used in these circumstances because the presence of people who are born male, however they later identify, would set back or even prevent their recovery. Many women who work with some of the most vulnerable women and girls in our society also fear that predatory men, who often go to great lengths to gain access to vulnerable women, would abuse the notion of gender self-identity and take advantage of the new orthodoxy that someone can be trans without undergoing any physical changes (with hormones or surgery) or changing their behaviour. In other words, biological males can look, sound and act exactly like average males, but are trans women if they say they are. What could be more helpful for a predatory man who seeks to masquerade as a trans woman? In fact, such an abuse has already happened. In 2012 Christopher Hambrook assaulted women in two homeless shelters in Toronto, gaining access by falsely claiming he was a trans woman. State law had changed earlier that year to recognise self-declared gender identity. In 2014 he was found guilty of sexual assault and criminal harassment. The government has recently stated that despite its proposals to reform the GRA, the Equality Act will remain untouched. In theory, this retains the right to offer single-sex spaces and services, provided they are a proportionate response to a legitimate need for a protected group (such as women). Yet a victory for the GRA proposals will weaken the voices of pragmatic trans people, who see the need to balance various groups’ interests, and strengthen those of trans activists who seek to deny women spaces and services segregated by sex. It will weaken the concept of biological sex even more, and subordinate it to a cultural and political category: gender. Though trans activists like to claim that gender self-identification affects only transgender people and that there is therefore no debate to be had about it, this is simply untrue. Gender self-identification goes far beyond respecting people’s right to believe what they want; to dress or act or express their identity as they want. Numerous transgender-rights groups, supporters and prominent trans individuals seek to claim all of the rights of the sex with which they feel their gender identity corresponds. This is a political and social demand that affects everybody, but in particular women, gay people and transsexuals. I would draw an analogy with religious identities. In liberal democracies, people can believe in God and a holy text, dress and worship as they wish, and be protected by law from discrimination. But they cannot insist the rest of us adhere to those beliefs, or turn their holy texts into laws that we must obey. Gender self-identification affects women’s single-sex spaces and political autonomy, especially as regards the right of women as a sex to organise independently their own opposition to sexism and misogyny. Perhaps most profoundly, it affects the right of women to define themselves. Many women do not want to be defined, once again, by the very gender norms that have disadvantaged them from birth: passivity, selfless accommodation to others (especially men), meekness, reserve, being measured by looks rather than deeds and so on. These are norms that constrain and demean women. Many of us insist that, fundamentally, women are members of a sex with shared biology and socialisation. Biological sex is real and is the very foundation of our species. How to find a way out of this impasse? There seems to me to be widespread acknowledgement that the current system of legal recognition for trans people is cruelly cumbersome, insufficiently supportive and at times demeaning. But there are ways to improve it while still retaining a diagnostic system. This could be more responsive to trans people’s needs, protect young people who are often mistaken in their identity (studies show that 60-90% of children self-identifying as trans stop doing so after puberty) and be deserving of women’s confidence. We need to recognise that there are two disadvantaged groups here. We need to protect single-sex provision for women and affirm everyone’s right to break out of life-limiting gender norms, while simultaneously acting to improve trans lives, systems and services in ways that do not undermine women. By speaking out against fundamentalists on both sides we can have a comprehensive and pragmatic discussion between equals, and find mutually acceptable solutions and a shared path forward out of the current acrimony. READ ON THE ECONOMIST WEBSITE HERE We have multiple examples of abuses of this law from across the continent and many right here in Massachusetts, which you can read and become informed about by visiting our website. We don’t have the mainstream media on our side, but we do have YOU---our army of grassroots supporters, people who DO care about the safety of women and children! Can you donate today to help us fight back?                    Your contribution of $25, $50, or $100 lets common sense voters know the FACTS of this law, such as the lack of exceptions for sex offenders, and fight the misinformation that the other side is spreading throughout the media—like the lie that nothing bad has happened.                Please take two minutes to help us out today by clicking here. Thank you,   Debby Dugan Chairwoman PS: Our opponents are spreading lies that women have never been assaulted because of this law, and the Toronto case is just one of dozens of examples. Please take two minutes to help us get our message of safety for all to more and more people by donating today. Thank you.

Senador Allamand: Vota No a la Ideología de Género

Estimado Senador Allamand:

Mi nombre es Arthur Schaper.

Soy el Director de organización de MassResistance. Sirvo por placer del presidente Brian Camenker.

Estoy más que indignado de que su gobierno permita que los niños, las personas que todavía están estableciendo sus propias identidades, puedan someterse a cirugías peligrosas.

La idea de que deberían poder cortar o aumentar sus cuerpos con cirugías y procedimientos artificiales es irresponsable.

Transgénero es un trastorno mental. No importa lo que cualquier profesor o academia declare al público chileno o al mundo.

Esta ideología de género es extremadamente peligrosa y destructiva.

Solo hay dos géneros: masculino y femenino. Esta es la verdad biológica básica.

Dios hizo a los seres humanos en hombres o mujeres. Esta es la moralidad bíblica.

Es impactante para mí que las buenas personas de Chile deben protestar en las calles y presentarse en grandes números en su oficina para declarar su oposición a sus esfuerzos legislativos equivocados.

¡Qué verguenza!

Respeto de la realidad biológica y la moralidad bíblica.

Rechace la ideología de género y respete las necesidades de su gente.

"¡Se responsable! ¡Sé responsable! Sé responsable, si esta ley se aprueba, será irreparable ... Senador, no apruebes la confusión".

"XX, XY - ¡Eso define el patrón!"

Sinceramente,

Arthur Schaper

Chile MassResistance Takes Firm Stance Against Left-Wing Gender Ideology

Chile MassResistance activists take to the streets in Santiago to protest depraved transgender bill targeting children

Vote in Parliament is this Tuesday Sept. 4.

Nationwide outrage as citizens become informed about this bill!

See VIDEO below of protest!

September 3, 2018

Cecilia, leader of Chile MassResistance, leads the protest in front of Senator's office in Santiago. Caption (from video below) reads: Parents of Chile against the law of gender identity.

Chile MassResistance activists have been protesting in the streets and confronting their legislators at their district offices to stop a destructive LGBT transgender bill targeting vulnerable children.

The protest in Santiago.

As we described in our report last week, there is an outrageous bill in Parliament - the Chile National Congress - that would allow “sex change” procedures for 14-year-olds without the consent of their parent – and for children under 14 years old with the consent of just one parent! On August 22, Chile MassResistance organized 50 activists to come to the Parliament and show their outrage -- which successfully caused the vote to be postponed. The vote in the Senate is now scheduled for Sept. 4. If it passes there, it will go to the House of Deputies on Sept. 5.

Last week all the legislators were back in their home districts. Chile MassResistance activists helped organize people across the country to visit the legislators’ district offices and personally tell them to vote against this outrageous bill.

But in Santiago, they took to the streets with a loud public protest. The demonstration also included representatives from other pro-family groups. It ended outside the offices of Senator Andrés Allamand, a key member of the Chilean Senate. They delivered a strongly worded letter and the 19,000 signatures from citizens across Chile demanding that the Parliament reject the bill.

What was particularly infuriating was that the Senator’s staff had recently agreed to meet with one of the mothers. But when she showed up for the meeting, they made her wait all day, and then made her leave without allowing her to meet with anybody. That riled the crowd up even more!

VIDEO: The PROTEST in Santiago!

In the video:

Chanting: "Be responsible! Be responsible! Be responsible, If this law passes it will be irreparable … Senator, do not approve confusion.”

“XX, XY -- That defines the pattern!”

Speaker: “We all know the damage that’s going to be done to thousands of kids and families. We are three million Evangelicals. There are a lot of people with us. The damage that will be done cannot be repaired if this passes.”

Caption (from video) reads: Letter to the Senator Allamand, the 19,000 signatures against the vote for gender identity.

These pro-family people are resolute and unafraid!

Inside the building, Cecilia delivered the letter and the signatures to the guard at the front desk. The Senator's office wouldn't let anyone come upstairs!

Up until now the LGBT lobby has been able to do whatever it wants in Chile. That’s finally changing. The pressure from pro-family citizens – led by Chile MassResistance – is now on the National Congress like never before!

We will let you know what happens!

     

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Drag Queen Story Hour in ... Alabama?!

This perverse LGBT Agenda is looking for new ways to creep into the daily lives of ordinary American citizens.

Their next step is to infiltrate through local libraries and normalize men dressing up as women: transsexualism, queer behavior, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the rest.

Breitbart first reported on this travesty (no pun intended) first:

Library board addresses Drag Queen Story Hour in Mobile: 'If we exclude one, we exclude all'

A Sept. 8 Drag Queen Story Hour event in Mobile has generated a mix of outrage and support on social media, and a group of local pastors are expected to speak out against it during Monday's Mobile County Commission meeting.

What's the point of this agenda?

Public libraries provide an easy means for getting to ... the children. The goal of the whole LGBT Agenda has been to brainwash the children to question biological fact and Biblical morality. Public libraries also provide a perfect forum because local governments cannot shut them out. The First Amendment provides them a pretty safe forum, ironclad from legal or moral challenges.

At least, so far.

But the one-hour event, in which a drag queen will read children's stories to kids ages 3-8, is not likely to be canceled or moved from the Ben May Main library.

In a statement Wednesday, the Mobile Public Library Board said it simply cannot exclude groups that meet the library's policies for utilizing public meeting rooms.

But does the Library Board have to tolerate this? Drag queens represent a very mature, adult themed concept. The First Amendment does not mean that they can just foist whatever content they want onto children.

Parents have a right to confront material, content, causes, whatever

"Permission to use a library meeting room does not constitute library endorsement of any group's policies, objectives, goals or beliefs," the statement to AL.com reads. "If we exclude one group, we must exclude all."

Not sure about that take on the matter. The First Amendment is not carte blanche for people to say whatever they want. Libraries can establish norms and standards. Or they can provide disclaimers. Or at the very least libraries can permit counter-programs to keep children away from the Drag Queen Story Hour.

Since 2015, libraries around the U.S. have been hosting Drag Queen Story Hour, in which a drag queen reads stories before children. Alabama will host its first-ever Drag Queen Story Hour on Sept. 8 at the Ben May Main Branch Library in Mobile.

'No direct control'

Mobile city officials are also hearing from both sides of the Drag Queen Story Hour debate. Among them is Mayor Sandy Stimpson.

His spokeswoman, Laura Byrne, said there is nothing the mayor can do about the library-hosted event.

"The Mobile Public Library is a separate organization from the city of Mobile, but the governing board of the library is appointed by the Mobile City Council," said Byrne. "The library employees are not city employees. The mayor's office has no direct control over the board or the operations of the library.

Passing the buck: that's all that it is. This is wrong. The Mobile City Council can remove the board members and bring in people who don't want to see the drag queens teaching their kids queer ideas.

Byrne said that local government has little legal authority to cancel the event.

"The First Amendment grants all citizens the right to the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of association," she said. "Libraries are public spaces especially when the city owns the building. The government cannot limit this right as long as citizens don't disobey the law."

Is it possible to pass a law to limit the scope of the freedom of speech offered in a library setting? Again, the common law basis of this country does not permit unfettered recognition of natural rights for minors. Why not present a counter-demonstration talking about how Moms and Dads matter?

The event is sponsored by Rainbow Mobile, a nonprofit group organized earlier this year to serve the LGBTQ community in Southeast Alabama. The group wants to promote awareness and acceptance of the LGBTQ community in Mobile.

No, the group wants to destroy the Judeo-Christian heritage which has served as the backbone of the Southeastern United States, and in turn help turn the region a deep hue of  Democratic blue. This is wrong, all wrong. Parents should have the authority to permit or forbid what their tax dollars pay for.

Stories will be read by Wade Brasfield, whose drag queen persona is "Khloe Kash." The scheduled story time activities include a five-minute greeting followed by a reading of "Stella Brings the Family," and "Rainbow Fish." In between each reading is a five-minute break. The event concludes with 15 minutes of arts and crafts time.

'Approved programming'

Similar story time events have occurred in cities throughout the U.S., though not without controversy. The most recent issue concerns one of the readings in Lafayette, Louisiana, where the city's mayor-president recently announced on Facebook that he was looking to find a way to cancel or move to a private venue an Oct. 6 Drag Queen Story Hour reading in Acadiana.

That's the response. This LGBT Movement is disgusting on a level unseen. The Democratic Party and the cultural Marxist Left is trying every means possible to push their agenda, and they are doing this purposefully to shake up the common sense sensibilities of these Southern Communities.

"Don't California My South!" should be the rallying cry.

This is Wrong!

"Our parish libraries are public spaces, with venues that any group or individual can reserve on a non-discriminatory basis, as required by law," said Joel Robideaux, mayor-president of the Lafayette Consolidate Government. "We have to be certain, however, that our internally approved programming is both appropriate and serves the needs of Lafayette Parish. That is the only way our library system will continue to enjoy the support from our community that it has historically received."

Supporters flocked to a Lafayette City-Parish Council meeting on Tuesday, according to a reporter from The Acadiana Advocate.

The Lafayette event is being sponsored by the University of Louisiana Lafayette's Delta Lambda Phi social fraternity, which is for gay, bisexual, transgender and progressive men.

'Equal terms'

In Mobile, the library has distanced itself from the event.

A library spokeswoman, on Monday, said that no tax dollars, library funds or Friends of the Library funds are being used for the event.

That's not true. The event is taking place in a public institution, paid for with taxpayer dollars. This argument is a total crock. The Mobile, Alabama City Council has the authority to remove and appoint new library commissioners. They need to take a stance and say "Natural marriage, natural rights, and natural law." 

The board's statement on Wednesday continued, "The library welcomes the use of its meeting rooms by community businesses, groups and organizations. As an institution for education and free speech and in accordance with Article 6 of the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, the library makes its meeting rooms available on equal terms to all groups regardless of beliefs and affiliations of their members."

The American Library Association, the world's oldest library association that claims over 57,000 members, has encouraged libraries to create programs that foster more equitable, diverse and inclusive societies.

Final Reflection

The pro-family movement has to come up with answers to these latest incursions of the regressive left into our culture. The LGBT Agenda wants to take over the public libraries. The pro-family movement should set up signs and parents in and around the room telling the truth about drag queens and who they engage in unnatural behaviors. The parents, the conservative activists who want to put a stop to this perversion should then demand that patrons call the elected officials on the city council and remove the library commissioners. Share the contact information of these commissioners and make sure they don't rest easy as long as that perverse "Drag Queen Story Hour" continues.

People have to think creatively. The answer to free speech is more free speech. Parents can fight this, and pro-family activists can help them.

The Nadir of CNN Self-Service: TDS Overtakes McCain Tribute with Gov. John Sununu

The brief yet tense exchange between former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu and CNN Anchor Alisyn Camerota was too much to ignore.

Last month, I faced questions about President Trump from Alisyn Camerota for her "New Day" program. For this segment, she invited the former Governor to talk about John McCain.

And yet, she seemed more interested in talking about Donald Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnC0seSAYSg

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: So joining us now to talk about the legacy of John McCain is former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu. He was chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush.

Good morning, governor.

JOHN SUNUNU (R), FORMER NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR: Good morning, Alisyn. How are you?

CAMEROTA: Well, I'm well.

Oh, my gosh, just remembering how much time John McCain invested in New Hampshire and how much he loved the retail politics there and the mixing it up and the stump speeches. You know, Jeff Jacobi, in "The Boston Globe" this morning, calls him New Hampshire's third senator. What are your thoughts?

The segment begins well enough, focused on Presidential aspirant McCain's attempts to ecome Chief Executive, twice. He worked New Hampshire very hard, and he won the state both times.

SUNUNU: That's very accurate. You know, if you're involved in politics at all in New Hampshire, you certainly do get to know at least on some level those who are running for president. And John McCain grew to embrace the style of campaigning that works well in New Hampshire.

The last time I saw him, for any significant amount of time, was when he came up to campaign for Kelly Ayotte in 2016. And we spent a full day -- I was trying to help my son, Chris, who was running for governor, and the four of us spent a full day in a van crossing the state, hitting a number of events. And to listen to John talk in that van about how wonderful his experiences were up here, you knew this was someone that had truly connected with the state. He loved the campaigning, the face to face campaigning. He loved being challenged with questions at the town hall.

It's worth noting that Kelly Ayotte, who had joined herself with the Establishment wing of the GOP along with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, ended up losing her re-election bid in New Hampshire. She refused to support President Trump after the "Grabber Gate" recording hit the public. The candidates running for US Senate who disavowed Trump after those private remarks went public never recovered.

[08:35:07] And as we went from event to event, it was obvious he remembered people at each one of those events from the previous campaigns and loved to chat with them about how they had come together over the years. So he really did embrace the New Hampshire see me, touch me, feel me style of campaigning and grew to love the people that helped him.

CAMEROTA: You're just reminding me of something from the Straight Talk Express. So I was on it -- on the bus with him in 1999. And, you know, I went to many of his stump speeches. So he would sometimes replay his greatest hits, you know, and some of his favorite jokes. And one of them that I'm just reminded of is that he said that he overheard two women in New Hampshire talking after one of his stump speeches and one said to the other, what do you think of Senator McCain? And the other one said, I don't know, I've only met him three times. And he used to -- that one brought the house down.

An old joke, often repeated. At least John McCain was funny to some people--but CNN has a similar schtick, and no one finds them funny at all.

SUNUNU: Yes, that's -- John had about five jokes that he loved to repeat.

CAMEROTA: I know.

SUNUNU: And, in fact, let you know he was going to repeat them. So he used them well and it got to a point where the audience felt deprived if he didn't tell the same joke the next time they saw him that he had said the previous time.

Look, this was --

CAMEROTA: No, I totally agree, they didn't get old. I agree, having heard them many times. He delivered them with the same verve and novelty each time.

Here's something else about John McCain which I had not know, which made him somewhat more endearing, at least as a Presidential candidate. For the record, I did vote for him in the 2008 General Election, even though I had supported Mitt Romney in the June primary.

SUNUNU: Yes. And, you know, he had an interesting take on the town halls. He almost felt that he was deprived if somebody didn't ask him a tough challenging question. Not somebody that he felt was trying to provoke him, but somebody that was trying to really find something out about an issue and he loved taking that opportunity to explain the details of something that was important.

Too bad that McCain didn't govern with the same kind of personable panache for Arizona in Washington DC.

The person that knew him best up in New Hampshire, of course, is Senator Ayotte. John McCain embraced Senator Ayotte when she got elected. He kind of brought her in as part of the three amigos with Senator Lindsey Nelson and himself. And he worked with her on the committees and tried to make sure that she really was treated in a way that allowed her to grow in the Senate. And he -- she really, I think, became his closest New Hampshire ally.

Ayotte should not have embraced John McCain at all. She should have embraced President Trump.

CAMEROTA: So, governor, what do you think about President Trump rejecting the practice of putting out an official White House statement about John McCain's service and sacrifice?

Here we go. At this part, the interview got tense but very engaging for us conservatives who are tired of CNN (Clinton News Network) repeatedly attacking our President.

SUNUNU: Look, that was printed in "The Washington Post," and I have to be honest with you, I don't give much credence to what I read.

CAMEROTA: We also have that reporting.

SUNUNU: Yes, well, same thing applies, Alisyn.

BAM! I loved this. This transcript won't convey the shocked look on Camerota's face. I saw something vaguely similar when I told her that CNN's ratings were in the tank. People don't want to watch non-stop anti-Trump mania, especially when it's deliberately misleading and clearly false.

CAMEROTA: Governor, you come on CNN and we appreciate you coming on CNN and we appreciate your take on it. But I don't appreciate you denigrating our reporting. I think that you know we have excellent reporters here. But are you saying that you don't want to believe that? You don't want to believe that President Trump would do that about John McCain?

I ... I ... I. Hey, Alisyn. This interview is about John McCain, right? It's not supposed to be about you. Do you understand?

SUNUNU: I'm saying that I don't want to comment on a report that I haven't satisfied myself is correct.

CAMEROTA: And if that report were true?

SUNUNU: I'm not going to answer the hypothetical.

Good for you, John Sununu!

CAMEROTA: It's not hypothetical. This is our reporting. We have rock solid sources in the White House that there was a statement that drafted --

Wow! She doubles down on the network's shameless duplicity, but Sununu isn't having any of that.

SUNUNU: Alisyn, Look, I came on -- you asked me to come on to talk about John McCain. I'm here to talk about John McCain as I remember him. I'm not here to talk about the press's handling of a difference between the White House and the press corps at this time.

He handles this conflict with such diplomatic tact and flair, something that Chris Cuomo, Brian Stetler, and the other hack "journalists" (in reality, propagandists)

CAMEROTA: It's not the press's handling. It's President Trump's handling of John McCain's death.

LIE! Wow, this desperate need to cover up for the media bias, the desperation to justify their lies, their anti-Trump madness is just stunning to me.

Sununu shows real class. More politicians should go on CNN. These corrupt, bigoted prima donnas make politicians look like real statesmen.

SUNUNU: OK. Look, John McCain was a great American who deserves to be recognized as a great American. He is being recognized by his colleagues and of friends -- his friends around. Melania Trump has certainly put out an exceptionally strong statement outlining the appreciation for his service. The White House has recognized the sorrow of the family. And I think Americans ought to be looking at the positive side, not trying to create a division amongst people who are in joint sorrow mourning a great American.

CAMEROTA: And are you satisfied that President Trump's statement goes far enough?

SUNUNU: I suspect there will be additional statements over time and I think this effort to try and create a cleavage there really does disturb me. It is, in fact, this kind of -- it is, in fact --

Then Camerota gets really offended. The video conveys her sense of wounded pride. "This effort to try and create a cleavage ..." Yes, the former Governor of New Hampshire directly calls out the unprincipled bias of Clinton News Network.

CAMEROTA: Sorry, can you repeat that? Sorry, somebody was talking to me. This effort to what?

"Someone was talking to me." Wow! Talk about unprofessional. Can one assume that Camerota wasn't listening in the first place? She was expecting a sharp exchange or long sequence of abusive rants against Trump.

Didn't happen.

SUNUNU: Cleavage between the White House and the -- and those that are mourning John McCain. It is this effort by the press to accentuate the negative that I think has created the climate that prevents, in the long term, the bipartisanship that John McCain supported. And I don't want to be a part of rubbing whatever salt there is in whatever wound there may be because I think that just adds to the division.

It's stunning how the Governor kept effortlessly returning the discussion back to McCain. He took Camerota's brazen attempts to push a shameless political narrative and returned it to a more meaningful end.

[08:40:19] I'm here because I lost a good friend. I wanted to express my concern about that. I wanted to applaud what he contributed to the country. I wanted to underscore the relationship he had with the state of New Hampshire. And I'm not here to play the political games that some of the press want to play at this moment of what I think is great sorrow for the country.

Wow. Powerful moment. Such direct honesty, direct yet tactful and respectful.

CAMEROTA: Just to be clear, we don't see it as a game. And to be clear, the press didn't create whatever division exists that President Trump feels that allowed him to spike the statement that General John Kelly wanted him to put out about John McCain's sacrifice. The press didn't invent that.

Yes, they did, or at the very least they fanned this unrest.

SUNUNU: Alisyn, everybody -- everybody -- everybody reflects their concerns in ways that are consistent with whatever they feel. I've expressed my concern at the loss of John McCain, who I think was a great American. A great American hero in the military. A great American hero in the political process. And, frankly, great American hero on a personal level to people that knew him well. And it is on those three levels that I sense the loss and I have expressed my -- my feelings of sorrow for him having passed and my expression of feelings of sorrow for his personal family who lost him and for a country who lost a great American hero.

I do not think McCain was a great hero at all. I despised the man. Yet Governor Sununu has a right to mourn the loss of his dear friend. He has a right to reminisce about the good times he shared with McCain, too.

CAMEROTA: You're not alone, governor. So many people feel that way. So many people echo that today. And that's why it is notable that the president doesn't.

She just had to try one more time to bring in Trump. Sununu knew how to keep fighting it.

SUNUNU: Well, I'm here to talk about my friend John McCain. You appear to be here to talk about something that you think you can exploit. And I find that rather unpleasant.

BINGO! That word "exploit" was the perfect word. I am so glad that the Governor called her out like that. It was just perfect.

CAMEROTA: Governor, again, we don't have to try to exploit something. This is a fact. This is a truism, that the --

SUNUNU: Well, why are you dwelling on it?

BAM!

CAMEROTA: Because President --

SUNUNU: I have given you my comment --

CAMEROTA: And I would --

SUNUNU: I have given you my comments on it and I am here to talk about John McCain.

BAM! BAM! BAM!

CAMEROTA: Fair. And I just reject your premise that this is something the press has created. It has been customary, probably since George Washington was president, to honor a war hero.

Here we go again. Camerota makes the discussion about her and the media all over again. This is so shameful, this is so unbelievably in bad taste. These shameful media frauds have no regard for anyone but themselves.

SUNUNU: And you should make -- you should make your inquires directly to the White House if you want a direct answer.

CAMEROTA: Governor John Sununu, we appreciate you coming on and giving us your thoughts about what John McCain meant to you and to New Hampshire.

Notice how quickly

Thank you very much. 

SUNUNU: It's a great loss for the country and for the world.

CAMEROTA: Indeed.

Final Reflection

Alisyn Camerota ran into the Sununu buzz-saw. He took her down like a boss, he rightly shamed her for making the whole interview about Trump instead of John McCain. Sununu calmly rebuked Camerota, forced her to return to the subject of the deceased US Senator, and even when she insisted on taking jabs at President Trump, Sununu rightly rebuked her and the press as a whole.

Nice job, John Sununu!

Trump Supporters Confront Kore Clothing Store in Riverside (Photos)

OC for Trump: Good Report for Election 2018 in California

A few observations (of my own and what other booth staffers said) at the Orange International Street Fair:

I did a 5 hour stint on Saturday at the Fair and helped take down the booth Sunday night. 

In addition to the “Trump Accomplishments” and “Dem’s bills out of Sacramento” poster/handouts (I'm attaching those, for those of you I didn't already send to, use if you want-in color & B&W-I compiled the lists-Stella & Janet edited & Stella formatted), we also had a sheet with endorsements and Prop recommendations on candidates and propositions from the Rs (after an update on it, I’ll send it around). I brought, altogether, 450 copies (double sided of the ‘poster info’) and there were only about 50 left over. People were really interested in BOTH handouts!

Overall, the crowd was more ‘mellow’-we had very FEW negative comments from passersby-especially compared to last year. Met some RABID Trump supporters, of ALL ages ! One guy said he wished Trump wouldn’t tweet—I said with the way the media is, if he didn’t tweet, we wouldn’t know what was happening  AND no matter what, you have to look at what he’s accomplished—he agreed! The phrase “Trump keeps his promises” REALLY resonates well!!

There were 3 young staffers from Royce’s office-they helped directing people to the booth-they were great—I told them of our many rallies at Royce’s office. I was told that other official’s office were contacted but didn’t send anyone to help at the Fair.

I pushed Meuser/Bailey/Roditis, saying they did well in the Primaries and we have a chance if we get everyone out to vote. I couldn’t really promote Poisner—not a Rep—but I said most those bills on the poster were written by Ricardo Lara—we MUST defeat him in November. 

We had a number of Democrats wanting to get info—they are fed up with things like the train and gas tax and illegal immigration issues. I keep saying that the “traditional” Dems HAVE to be sick of what’s going on in their Party!

NO ONE knew about Mueser’s 5,000 mile bike ride—see below for the little display I made (I was in a hurry making it—had it all affixed/taped and Darrell noticed the big sign behind Mueser in the picture had the first few letters of his name cut off—I hadn’t intended that, of course—and what was left read “USER”! Too late to re-do—so I stuck the campaign pin over that area!) People were SO impressed with his feat---WISH we could have had some media coverage!

All in all—I really think there’s HOPE to get at least a few important seats: (SofS/AG/Controller/InsComm)!!!!

Betty