Letter to the Editor for "The Supreme Court is Not Supreme"

In 2015, I wrote an extensive article for Townhall.com decrying the abortive, egregiously wrong decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

I received two responses, one which was very positive and thank me for giving hope in the face of this judicial travesty.

Thank you so much for this article! I have been downright depressed over this decision. Your column gives me hope.

--Arthur Webb

And another, a long-winded answer from a very emotional writer determined to justify something which neither natural law nor constitutional law could support.

Here's the extensive response from Mr. David Frazier:

Hey Arthur:

You acknowledge the role of judicial review, but then you say, "The Supreme Court is not the final authority. We the People are." To be sure, if the people wish to pass a constitutional amendment and repeal the 14th Amendment we certainly have the right and the power to attempt to do so. However, I don't see that happening. In order to be "a full member of society", the individual must be afforded all of the rights, benefits, and opportunities that are extended to all other individual members of society at large. As you know, the marriage bond extends beyond the physical relationship. It's a life-time partnership united by chemistry, i.e., love, mutual respect, and self-sacrifice towards that partner and shared goals. Accordingly, every Western culture has always extended special privileges to marital spouses--hospital visitation privileges, inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, insurance benefits, tax credits, owning homesteads and other assets as joint tenants with right of survivorship, enhanced opportunity to qualify for the adoption of minors, etc. In my own state of Mississippi, same-sex couples are specifically prohibited by statute from being eligible to adopt minor children. This is not just an equality issue. Rather, it goes to the "liberty" right of the individual to live his life "as God intended" as a fully functioning member of society.

 The fundamental error in this line of thought is that marriage is not a right. It's a sacrament, a covenant, an institution. People do not have a "right" to marry, because marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman, i.e. the sacrament involves two people, and those two people need to consent to the covenant.

Furthermore, marriage requires witnesses and the consent of those witnesses. Most people tend to skip over the declaration for the officiating minister during the wedding ceremony, but those words matter: "Should anyone present know of any reason that this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace."

A right cannot be refused someone simply because someone objects, but marriage can face objections. Marriage is a sacrament, a covenant, not a right. 

Furthermore, the fact that David Frazier writes about "privileges" proves my point: marriage is not a right.

Last of all, marriage is not about liberty. Justice Scalia made this point rather wittingly when he wrote: "Ask any hippie."

You state that homosexuality is "unnatural". I have known several members of the LGBT community very well over my 61 years. I have a first cousin who has been with his partner for 35 years. Having known my cousin grow up over the years from a small child into adulthood, I can tell you that "being homosexual" is completely "natural" for him. As a dedicated theist, I assume that you believe that God is a perfect, loving god, responsible for the oversight of all of His creation. However, it also is undisputed in the scientific community that the "cause" of homosexuality in its "pure-congenital" form is a matter of nature. Therefore, the ethical question must be addressed--"Would a truly loving and all knowing god create in the womb a whole segment of human beings destined to be perceived as unnatural deviants, and therefore to be treated as social outcasts?" Even if you throw evolution into the mix and believe that for whatever reason, "pure-congenital" homosexuality is a biological mutation which occurs randomly in the womb, it nevertheless is a natural occurrence. Therefore, to continue to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry would be tantamount to the State denying people with "other" genetic mutations the right to wed or procreate when there is an absence of a compelling state interest. Clearly, that would be illegal and unconstitutional.

This paragraph is built on a throne of lies.

No, people are not born gay. The growing body of research confirms this. A recent study, summarized by Nature.com, reveals that following a longitudinal study of 500,000 people, they found no evidence of a gay gene.

As an attorney, sometimes one of the most difficult points to get across to nonlawyers is that there is a distinction between what is the proper or legal pursuant to the rule of law, and what is politically correct or popular. With the passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the Equal Protection Clause exemplifies my point. When someone is a member of a protected group, or of a suspect classification which has been historically discriminated against, or if a fundamental constitutional right is involved where it is claimed that the right (like marriage) is being denied, then the government must demonstrate a "compelling state interest" that the needs of the state outweigh the needs/rights of the individual if the law, regulation, policy, practice, custom, or procedure is going to pass constitutional scrutiny. This is a very high standard, which the government, in only the most extreme cases is able to meet. Even if a fundamental right is not involved, the state's purpose in promoting denial of equal protection must be "rational."

The Fourteenth Amendment was not written to allow sexual deviants to marry whomever they wanted to. The Fourteenth Amendment merely asserted that the Bill of Rights extends to all citizens, and that the states were bound to the Bill of Rights, too, as well as the federal government. As a non-lawyer, I am surprised that I understand this issue better than the lawyer who wrote this letter to me.'

As for "compelling state interest," yes indeed the state has a compelling interest to retain the natural definition of marriage as such. Children need their mother and father. Stable societies need strong families in order to survive, and they cannot survive if the family is disintegrated or destroyed. Besides, marriage is a proclaimed public covenant, which requires a record of recognition before the state. Yes, the state has a compelling interest in marriage.

With all the talk about "equal protection," marriage is available to every individual, provided that they find a partner of the opposite sex who wishes to marry that individual. There is no violation of equal protection.

The "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Following Reconstruction, the Jim Crow South, in an effort to comply with the EPC, implemented with success, the policy of "separate but equal" in order to preserve racial segregation and the appartied system of the day. In a strict application of the "original meaning" of the EPC, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson that the EPC permits state-sponsored segregation. It was not until 1954 in the landmark case of Brown v. Bd. of Education that the Court reversed itself in a decision which many conservatives at the time considered to be a gross example of an activist liberal Warren Court. Today, Americans of all races look at Brown with a combination of shame and pride, wondering how one group of Americans could treat their fellow citizens so shamefully, but proud of an independent judiciary that is empowered to declare and set aside institutional wrongs. In fact, ever since Brown, the federal courts have taken on the mantle of protector and defender of fundamental constitutional rights for all individuals, often to protect individuals from the abuses of "state legislatures when the latter exercise their police powers" to the detriment of the fundamental rights of the minority. Why should fundamental rights like equal protection or right to privacy, be ultimately left to the whims, passions, and prejudices of state/local politicians whose concerns rarely, if ever, involve protecting the rights of the minority, when those rights may be in conflict with the agenda our beliefs of the majority who voted them into office? The judiciary is aware of human nature/frailty, political reality, and its duty to protect everyone under the law, especially from the tyranny of the majority.

Marriage is not a fundamental right, as asserted above. People are born black, but they are not born gay. Once again, this lawyer argues in circles.

We conservatives denounce the notion of "a living Constitution", and well we should! If used in a general way, it becomes totally subjective. We saw this demonstrated Wednesday in Justice Robert's majority decision in the Burwell decision. On the other hand, Justice Scalia routinely applies a "textual" approach to the interpretation of the Constitution and laws--the clear language of the text as it makes sense under the facts. His application of the "textualist" approach to interpretation is clearly demonstrated in his dissent by his stated logic regarding the government's extension of the federal tax credits under the ACA in the Burwell case. However, due to his strong and compelling sectarian convictions, Scalia abandoned the "textual" approach in the Obergafell case, and resorted to name-calling, casting aspersions, and general disrespecting of his colleagues. This attitude lends nothing to the promote the doctrine of "judicial ", or to the rule of law--not to mention to the notion of being "Christian".

There was no abandonment of Justice Scalia's originalist arguments when he dissented in Obergefell. Did he bother to read the opinion?

What members of the Christian community must remember is that our Founding Fathers created a secular democratic republic. To be sure, religion affects culture, and culture affects the law. To this end, America has always been influenced by its Judeo-Christian roots. For the most part, that has been a good thing. However, when the State seeks to impose sectarian beliefs over the electorate, without demonstrating a compelling state interest or need; or when a law, rule, or regulation denies to everyone the natural and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, it's no contest.

The Obergafell [sic] Court decision is simply a judicial affirmation that the judiciary realizes that the American people have reached the point where we neither need, nor do we desire to have a State Lord Protector overseeing the personal lives of the nation's citizens. After all, ours is a secular democratic republic. Let's keep it that way!

The laws of nature and nature's God are clearly recognized in the Declaration of Independence AND the United States Constitution.

The Constitution speaks of "the blessings of liberty," which implies a divine origin. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 recognizes the power of Congress to make laws commensurate with "the law of nations," which means "the laws of nature and nature's God as applied to nations," per James Wilson, who was one of only six individuals to sign the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

The signatory at the end of the Constitution references "The Year of Our Lord." Yes, there is a recognition of a divine authority in the United States Constitution, and it is wrong for anyone to think otherwise.

The Constitution references freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, too.

David Frazier                                               

Classical Conservative Perspectives 

Saltwaterpappy.tumblr.com

Texas MassResistance Stops DEI Nonsense in Temple, Texas City Council

Texas MassResistance forces city to stall radical “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” indoctrination agenda for municipal employees.

A victory! Momentum is there for a full stop to it.

Conservative town would be force-fed programs from far-left pro-LGBT group – being pushed by Mayor and City Council.

July 21, 2022

 The front page of the local newspaper after citizens realized what was happening, took action, and forced the city to back down. (Note the paper's daily Bible verse at lower left reflects the town's Christian sentiments.)

Dozens of residents in Temple, Texas have forced the city to table its plans to impose a radical, pro-LGBT “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) indoctrination program on all municipal employees. The city backed down following strong organized pushback by citizens. There is now momentum to derail the DEI program permanently over the next several months.

Temple is located about 40 miles north of Austin in a region with a largely conservative, Christian population.

The residents’ effort was organized by Concerned Christian Citizens (CCC), a local Texas MassResistance affiliate. CCC’s MassResistance activism in that area goes back several years. In 2017 they put on a conference on the LGBT agenda in nearby Killeen. In 2018 they organized over 50 parents in Temple to confront the Library Board over its promotion of homosexual materials for children.

Make no mistake: City DEI efforts like this are going on across America!

 Photo at right is from the Concerned Christian Citizens' 2017 pro-family conference.

The problems started with a tragic traffic stop in 2019

The apparent necessity for a DEI crusade in Temple originated from a tragic traffic stop on Dec. 2, 2019, where a Hispanic police officer accidentally shot and killed a black motorist. According to news reports, the officer attempted to pull over the man for speeding. A brief chase ensued. At an intersection the officer was able to block the car. The officer approached the car with his gun drawn. The man did not resist, but the officer accidentally pulled the trigger while reaching for the man’s car keys.

Several months of vocal outrage ensued against the city from the local black community. That really rattled the local politicians, especially when the George Floyd riots began across America in the spring of 2020.

A Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission is created

In mid-2020, the Mayor and City Council decided to pacify the situation by creating the Temple Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Commission, authorized in December, 2020. Its “official” purpose was to advise the city “on policies, programs, practices, and other matters to build greater equality within the Temple community by promoting equity and eliminating discrimination.”

At first it seemed fairly innocuous to conservatives. But this is a common tactic around the country: get a foot in the door, then proceed to impose big changes in the community.

Membership in the appointed nine-member DEI Commission was purposefully based on race, sex, and “sexual orientation” (all are black, female, or “LGBT”). Most of the members are clearly leftists. Many residents have complained that normal white males, who make up a large part of the community, were excluded.

 The Temple DEI Commission.

The first monthly meeting was on June 6, 2021. For a year, not much was heard from the Commission. Videos of the meetings were not easily available, and few people attended in person.

Facebook announces $800 million facility to be built in Temple – in exchange for what?

In March 2022 the parent company of Facebook announced that it would be building an $800 million data processing facility in Temple. Facebook would bring in hundreds of their employees to work there.

It’s widely believed that in negotiating for this over the previous several months, the Mayor and City Council promised Facebook that the city would work to change the culture of Temple – to create and enforce government policies and city ordinances that correspond with Facebook’s leftist San Francisco sensibilities.

It also became obvious that the Mayor and City Council intended to use the DEI Commission as a front to implement the “woke” agenda that they would create.

Bizarre outside group chosen to create radical city DEI agenda

In May 2022, several residents discovered that the DEI Commission was imminently preparing to drop a bomb, so to speak, on the city during its upcoming June 7 meeting.

It was revealed that The Nova Collective, a radical pro-LGBT organization based in Chicago, had been covertly chosen by the city to implement a comprehensive DEI plan in the city. This immediately shocked many citizens. This group is an extreme left-wing organization that promotes itself as “transforming organizations through a lens of equity.” Nova’s Facebook page has, among other things, videos promoting “Drag” crossdressing and transgenderism.

 This post from Nova's social media shows what they mean by "inclusion."

The City Council was using the DEI Commission as a front group for this. At its June 7 meeting the DEI Commission was going to hear a presentation about Nova from city employees, then vote to “recommend” that the city move forward with that group. From there, the City Council would vote at their meeting on July 7 to officially fund Nova and get the DEI program started.

People had a lot of questions. Why is this happening? How was this group selected? Who selected it? How much will it cost? What exactly are they going to force Temple to do?

CCC fires up local residents

Immediately upon hearing all this, Concerned Christian Citizens notified Christians across the city and quickly educated them about what was about to happen. Emails, flyers, and much more went out. Letters to the editor were published in the local newspaper.

 One of CCC's flyers passed out in the community. The photo is from a video on Nova's social media promoting the benefits of "Drag."

Citizens storm the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion meeting!

On June 7, Concerned Christian Citizens brought over two dozen strong-willed local residents to the DEI meeting. (Nobody came to speak in favor of contracting with Nova.)

The “citizen comment” portion was at the beginning. They didn’t hold back! Here’s some of what the Commission heard:

• People described in detail how Critical Race Theory, a veiled foundation of DEI, is not a unifying program at all, but a classic Marxist method of dividing society into “oppressed” and “oppressors.”
• One long-time public employee said that this was being used to discriminate against (and keep the city from hiring) people with certain religious convictions and political beliefs.
• The dysfunctional use of the word “equity” was discussed, and how critical thinking is being discouraged in these programs.
• A 25-year veteran teacher said that this will isolate the children in her class, and that the use of homosexual books will lead to the promotion of pedophilia.
• A long-time pastor in Temple said that Nova’s perverse agenda will affect the entire community in a destructive way.

And more … the DEI commission got an earful that they weren’t expecting!

How the Nova group was brought in

After the public comment ended, the introduction of Nova was next on the agenda. Erin Smith, the Assistant City Manager, informed the Commission how all this had come about.

First, she said, the City Council, Mayor, and other city officials were given some “DEI 101 training” by an outside leftist firm, The MacMillan Group, for which the city paid an undisclosed amount. This apparently was to make sure that the city’s top officials were suitably indoctrinated to move forward with the next steps.

Next was the explanation of how Nova was selected. Stacy Hawkins, the city’s “director of performance excellence” started by identifying sixteen DEI consulting firms. She interviewed them and selected seven. Hawkins and Smith then jointly interviewed the seven firms, and selected Nova. They then gave a presentation on Nova to the City Council, which obviously agreed with their choice. Note that the DEI Commission was completely left out of this selection.

City’s presentation about Nova

Next was a presentation to the DEI Commission about Nova. Smith began with this rather alarming introduction:

They are a company that is devoted to transforming organizational values no matter where they are on the DEI journey. They work with and cultivate DEI leaders to build equity and achieve meaningful lasting change.

She said Nova has been used by Facebook, CenturyLink, Goodwill, Walgreens, Comcast, and many other major firms, as well as government agencies such as Los Angeles County, the city of Denver, and the Air National Guard.

 Introduction to Nova presentation.

Regarding the process Nova will use, it had already been worked out between Nova and the city. Erin showed the slide below, with the ominous title “Organization-wide and Leadership-level alignment.”

Smith discussed the steps in more detail. When understood in the larger context, this was also disturbing:

1. The survey of all city employees is a tool to uncover their so-called “biases” and will be used to design woke “solutions.”
2. The policy and process audit will include all the city’s current policies, procedures, hiring practices, etc. to measure how “diverse and inclusive” they are. The results will be used to “imbed DEI” into all of the city’s “organizational values.”
3.  The “interviews” with top city officials and the Temple DEI Commission members will be one-on-one interviews with Nova staff. The goal is to make sure that all of them ”buy-in and support” the city’s new DEI ideology – i.e., no critical thinking is allowed.
4. The executive leadership team alignment session appears to be a Maoist process where Nova directs the city officials to plan the ideological overhaul of Temple’s government operations.
5. The “citizen survey” is similar to the employee survey – to uncover so-called “biases” in the community – and will lead to changes in the city’s laws and ordinances to be more in line with DEI ideology and dogma.

All of this also leads to a “Strategic Roadmap” for the city, that codifies and extends the DEI reach even further. It covers diversity training for employees and others. It will address issues of “tension” – which means how to deal with anyone who resists the DEI program. It even includes discriminating among vendors the city hires depending on their DEI commitments!

Questions from the Commission members

Next came questions from the Commission members about Nova and Erin Smith’s presentation. Two people from Nova were also there via Zoom to answer questions.

 The two Nova representatives answered questions via Zoom at the DEI Commission meeting.

Several questions came from one of the Commission members, a conservative woman, who asked some tough, direct questions of Smith and the two Nova staffers. A few of the liberal Commission members tried to defend the process, without much success. Here’s a synopsis of what was brought out:

• Cost. There is no money currently budgeted for this. But it will cost the city approximately $112,000 annually over the next several years.
• Cross-dressing and DEI. There was a big question about Nova’s Internet post that says: “Drag provides a vehicle for self-exploration that empowers us to explore different aspects of ourselves.” Nova could not explain how “drag” has anything to do with DEI.
• What is DEI, anyway? It was acknowledged that neither the Commission nor the city could define exactly what DEI is, yet they are about to hire a firm to implement it! Maybe the city should define it first, it was suggested.
• Disagreement equals “lack of education.” One of the Nova staffers said that the reason that people don’t accept the DEI agenda is that “the fear associated with it is due to lack of education” – and Nova provides the “education.” In other words, there is no room for any legitimate disagreement, which they term as “fear.” They also said that they consider disagreement as “resistance” that must be dealt with.
• Not a good fit for Temple. Nova seems to think they’re already hired. But there is a big concern that the vulgar “Drag” component and the LGBT posts on Nova’s website and social media go against the morals of people in the community and are not a good fit for Temple. The core of Nova seems to challenge individuals’ identities. Maybe the city needs to do more research with different agencies.

The Commission votes to TABLE the plan

The DEI Commission was clearly affected by the residents’ outraged testimony and the unsettling responses to the tough questions after the presentation.

As the Commission was preparing to vote, several members said they weren’t comfortable with this plan. They said that at least they needed much more information.

So rather than directly antagonize the city by rejecting it, they voted to table it. In fact, the process of “getting more information” could be indefinite – even though the city wants to begin immediately.

This is a big victory! All that remains is for the residents to stop the City Council from bypassing the DEI Commission. And that process ramped up at the July 7 City Council meeting!

The City Council gets an earful despite the Mayor’s attempt to defend the project

Temple City Council meetings generally begin with a period for public comments from local citizens. But the July 7 Temple City Council meeting began with the Mayor, Tim Davis, making some statements in a dishonest attempt to mollify people about their concerns about the DEI plan.

Davis said that there would be no requirements for the citizens or the city to accept “the myriad of things that come with DEI.” He said that Nova would “possibly” survey the city of Temple employees “to get an understanding of where they stand regarding the DEI concepts.” From there the city would “possibly” put together a training program “so that city of Temple employees will be able to deliver the City of Temple’s services to any minority community.”

That is certainly different than what the two city employees – the assistant city manager and director of performance excellence – told the DEI commission.

Then came the public comments section. The residents weren’t buying any of Davis’s rhetoric, and for the next 25 minutes, one after another blasted the Mayor and City Council for this ridiculous and destructive proposal.

No action was taken at that meeting. And from what we’ve heard since then, the Mayor and City Council were a bit shell-shocked by the intense reaction from the community. There’s a strong feeling that they may find a way to back off from it.

Final thoughts

More and more local residents are realizing that there is no need for a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program in Temple, Texas – or anywhere else. These are, in fact, Marxist concepts that were designed to cause division and antagonism between classes and races. They make conditions worse, not better.

But even in conservative Christian areas, this hideous agenda is brought in by corrupt politicians who do not care about the actual welfare of the people they were elected to serve, but seek to appear “sophisticated” to curry favor with unhinged leftists.

The pushback in Temple needs to be replicated across America.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Pro-LGBT Antifa Groomer Pervert Kelly Stuart, aka Karen Gone Wild

 In Los Angeles County, the Antifa hate groups are losing power and legitimacy.

They are so desperate to shut down anyone who speaks the truth, that they go out of their way to shame, defame, and blame anyone else who speaks the truth.

There is one of many Antifa soyboys, frauds, losers, and 

One of the most desperate is Kelly Stuart of El Segundo, aka Karen Stuart, aka Antifa Karen:

Kelly "Karen" Stuart

She loves stalking innocent people, whether in El Segundo, where she lives, or in Torrance, or even in Santa Monica.

She has a problem with people who do not look like her. She seems to have a problem with black people and Jewish people, too.

Check out her latest deranged rant right here, when I was attending the Patriot Pride parade in Santa Monica:

              

 She was clearly not having a good day that day:

Is anyone really surprised, however?

She harasses women and children repeatedly, and she has declared war on fathers. Her hatred of Asian-Americans like Tony Moon, aka Roof Korean shows what an unrestrained bigot she is.

But the worst part is that she is obsessed with children's sexuality. That makes her a pervert, a predator, and a groomer.

She is all in on LGBT perversion and indoctrination in the public schools. Anyone who promotes such garbage in the classroom or in the public square--and especially on children--is a pervert, a predator, and a groomer.

And it only gets creepier.

She told me that she was going to follow me around everywhere. Wow! She really has issues.

For some reason, she had a hard time keeping her focus ... 

Perhaps she was hoping she could click her ruby slippers (or her mud-caked boots) and repeat: "There's no place like home."

She then announced to the crowd people in Santa Monica that she had millions of pictures of me. She is obsessed with me when she is not obsessed with children and harming them.

Of course, she did everything she could to rouse a crowd up against me, and it failed:

          

I was really impressed with how mature the rest of the people in the park were. They were calm and cool and collected, while Karen Stuart was so busy screaming about getting doxxed, when most people I am pretty sure would not want to be around her for more than five seconds.

She loves screaming about pedophilia, too, because she supports pushing such shameful themes into the public sphere. Anyone who thinks that it is OK to push LGBT anything in the classroom is in league and enabling the abuse of children, and there is no other way to put it. 

Then she started ranting about how she has two kids. I feel sorry for those children. Karen Stuart should not be around children--or adults, or polite society in general.

And why?

Kelly Stuart is OK with students being abused by perverted teachers in the classroom. Of course, because she cannot deny this, she insists on projecting onto everyone else that they are predators, perverts, pedophiles, etc. Antifa is a hate group that targets kids, that wants to pollute children's minds and harm their bodies. And that pretty much sums up Kelly "Karen" Stuart.

She is a menace to children and adults alike, and thankfully more patriots are standing up to her disgusting, vile, grooming hatred.

In fact, I am happy to share that more people have shared my efforts to expose Antifa Groomers like Kelly Stuart, or should I write "Aunt Tifa":

@theromandrake9 Arthur doesn’t have time for AUNT TIFA doxers who post pictures on the internet of Trump supporters. About20 of them came all to take our pictures in Santa Monica this weekend. #makeamericagreatagain #truml2024 ♬ original sound - Roman Drake

Oh, and it gets better.

Apparently, my effective confrontation with this and other Antifa Groomers went viral elsewhere:

 

The way to stand up to perverse hate like Antifa Groomers is to:

1. Confront them

2. Tell the truth about them

3. Expose them

What really disturbs me is that this creepy old lady was determined to follow me around. Did she really think that she was going to make a difference letting people find out what a pervert she is?

Yikes! Not a good look, Granny Karen, er Kelly, er Groomer!

Dear LGBT Allies: You Actually Hate Gay People. Why?

For a long time, I have commented that homosexuality and transgenderism are harmful behaviors and destructive ideologies which prop them up and foist them onto others.

Now is the time to confront the men and women who insist on calling themselves allies of the so-called LGBT community.

And for the the record, even openly gay activist Douglas Murray has admitted that there is no such thing as the "LGBT Community":

             

 

So, I need to ask all of you so-called LGBT Allies, why do you hate people who struggle with homosexuality and transgenderism?

Why do you want to normalize behaviors that are not normal, that are borne out of trauma, neglect, abuse, and molestation?

Tell me: if you saw someone on the street who was homeless because of drug addiction, would you give that person more drugs? Would you give that person more potent controlled substances?

If you saw someone on the street, homeless because of mental illness or because they ended up down on their luck, or they were fleeing domestic abuse, would you simply give them a jacket and hope that their life would go well on the street? Of course not! You would want to help these individuals get off the street and get back on their feet!

So, the next question comes up: why are you enabling people who have sexual desire for the same sex, or who think that they should be a sex different from the one they were born with?

Check out these testimonies from homosexuals at a gay bar:

Born Gay Hoax from highblur on Vimeo.

Every single man in the video above acknowledges that they were not "born that way." Why would you enable them to stay in bondage to a lie?

I cannot tell you how many stories I have heard from people who are actively homosexual or who used to be, that they suffered unparalleled abuse as children. Why would you want to normalize trauma? Why would you want to make it easier for people who harmed others to get away with their abuse, by celebrating the consequences of those crimes?

In short, why do you hate gay people? Why do you hate people in bondage to same-sex temptations and sex dysphoria? Why are you so hateful?

Gay Blogger (Unawares) Reveals Source of Same-Sex Attraction: Child Abuse

It's time to declare a harsh truth on the matter of homosexuality and transgenderism. The destructive behaviors, the false identities are the result of neglect, trauma, confusion, and molestation.

People who engage in these behaviors are victims themselves, so it's understandable that people are initially reticent to criticize the behaviors and condemn the agenda. No one wants to be labeled "anti-gay" or "anti-trans."

However, the origins of these harmful behaviors and pernicious lies are neither gay nor transitory. They create a lifetime of harm, and they are based on hurt at the outset.

We need to stand for truth so that we can set people free and help them (and others) stand up to abuse, hate, and lies.

In Singapore, homosexual activist Sean Foo shared his story:

Sean Foo as a child

              

Growing up, I struggled a lot with my masculinity.

Why would a child struggle with being a boy or a girl? These are not innate problems or issues. You are born male or female. There is nothing inherently wrong with a person just on account of this fact. If someone struggles with this identity, or if they feel unsure about their identity, that problem is the result of an environmental issue, pressure or shame from the outside of the person.

So, where did this source of confusion come from for Little Sean?

At home, I was always getting scolded for not being manly enough. In school, my effeminate nature made me an easy target. I lost count of the number of times someone called me a ‘sissy’. I grew to really hate that word.

Here, we have a boy who was shamed by his family, and he was rejected by his peers. This is a perfect storm for fomenting same-sex attraction, same-sex attraction. I can't imagine the sense of hurt, the sense of rejection that he endured because his parents, presumably his father, told him that he was not really a man, that he was not acting the way that a man should. That kind of shame takes its toll on a person.

And that is precisely what happened:

So I tried very hard to adopt conventionally masculine mannerisms. Not doing so had consequences. I learnt to sit the ‘right’ way. Walk the ‘right’ way. Hold my wrists the ‘right’ way.  And over time, I succeeded. I moulded myself into someone most would consider ‘straight-acting’. So, the bullying stopped. And for a while, all was well.

When someone has to "try" to be something that they already are, there you have the basis for a emotional disorder, a mental challenge. To shame a child for not measuring up to a strange, if not unattainable standard, is child abuse. Kids need to be nurtured, strengthened, supported. They need to know that they are loved and accepted, even when they fail. That is how children grow strong, how they settle into their identity as men or as women.

I must repeat, based on the emotional harm that he endured as a kid, it's clear that Sean was abused as a kid, it's just that simple. He was not "born in the wrong body," nor was he gay at the outset. Just because boys have slightly different mannerisms does not make them any less of a boy. And the same holds true for girls.

But then… puberty struck.

Sean Foo as an adult

                             

I was 13 when it happened. A handsome senior in school caught my eye. And for the first time in my life, I experienced same-sex attraction. I panicked. So I rushed home to conduct some research to seek an explanation for what I was feeling.

Why did Sean experience this attraction? For years prior, he had been told, and thus he did not feel that he was a proper male. The lack of affirmation creates an emotional void, a dire need within a person. As a result, he was drawn to fit in with other males and try to fit into their mold. A number of reparative therapists talk about this issue at great length, that males will have emotional attachments to other males if they do not get the confirmation they need as children. That need, if left unresolved, turns into a sexual desire. For so long, Sean had felt that there was something wrong with him--because so many people in his own household told him that he was not male enough. What a shame. It's such a shame that he was treated so poorly by his family.

I do not want Sean to think that his family is essentially wicked. Whatever happened to his parents, whatever wrong believing they harbored, whether it was his father or whoever else, they projected this lie onto their son. Sadly, Sean has suffered under this lie, and that is wrong. Someone should have affirmed him as a boy when he was a boy.

I remember vividly the wave of relief that swept over me when I read that same-sex attraction was a normal phase during puberty. That made sense to me. After all, I was in an all-boys school. I was convinced that once I graduate, I would grow out of all this confusion.

Sean himself recognized the confusion in his life. He was confused early on because he was told that he was not really "boyish" or manly enough, when the truth is that he was already a male, and that there was no need for him to try to be "more manly."

In my case however, it was never a phase. My homosexual tendencies followed me as I proceeded on to junior college. It didn’t matter that my junior college had an abundance of girls. My heart only saw men.

These identity issues will linger with people if they do not hear the truth and get the proper care and attention that they need. It's no surprise that these issues did not abate for him, because at the outset his own family dishonored him unfairly.

I was so deep in denial that I somehow managed to convince myself that I was straight despite the fact that I was crushing on guys around me all the time.

The only denial that Sean has been struggling with is the lie that he is not really a man, when true to form he was born a male, and he has nothing to be ashamed of. The shame and misunderstandings from his childhood were wrong, and they imposed on him a false impression. Notice the pain and confusion that he went through? I cannot stress enough how abusive it is for parents to shame their children, to damage them emotionally by denying and denigrating their true basic identity.

In my desperate bid to conform, I tried very hard to develop feelings for the opposite sex. I dated a couple of girls over the years. But for obvious reasons, none of them worked out. But I never gave up. Convinced that it was just a matter of meeting the right girl. Being gay was simply not an option for me.

Notice throughout his testimony this theme of "I tried very hard." This constant effort to try to be something that he already is will create so many problems. There is something about human nature, that the more one tries t be something that seems unattainable, the worse the problem becomes.

In fact, Paul the Apostle writes extensively about this struggle in Romans 7:

"19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

"20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

"21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." (Romans 7:19-21)

It took me some time. 10 years to be exact. But I finally had that long belated epiphany at the age of 23. There was no life changing incident that triggered it. I just woke up one day and acknowledged to myself that I was gay. And with that simple revelation, the inner turmoil that plagued my life for a decade dissipated.

Here, Sean just gives into the lie, because he cannot understand why he continued to have that struggle. The fact is that he has operated under a larget yet more subtle lie, one which was imposed at him at too young an age: that he was not "manly" enough.

I can only hope that someone someday will inform him that there was nothing wrong with him as a boy, and that he needs the affirmation in the truth of who he is, nothing more:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

It's time for us to intervene against these lies and stand for truth. It's time for us to tell people who struggle with LGBT issues that they are not defined by their feelings, nor should they limit themselves to what people said about them when they were younger. They need to embrace the radical and releasing truth that they were not born "gay," and that they do not have to give into feelings that will lea them to more harm, pain, and loss.

Letters to the Editor for "Tear Down This Icon"

Two weeks ago, I wrote the first article in over a year for Townhall.com.

Tear Down This Icon: Replace Reagan with Trump

Here are two letters I received in response:

Whew! This is silly in the extreme. Trump was a fine president but he did not defeat Russia , crush the Dems, popularize Republicans or stay in office for 12 years (Bush was gifted the White House then blew it). The 12 years was a vital. The Donald did not give that to us. Not necessarily his fault but facts are facts. This effort by you is a monumental waste of time and print. We need Republican icons ,not fewer. Reagan as icon does nothing to detract from Trump so stop setting up a battle that only Dems will enjoy.

Russell Falconer

And here's another letter I received today!

Dear Mr. Schaper,

I recently read your article titled “Tear down this icon and replace with Trump…” and I felt it absolutely necessary to write and personally thank you for taking the time to write and publish this article of factual information.  I’m a writer and in all honestly it was a pleasure to read something about President Trump  that was positive and filled with facts and compliments, not facetious, insulting, & malicious, minutia.  I get most of my news from NewsMax TV.  However, I also read a lot of articles that show up in my inbox and for the most part, they are filled with lies and ambiguous opinions that are all spewed from the mouths of idiots who know absolutely nothing about anything!  

President Trump has done more for this country than any other President and it’s about damn time all of the Republicans get in sync with one another, throw away their stupid egos, and stand united as ONE PARTY, with President Trump as our #1 Leader!  I am fed up with the LEFTISTS and THE DEMOCRATS getting away with all sorts of criminal acts while the Republicans sit around and spend too much time on issues that are the least of our problems.  While most Republicans feel that the “abortion” issue was a win -win and a victory, they spent too much time discussing it when it’s an issue I personally  feel should not be part of a political stance.  This was just one example.  

There’s much more I can write  about when it comes to President Trump.  And  while I did my part both in 2016 and the 2020 elections by working as a digital activist for the Trump Campaign, now more than ever, I want to fight with ALL of my being to help President Trump (more-so) and the Republican party; provided that there are no more Republicans who turn their back on President Trump.  Otherwise, I can no longer support the GOP.  

Sincerely,

Madonna Gallis

The Gay Agenda is Dead and Gone

Dear LGBT Activists,

We know that you have been bullying everyone for LGBT supremacy for the last twenty years.

And We the People have had enough.

So, for people like you, we have a song to share.

[Sung to the tune of "We're Coming for Your Children," by the creepy predator Gay Men's Chorus of San Francisco]

---------------------------------------

You think we're bigots. You think you have a right to flaunt your hate.

For thirty years, you've lied to our faces that you were "Born that way."

From the start, you're INCORRECT!

We’ll restore the family, happens bit by bit,

Loudly and proudly, and you'll just have to deal with it.

We will end all the drag shows, abandon San Francisco,

Make men stop wearing dresses, so there!

We’ll restore the truth … and make you tolerant and fair.

You should be worried: We'll convert your friends.

You won’t approve that everyone has turned Right.

And you’ll be disgusted when we all start learning things online

That you kept far from our sight. [Like "Not born that way."]

We’ll convert the public – Yes we will!

Reaching one and all,

There’s really no escaping it, because everyone actually hates RuPaul.

The world’s getting brighter, Gen Z’s MAGA -- and fighters!

We’re calling you out. We’re protecting all the children.

The gay agenda is going down.

The gay agenda is dead and gone.” 

Tear Down This Icon: Replace Reagan with Trump

In 2013, after Republicans lost their winnable race against Barack Obama to deny him a second term, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin sounded off with a daring opinion piece:

Tear Down This Icon

Normally, I would not give a fake conservative, closet NeverTrump liberal the time of day. But her article arguing for removing Ronald Reagan as a rallying point for the Republican Party resonated with me in the past.

Reagan was a big spender, even in Washington. He had liberal positions during his governorship. He supported amnesty for illegal aliens, and he even pressed for an open border of commerce, trade, etc. with Mexico. Many national-populist types are turning on Reagan for precisely these issues, and even his major columnist supporter George Will would denounce the clash between Reagan's rhetoric and the reality of his administration nearly thirty years after he was elected.

Now, let's take a closer look at Rubin's ruminations:

The unfailing reverence on the American right for Ronald Reagan is understandable. He was the only exemplar of modern conservatism to win the White House, and unlike liberal icons such as Roosevelt or Johnson or Obama, he presided over an economic boom and became beloved by voters not normally drawn to his party. No wonder that Reagan, long before his death in 2004, attained mythical status in the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

Nearly ten years after this statement, this mystical hold of Reaganism still grips the Republican Party, especially the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.

We should give some credit where it is due, anyway. Reagan presided over eight years of unprecedented economic growth. His foreign policy hearkened back to a more isolationist approach, in which he spoke softly but carried a big stick. His aggressive efforts to sanction and stop communism, especially the Soviet Union, are admirable. The USSR collapsed in large part because of Reagan's indefatigable commitment to consign communism to the ashheap of history.

Rubin continues:

But that myth has become a burden for the modern GOP. It has bound Reagan’s followers on the right to policies and positions that were time-specific. The old guard has become convinced that Reagan’s solutions to the problems of his time were the essence of conservatism — not simply conservative ideas appropriate for that era.

This is an accurate and effective criticism. The issues which Reagan faced in 1980 and 1984--inflation, recession, communism around the globe--were not the major issues of Election 2012. In fact, they are not the main issues today. As I mentioned above, Reagan's policies counter the goals and interests of conservatives today!

We want to secure the border, limit immigration (not just stop illegal immigration.) We want to expand gun ownership and assure gun rights, not deprive them. Also, China is a looming global (and globalist) threat which cannot be tamed with free trade.

Reagan's solutions and successes will not help the GOP today.

And with that, Rubin gave a stern warning to the Twenty-first Century GOP:

The Republican Party can remain a Ronald Reagan historical society, or it can try to endure as a force in national politics. But it can’t do both. The choice matters greatly, for there is no guarantee that the GOP will retain its ability to win national elections or that conservatism has a future as a national governing philosophy.

I could not agree more with this sentiment. It seems to me that Republicans want to live in the past. They do not want to move with the times, i.e. get fighting new fights. There is this hope that they can coast on prior victories.

However, I do not agree with Rubin that the party needs to move left on key cultural or economic issues. The last thing that the United States, or any country for that matter, needs is two liberal, progressive, leftist, communist parties, etc.

In her article tearing down Icon Reagan, she does not despise traditional values. She does make a great deal of noise about outreach to other demographics in the country, and even the RNC Chairman at the time, Reince Priebus, acknowledged that 

The Family Research Council rejects Rubin's suggestion, but focused on his campaign process to win as many states as possible throughout the country:

In a play on one of the Gipper’s greatest lines, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin urges us to “Tear Down this Icon.” The highly touted “From the Right” columnist urges conservatives and Republicans to get over the Reagan legacy.

By the recent showings of the party’s presidential nominees, one would think the GOP has certainly gotten over Ronald Reagan. When was the last time the Beltway campaign consultants, those high-priced hirelings, even attempted to win the whole country? Besotted by Red State/Blue State calculations, and armed with their white boards, the big domes never have come close to Reagan’s generous inclusiveness. Reagan thought of all the states as Red, White & Blue. He wanted to win them all, and twice nearly did.

Family Research Council writers are correct, in that the Republican Party has eschewed fighting for the entire country, and instead got comfortable with barely getting by. That never works in politics for the long term. California Republicans have followed that model since 2002, and now California is a deep-blue whole of progressive despair. Controlled opposition does not win the fight.

Rubin's point still deserves attention, i.e. the Republican Party needs to get beyond celebrating Reagan's old victories. There are new culture war issues that need to be fought, and just basking in the shadows of Reagan's past is not going to help the party--or the country--today.

So, I do agree with the general sentiment: time to move on from Reagan. I have written about this issue a number of times.

I submit that it's time to recognize President Trump as the new standard-bearer for the Republican Party. He accomplished a number of domestic policy goals which matter today. He fought to build the wall along our Southern border, not just talk about it. He focused on illegal immigration and mass immigration, which was decimating border communities and harming working people.

He is the most pro-life President we have ever had in the White House. He was the first President to address the March for Life in Washington DC. He repeatedly took efforts to cut funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortuary hate groups and institutions. 

He focused on protecting and enhancing religious liberty in a nation where respect for the divine has been unduly tarnished and neglected. 

He kept the United States out of war for four years. 

He fought against the encroachment of domestic communism, including Critical Racist Theorty and Woke ideologies. Reagan fought international communism, and that deserves merit and support. But we need to fight this corrupt, corrosive, evil ideology at home now, and we need a real culture war commitment to fighting and winning this fight.

Republicans have wanted to bask in the glowing of Reagan's old victories. President Trump's victories then and now deserve our new--and renewed--focus.

Most importantly, though, Trump should be the new standard-bearer because He Fights. He was a relentless pugilist in the fight to put America and Americans First. That spirit of trudging through tough times, of putting up one's dukes to fight and win, we need that kind of animus in conservative politics. We don't need controlled opposition, we don't need politicians who play by Queensbury Rules, while the Left routinely breaks the law and does whatever they want.

Reagan had his place, but it's time to move on. We need a new standard, a new pattern, a new example of conservatism that fights to win, that struggles to shape the culture, that moves forward to ensure and foster a movement.

It's time to tear down Reagan and replace him with Trump.