"....but deliver us from the evil ones"

A major battle is won.  But the war for the hearts and minds of our children goes on.  Will the four California Supreme Court justices George, Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno again violate the constitutional separation of powers and legislate from the bench?

LATEST NEWS: On May 26 the California Supreme Court voted 6-1 to uphold the constitutional amendment of Prop.8.  Only Justice Moreno voted to continue to buck the will of the California electorate.

Note: If you want to go directly to the database listing all the teachers (and other people in your area) who contributed to one of the two campaigns of Prop.8 click here

---

Contents

BACKGROUND

ADVICE FOR PARENTS

A. OVERALL STRATEGY

B. STEPS TO PROTECT YOUR CHILD FROM INDOCTRINATION
1. Determine who are your friends in the war  
2. Determine who are your opponents and draw the battle line
3. Conduct of the battle for the hearts and minds of our children.
4. School Boards
5. Establish a School Site Council (SSC) for your School
6. Boycotts
7. On which side is President Obama?

C. ALLIES AND OPPONENTS BASED ON CONTRIBUTION RECORDS
1. The African-American vote
2. The big disconnect between some labor union activists/leaders and the interest of the members
3. The HUGE disconnect
3:1. School Teachers etc.
3:2. School District Board Members
4. Contributions from political campaigns
4:1. A tidbit of profound insight
5. Some very deep pockets are jeopardizing our form of democracy – Contributions to and from homo organizations
6. The Hollywood factor
7. The Religion factor

CONCLUDING REMARKS

---

BACKGROUND

In the California election of March 2000, California voters passed proposition 22 with a 61.4% majority.  The law defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

But in May of 2008, the California Supreme Court - by a 4 to 3 vote - declared the law unconstitutional and void.  In rescinding the law, Supreme Court justices Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno opened up marriage to other unions as well for two or more people in any combination of gender. 

The constitution (both US and CA) makes a clear separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.  Therefore, by invalidating a law passed by the people of California, the four justices violated the very constitution they have sworn to uphold.  It is not their role to make laws or invalidating laws passed by the people and their representatives.  As expressed by Justice Baxter of the Supreme Court, who wrote the dissenting opinion:
“In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority (i.e. the four of seven justices; explanation added) violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error”.

Baxter continues: “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.  California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority”. (end quote)

And another dissenting justice (Corrigan) piled it on when she wrote:
“But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.

This violation of the constitution by four of the seven justices is of course a very serious matter indeed.  It’s an assault on the very foundation of our democracy and our form of government “of the people, by the people and for the people”!

The Use and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Our founding fathers envisioned situations when future rulers might usurp power.  To avoid future dictators and tyrants they gave us the second amendment that reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

One of the earliest constitutional theorists was St. George Tucker who described the second amendment as the "natural defense of a free country, both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers.”  Tucker hoped that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty”.  He considered the militia a “moral check” against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power.  It was to be an instrument to Help Abolish Legal Tyranny (HALT).

The invalidation of Prop.22 by the slimmest possible margin of the Supreme Court did not sit well with many California voters, especially parents.  So a new proposition (Prop.8) was put on the November 4, 2008 ballot by many people concerned about the impact of gender confusion on their children.  For example, on October 10, 2008 - very soon after the four Supreme Court justices threw out Prop.22 - a class of first-graders was bussed to City Hall in San Francisco to witness the marriage of a lesbian couple officiated by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom.  People all over California suddenly realized what was at stake; the indoctrination of their very impressionable children that homosexuality is equally desirable as heterosexuality.

As the California Supreme Court now reviews the request by the Prop.8 opponents to throw out this law also (as they did with Prop.22), will these four justices again “commit profound error” by “violating the separation of powers” enshrined in our constitution?

Will these individuals again force their own opinions and wills on the people of California?

Ronal George	Joyce Kennard	Kathryn Werdegar	Carlos Moreno

Thank God. They did not.  On May 26, 2009 they voted 6-1 to uphold Prop.8.  Only Carlos Moreno voted to continue to buck the will of the people.

ADVICE FOR PARENTS

A. OVERALL STRATEGY

Let’s not kid ourselves and believe that this narrow victory will somehow persuade the leadership of our public schools (especially the leaders of the California Teachers Association and The Superintendent of Public Schools) to stop pushing their gay agenda on our children.  The history of the homolobby is to temporarily take one step back, regroup and then take two steps forward. Just like it happened after the passage of Prop.22?

Stay very vigilant!  There are two paramount facts to remember at the outset.  Facts that will guide you as you take actions with other parents to protect your children:

#1.  Contrary to what the opponents of Prop.8 would have you believe, the main purpose of breaking up the time-honored institution of marriage is to introduce gender confusion in the minds of our little ones.  Homosexuals know that for most of them their homosexuality grew out of gender confusion in childhood.  They want other people to believe that some children are born with a homosexual gene and that their future sexual orientation is therefore not affected by childhood experiences.  Nothing could be farther from the truth. (See the scientific background on Myths 2 and 3 on this website). Therefore, in order to increase their ranks and clout in society, the homolobby has determined that the schools (especially lower level elementary classes) must be their primary recruiting territory.  With very few exceptions they will never be able to recruit adult heterosexual individuals.

They want their agenda to be labeled “tolerance training”.  But to them “tolerance” is a one-way street. They demand all kinds of tolerance from others for their own risky and destructive lifestyle, but they would never tolerate your parental right to teach your own children in matters of desirable sexuality.  When the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts adjudicated the case Parker v. Hurley, the ACLU submitted this argument in an amicus curiae brief:

“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King……………This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.”
And the Human Rights Campaign wrote in a similar brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system…… In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.”

If, as a parent, that does not make your blood boil, then what will?

Click on this link for more information from LifeSiteNews.  And for a more detailed discussion of what's at stake for our vulnerable children, listen to a speech delivered by Pastor Jim Franklin of Cornerstone Church in Fresno a few weeks before the November 2008 election on Proposition 8.  For the audio link click here.

#2. Almost all parents want their children to develop into adolescents with a heterosexual orientation.  There may be isolated exceptions.  For example, homosexual parents who have been allowed (in some states) to adopt children, may argue that the homosexual lifestyle is equally desirable as the heterosexual lifestyle.  Under Myth 1 on this website you can read more about the homosexual lifestyle and then draw your own conclusions.  There are also parents with the misfortune of having older children who are already into the homosexual lifestyle.  Groups of such parents have been formed and rather than helping other parents to avoid the same fate, they tend to promote the lifestyle. (Shared misfortune is easier to bear.).  There’s one such group called “Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays” (PFLAG).  That group donated $24,926 to the “No on Prop.8” campaign.

But if you are a parent with a typical mindset, remember these two things: 1) The war you need to join is really about preventing gender confusion in your child by influencing what is taught in the public school system and 2) you are not alone with your concern.  Indeed, the vast majority of your fellow parents in your child’s school share your concern.  Banding together with others will enable you to prevail. 

But again, keep in mind:  The top leaders of our public schools want to present the homosexual lifestyle as something equally desirable as the heterosexual lifestyle.  In the curriculum which they have developed and pushed so far, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, about the many problems involved with the homosexual lifestyle.  That speaks volume about the honesty of these individuals. 

Tricks by Jack O’Connell
For example, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell stated in “No on Prop.8” campaign commercials: "Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids" and "Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage."
Oh really? Let us take a look at it!

The CA Education Code, reads:
51890.  (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities to ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:
…………………
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
And the Code continues:
51500.  No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
220.  No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code…

It could be discussed what is meant by the wording "....discriminatory bias because of .....sexual orientation...". One could argue that teaching the obvious - namely that the homosexual lifestyle is problematic by comparison and therefore not desirabale - is just teaching facts and is not a "discriminatory bias". For example, why should it be kept a secret that there are much higher health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle and practises? That ought not be considered a "discriminatory bias". But that's how they gay lobby wants it to be interpreted. As always they want to argue against the facts and want the children to be taught that their lifestyle is equally desirable. When did they want the truth to be taught? So, chances are that some school district officials - in order to "play it safe" and avoid complaints from the homo people - will forbid any mention of facts regarding the problems with the homosexual lifestyle. For example, the number of homosexuals today are probably no more than 4% of the total population (it used to be about 1.5% for female homosexuals and 3% for male homosexuals before their lifestyle was popularized by the entertainment industry).  Yet, a full 70% of new HIV cases are found among homosexuals.  But teachers must not say anything that “promotes a discriminatory bias”.

James Dobson on “Focus On The Family” has recommended parents in California to send their children to private schools if they can afford it, because of the evil program in California schools to indoctrinate our children.  But you should not need to do that considering that, as a taxpayer, you are still part of paying $10,264 annually for each child in our public school system. (Statistics from April 2008; CA 25^th among the states).  Instead, if all parents in California who want to protect their little ones from evil indoctrination band together, the war for the souls of our impressionable children can be won.  Here follow some suggested action items in this war.

 

B. STEPS TO PROTECT YOUR CHILD FROM INDOCTRINATION

Let’s now look at some specific actions that you, as a parent, can take to protect your child from evil indoctrination in his or her school.

1. Determine who are your friends in the war
As already stated, most of the parents of the other students in your child’s class, will also want to prevent gender confusion in their children.  But many parents are not very knowledgeable about the role gender confusion plays in the development of homosexuality.  [There are of course other factors too.  Child molestation is also a very strong precursor.]  So you may want to provide scientific background information to your potential “comrades-in-arms”.  For example from this website as well as many other good ones.  Remember: The truthful science on this subject is on our side even though the enemy spends a lot of effort and money in disseminating intellectually dishonest and untrue information on the subject.

A good starting point is to find out how other parents voted on Prop.8.  But even if a parent may have voted “No” on Prop.8, he or she may very well side with you once properly informed about the facts.

A similar situation applies to teachers and school officials (classroom teachers, principals, counselors etc.).  Ask them how they voted.  If they don’t want to answer your question, tell them that their own organization, the California Teachers Association (CTA), contributed over $2 million to the “No” campaign.  This suggests that the issue is important to teachers and that therefore they owe you an answer.  If they voted “No” determine the reason through discussion.  If their “No” vote was from lack of understanding the issue, then inform them.  They may become your allies.  Above all, make it very clear that your aim is to protect your child from being indoctrinated with biased and untruthful information about homosexuality.  Any tendency on the part of school officials to cover up the undesirable and high-risk behavior of the homosexual lifestyle is dishonest.

2.  Determine who are not on your side and draw the battle line
As you canvass where your child’s teachers and school officials stand on this issue, you will encounter those who strongly sympathize with the official CTA position and stand ready to push the homosexual “tolerance agenda” on your child.  These are your opponents and do not let yourself be intimidated by them.  You and your allies must get into the decision making positions in the school arena.  You often do that best by being a friendly person in general even as you stick to your convictions.  Volunteer to help, talk often with other parents and teachers and you will pretty soon become popular, maybe even among those who disagree with you on the issue.  But for some it may not work since they may feel as strongly about tolerance indoctrination as you are against it.  Then you and your allies must be assertive and draw the battle line.  Remember, it’s about the well-being of your child and that it is his/her future sexual orientation that is at stake.

3. Conduct of the battle for the hearts and minds of our children.
Rest assured that the battle will come.  The agenda of the public school system in California is driven by powerful homosexual interests drawing lots of money from homosexual billionaires like David Geffin, George Soros, Tim Gills and many others (see discussion below under “C. Allies and Opponents Based on Contribution Records).  They know that they can’t convert adult people from hetero to homo.  But children in our public schools are an entirely different matter.

Let’s take a lesson from the Boy Scouts of America.  They struggled for a very long time to prevent homosexual men from becoming scout leaders.  This was very important for them since the boy scouts often go camping and sleep in tents.  To have homosexual men in the same tent as young, vulnerable boys was anathema to the Boy Scouts since a homosexual man is ten time more likely to be pedophile than a heterosexual man (for a discussion see Myth 1, item 4 on this website).  For this stand, the Boy Scouts of America was harassed and intimidated continously by the homolobby.  But they kept the faith.  They lost a lot of financial contributions from many companies who did not have the guts to support the Scouts when the homolobby intimidated them to withdraw their financial support.  The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court where the case was adjudicated in June 2000 (case: Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale).  The majority found that Boy Scouts had the right to prevent homosexual from becoming Scout leaders.  But the victory on the Supreme Court was with the thinnest margin possible (5 to 4).  This important decision is of course in danger of being overturned if a future president were to appoint more judges who are supporters or advocates of the gay agenda in America.  It’s common practice by the homosexual billionaires to give substantial financial support early in a political campaign (seed money) to make the future elected official beholden to their agenda.

Once the battle in your school is shaping up, do all you can to take the initiative.  If you have done the legwork and educated and alerted all parents about what is at stake, you should together be able to prevail.  And you may have saved many children from a lifelong lifestyle in human depravity.  You and other parents have been intimidated and silenced for too long so now it’s your time to take the initiative.  Be very vocal when necessary in protecting your children.  For example, at PTA-Teachers meetings or Board meetings on the issue, you could put up a poster reading:
“PTA to CTA’s homosexual agenda: Keep your hands off our children!!”

On October 13, 2008 interim director Liz Jaroslow took 18 first-graders from the Creative Arts Charter School by bus to San Francisco City Hall to witness and celebrate a lesbian wedding officiated by her friend’s friend S.F. mayor Gavin Newsom.  “It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroslow said. She also said: “It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."

Such “in-your-face” homo indoctrinators are the kind of people you need to get rid of as teachers of your children.  Be assertive!  Make sure such teachers and school officials understand that this kind of indoctrination and recruiting will be done over your dead body.  You must realize how passionate some of your enemies are in pushing their agenda.  They have a callous disregard for the well-being of your children.

There are lots of other actions you can take.  Be resourceful, alert and in front of all be proactive at all times.  Make sure you or other concerned parents are in continuous contact with your school principal and School Board trustees in your School District.  Find out what is the upcoming curriculum (if any) on this sensitive issue and what will be taught by whom and at which grade level.  If presented at all (maybe at higher grade levels), make sure that the heterosexual lifestyle will presented as the preferred alternative and that the many problems associated with a homosexual lifestyle be exposed (see for example Myth 1 on this website) The facts are on your side and the curriculum must be based on facts; not on myths.

IMPORTANT!
As you do battle for the hearts and minds of your children, remember that all children need love. You may come across children at your school (especially boys) who display signs of gender confusion. Such tendencies may start even at the early age of 2-3 years. Make sure to teach your own child to show love and respect for all his and her classmates. Let no boy ever be called a "sissy" or be ostracized for not "fitting in" with the other boys. Instead, do all you can to include such boys in all the other boys' activities. And don't let the school curriculum be allowed to plant the idea in his head that he will one day marry another prince. Instead, let him know that there's a princess out there waiting for him.

Instead, when you come across instances of gender confused behavior, try to befriend the boy's family. You are likely to find that the poor boy has no good father role model, a man to encourage him and help him develop his God-given masculinity. The lack of such a role-model, as well as being a victim of child molestation, are the most typical precursors of same-sex attractions at the onset of puberty. If you could become to such a boy what he lacks in his own family, you could be the one who will rescue him from a lifelong addiction to same-sex attraction. And some day there will be a reward for you when your days are up. As you know, the politically correct drumbeat is that homosexuality is in a boy's genes at birth and nothing can be done about it. Nothing could be farther from the truth and if you don't believe it I strongly urge you to read about myth 2 and myth 3 on this website.

4. School Boards
Needless to say, the individual school districts can greatly influence the detailed policy and curriculum for schools within their own district, even though there are certain overall directives coming from Sacramento.

So, how do you get men and women with your own value system elected to your School Board? Answer: Networking and Planning!  Long before actual elections to your school board, meet with likeminded and concerned parents and leaders from other classes and schools in your school district.

The goal is of course to keep the good existing school board members in office and replace your opponents in the next election.  So, as a starter, you need to find out the value system of existing school board members.  A good starter is to ask each existing school board member how he/she voted on Prop.8.  On such an important issue as Prop.8 - on which the California Teachers Association (CTA) spent a whopping $2,066,974 to defeat the measure - all officials and politicians involved with our schools should have an obligation to declare to the electorate where they stand.

When it comes to selecting a new candidate to your school board, someone who everybody with your views can wholeheartedly support, try to put your own ambitions aside so there will be no “internal competition”.  We need to be equally smart as our enemies to find the one candidate that we can all unite behind, and not spend time and resources on competing candidates who may both (or all) be worthy of our votes.

5. Establish a School Site Council (SSC) for your School
The Education Code sections 44666 through 44669 provides for the establishment of a School Site Council (SSC) at any individual public school.  However, SSCs can be established in a district “only upon approval by both the governing board of the district and the exclusive representative of certificated employees of the district.”  But if allowed and established an SSC will – through a School-Based Management (SBM) program - give parents at that particular school more influence over things like

1) Selection of new teachers and administrators

2)  Evaluation of teacher and administrator performance

3)  Selection of curricular areas for improvement

The latest item (#3) is of particular significance in preventing homosexual indoctrination of your child.  Click on this link for further information on SSCs. 

When the Education Code governing SSCs was promulgated many years ago, it was a very clear legislative intent to involve parents in the decision-making process beyond what was the case with PTAs.  If your school board is hesitant in establishing/allowing SSCs in your district, you should argue that the original legislative intent, as expressed in the code, is still valid even though there has been a sea change in dictating from above what must be indoctrinated in the children.

The SSC program already exists in many school districts and you should contact members of those SSCs for advice and guidance.

6. Boycotts
Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, contributed $1,000 to the “Yes on Pro.8” campaign.  When the gay community found out about it (through the records with the CA Secretary of State) they went berserk. Eckern stated "I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved."

But there’s no room for such liberties in many circles in the music and entertainment industry.  Composer Marc Shaiman ("Hairspray") wrote on a blog that he would never allow any of his shows to again be licensed or performed by California Musical Theatre while Eckern was employed there. Within a week after the election, Eckern had been pressured to resign from the job he had held for 25 years.  News reported “It was Eckern's dream job and, by all accounts, he did it well, helping to cement the organization's reputation as a progressive, accessible, artist-friendly organization”.  The reaction to Eckern’s private $1,000 donation by Shaiman (and others like him) is evidence of the common narcissism present in the characters of so many in the performing arts arena.

This was the first salvo in an extensive boycott campaign by the gay community of numerous businesses that donated to the “Yes on 8” campaign.  It’s now raging all across California.  Gay activists often intimidate the clients of these businesses to stop doing business with them.  The end goal is of course to ultimately force them out of business. 

Here’s a good link that addresses this issue in more detail.  It’s titled: “Maggie Gallagher, Glen Stanton & Jim Garlow: The Intimidation by the Same Sex Advocates” and you find it as the 6^th item on this website:  http://www.protectmarriageca.com . Or you may try by clicking here. Together with this website: http://www.protectmarriage.com it gives you a wealth of helpful information. When I read in one of the extremely partisan and liberal McClatchy company newspapers (The Fresno Bee, The Modesto Bee, The Sacramento Bee, The Tribune and Merced Sun-Star) about the Scott Eckern story, and how the gay lobby and the newspaper had identified other targets that the gay lobby was boycotting and how the newspaper was egging them on, I got upset. One of the targets was the Leatherby Ice Cream Store. That evening I went to Leatherby and told them we were there to buy ice-cream by the gay activists and liberal media to drive them out of business. They told me they had experienced an influx of new business because many people had responded the same way I did.

After loosing the Prop.8 election, gay activists became increasingly brazen and vicious in their attacks on Prop.8 supporters. Even anonymous death threats became commonplace. So much so that the "Yes on Prop.8" campaign petitioned a federal judge that the identities of the last 1,600 donors to the "Yes" campaign not be released. State Attorney General Jerry Brown, represented by attorney Morrazzini argued that in cases of threats the present laws provide ample protection of the "Yes" donors. An utterly laughable argument! Does anyone believe that Jerry Brown (on any local police force) would have the resources or the will to investigate all the instances when an anonymous caller calls a "Yes" campaign donor and levels physical threats against him or his family. The whole thing is a big travesty on a very uneven playing field. All the donors to the "No on Prop.8" campaign who wanted to remain anonymous contributed to one of the 39 homosexual organizations who in turn gave over $4 million to the registered "No on Prop.8" committees. There is no reporting of from where that money originated. But the "Yes on Prop.8" donors have no heterosexual organizations through which to channel money like that.

Richard Coleson, the attorney for the "Yes" campaign, submitted many declarations by donors who had been harassed in various ways and received death threats. He contended in court that it is having "a chilling impact on donors". The author of this website knows all too well how it feels when a threat to life an family is issued from an anonymous source. (See link on the top menu bar of this www.emaso.org website titled "The homo mafia"). On January 29, 2009 U.S. District Judge Morrison England sided with the Attorney General and refused to afford any protection to the donors to the "Yes on Prop.8" campaign.

Just as ominous, an article in the Sacramento Bee on February 1, 2008 describes (without any expression of condemnation) how wonderful the "boot camps" are that are presently being conducted by gay activists and with may more such camps planned for the future. These "boot camps" are already being conducted in case of a possible loss in March 2009 before the California Supreme Court of their appeal to again overturn the will of the people. Another proposition would then be on the ballot in 2010 to legalize homosexual marriages. The boot camp, held in West Hollywood (where else?), was sponsored by the SEIU United Healthcare Workers, California Nurses Association and George Soros' MoveOn.org. The Bee article reads: "Trainees were taught how to condense their stories into two-minute pitches. They were also schooled in the finer point on how to record responses while canvassing door to door or working phone lines" (end quote). Yes, you read that correctly: "....how to record responses while canvassing door to door.....". Just beware of this: when they come knocking on your door, you are being recorded and whether you are a donor or not they may come after you based on what you say tell them.

Do you now understand that we are approaching the time when the only thing standing between judicial tyranny and a ruthless homomafia on one hand and the wrecking of our democracy as we have known it for some 200 years, the only thing standing in the way is our second amendment. In a country like Sweden they did not have any such protection when the homo activists started taking control. There the homo mafia is today in full control at all levels in society. Even the Swedish Supreme Court has been infested as you can read by clicking here. The Swedish people have been cowed into never voicing any objection to their programs. Even the police force of Stockholm today proudly march under their own banner in the annual Gay Day Parade without any pretense of affording equal protection of all citizens.

In response to the attempts to shut down businesses who donated to the "Yes" campaign, don't you think it’s time for people of decency and tolerance to do what they can to protect these (often small) businesses.  When you click on your school district on this website, you will find not only the teachers in your district who contributed to either of the two Prop.8 camps, but you will also have a list of other people in your geographic area who contributed.  We have tried to identify the businesses among them and urge you to patronize those businesses (shown in green font) that contributed to the “Yes on Prop.8” campaign. We need to do what we can to show the gay community that their racketeering methods will not work.

You also have an alternative to your PG&E service.  Just go to http://notopge.com. Once there you click on either “Residential Service Page” or “Church or Business Service Page” and you will find two easy forms to fill out and fax or mail to Tiger Inc. at the given fax number or address.  It’s so easy and not only do you send a message to PG&E but you will also save some money.  Another way is to buy one (just 1!) share of PG&E stock.  You are then allowed to stand up and ask a question at their AGM (Annual General Meeting).  As a concerned investor you can make a big stink about the incredible action by PG&E to donate $250,000 of shareholders’ money to the “No on Prop.8” campaign.

There are lots of other things you can do if you just think about it.  For example there’s no reason why an area like Fresno - where 69% voted “Yes” on Prop.8 - should have a radical leftist newspaper like The Fresno Bee that is unwilling to support family values.  Just call 559-441-6111 to cancel your subscription today!

7. On which side is President Obama?
Both of the major presidential candidates supported Prop.8.  Both Obama and McCain appeared on August 16, 2008 at an event at Rick Warren’s mega church (Saddleback Church in Lake Forrest).  Warren asked the same question to both of them: “Define Marriage!”

This was Obamas’ response:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.  Now for me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union. God is in the mix…. I am not somebody who promotes same sex marriage but I do believe in civil unions.” 

And this was McCain’s response:

“A union between man and woman — between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage...[and on the subject of 4 CA Supreme Court Justices overturning Prop.22] “I believe they were wrong. And I strongly support preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman.”

Based on these statements from Obama and McCain, Rick Warren (understandably) could put together a video clip – which during the fall campaigns were sent to most churches in California to be played to congregations – where Warren told congregations that both candidates were in support of Prop.8.

A couple of days before the election on November 4 – when one of the candidates felt confident that the polls showed him as the winner – he changed his opinion and appeared with San Francisco’s Dianne Feinstein to decry Prop.8 and declare that he no longer supported it.

 

C.  ALLIES AND OPPONENTS BASED ON CONTRIBUTION RECORDS

Click here for a complete list of teachers and officials in your school district who contributed to the “YES on Prop.8” and the “NO on Prop.8” campaign.  It also shows what businesses in your area contributed to respective campaign.

In our analysis of contributions to the “Yes on Prop.8” and “No on Prop.8” we give you a good starting point in determining which teachers and school board members are your allies and which are your opponents.  If a person felt strongly enough to donate to one of the campaigns, you know where he/she stands on this issue. 

[Note: For more background and a more detailed discussion of how the contributions to the “Yes on Prop.8” and “No on Prop.8” were structured and implemented click here.]

When analyzing the extensive database of contributions, some apparent “trends” can be identified.  But keep in mind the obvious.  A trend does not mean that each person in an area or a group is part of the trend.  There are both honest people and crooks within each zip code.  And regarding Prop.8, even in San Francisco there were 92,536 people (24.8 % of total) who voted “Yes” on the proposition.

The overriding finding in the analysis of the Prop.8 campaign and voting results is that the majority of the voters in California got this one right while the vast majority of the “opinion makers” had it all wrong.  For example, the vast majority of the media all strongly recommended a “No” vote on the proposition.  The major conclusion is that the “Yes” vote itself as well as the donations to the “Yes on Prop.8” campaign cut across all social, political and economic lines. 

For example, it’s grossly incorrect to suggest that people who voted for the democratic presidential candidate (Obama) also voted “No” on Prop.8.  Whereas Obama got 61.1 % of the votes in California, only 47.7% of the electorate voted “No” on Prop.8.  For no voter group is this more apparent than the African-American vote.

1. The African-American vote
While it has been estimated that Obama got well over 90% of the African-American vote in California, it’s also estimated that 70% of all African-American voters voted “Yes” on Prop.8 according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

Martin Luther King Jr. said from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, 1963:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.  What MLK at the time referred to as the “negro people” understood back then - and they still understand – the difference between good and evil in a person’s character.

The gay community have for a long time wanted to compare their agenda with the civil rights struggle of our African-American population.  But the African-American community wants nothing of that!  This was well expressed by Pastor Phillip Goudeaux of the Calvary Christian Church – a mainly African-American mega church in Sacramento – when (at a “Yes on 8” rally on the steps of the Capitol in Sacramento on October 28) he stated: “I’m terribly offended when they (referring to the opponents of Prop.8) - attempt to compare their opposition to Prop.8  with the civil rights struggle we as African-American have had in the past”.

But when Prop. 8 passed, the homo community did not take out revenge for their loss on the Afro-American community.  (Many of them still cling to the vain hope that people in general will consider their agenda as a battle for civil rights, like the historical African-American struggle was.)  Instead homosexuals went after the minority group of Mormons (LDS) as their target of choice.  Many were the Mormon religious places of worships that were vandalized by the homosexuals.  But in the aftermath of Prop.8 also other denominations were victims of their notorious condom-throwing routines as they interrupted worship services.

2. The big disconnect between some labor union activists/leaders and the interest of the members
It stands to reason that for most employee groups with large memberships, the members by and large voted in an approximate proportion to the total California vote on the proposition.  Same thing goes for large consumer groups like PG&E customers.  For example, why would the very big “Service Employees International Union” (SEIU) be more interested in a “Yes” or a “NO” on Prop.8 than the California population at large?  How then can the leaders of SEIU contribute a staggering $572,950 of the membership dues to the “No” campaign, without any canvass of the opinions of their members?

For other organizations a support for “Yes on Prop.8” might have been expected.  So, how can the leaders of the “National Association of Social Workers” - whose members on a day-to-day basis see the tragic impacts in homes that are missing a mom and dad - decide to donate $35,000 to the “No” campaign?  It’s way beyond any reason?  Maybe the leadership was pressured or just believed that it might be good for their own potential political career to support something they perceived as politically correct?  Apparently, grass-root democracy is not at work in some of these organizations.

The same thing goes for many of the other organizations in the table below.  Of interest is also how the PG&E corporate leadership could justify the use $250,000 of stockholders profit to defeat Prop.8.  Again, no logical explanation!  Could it because PG&E is headquartered in San Francisco, the Mecca of gay activism?  If you are a PG&E shareholder you should stand up at the next AGM and demand an explanation.  (If you are a PG&E customer, click on http://notopge.com for information about how to get your gas and/or electric bill from another company. At a lower price!)

As you can see from the table below, the California Teachers Association (CTA) stands out as the main supporter of a “No” on Prop.8.  They donated a total of $2,066,974 in 16 different installments.  Whereas for all the other employee groups, there is no logical reason for the members to have a compelling interest in a “Yes” or “No” on Prop.8, the same is not true for the teachers.  Since teachers are in constant contact with children during their formative and vulnerable development, they have seen first hand the disadvantage of children who lack a mother and a father in their lives.  That is why they teachers themselves, individually, so overwhelmingly contributed to the “YES on Prop.8” campaign as discussed under the next headline below.  That is also why the massive contribution to a “NO on Prop.8” campaign by the arrogant CTA leadership was such a slap in the face of most of the CTA members.

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR	Amount contributed
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ISSUES PAC	$2,066,974
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU)	$772,950
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY	$250,000
UNITE HERE!	$124,200
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION	$42,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS	$35,000
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO ISSUES AND INITIATIVES COMMITTEE	$27,500
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL	$25,000
WORKING ASSETS FUNDING SERVICES, INC. DBA CREDO	$18,442
CFT COPE PROP/BALLOT CA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFT, AFL-CIO	$10,000
DOCTORS OF OPTOMETRY ISSUES PAC	$10,000
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ISSUES COMMITTEE	$9,000
FAULTLINE BAR, INC.	$6,000
CALIFORNIA CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN PAC	$5,000
CALIFORNIA DENTAL POLITICAL ACTION SCC	$5,000
GOOD JOBS PAC, A SPONSORED COMMITTEE OF UNITE HERE! LOCAL 2850	$5,000
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 447 COMMERCIAL ACCOUNT	$5,000
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE	$2,000
SAN FRANCISCO BAR PILOT	$2,000
SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 21ST CENTURY COMMITTEE	$2,000
UNITED STAFF WORKERS PAC	$2,000
UNIVERSITY COUNCEL/AFT	$2,000
UNITY PAC, A SPONSORED COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, AFL-CIO	$1,079
CALIFORNIA COAST CREDIT UNION	$1,000
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL	$1,000
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS OF SF	$1,000
UNITED EDUCATORS OF SAN FRANCISCO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION	$150

In the table above, donations by various subgroups (under the same “umbrella” organization) are included in the total.  For information on the individual contributions (for example by each “local” labor group) and to which of the many registered “NO on Prop.8” groups that the donation was given, click here.

In a sordid development, over 50 California Labor organizations on January 13, 2009 filed an amicus brief with the CA Supreme Court, asking the court that Proposition 8 be overturned.  In an interview in Sacramento Bee, Bill Camp (executive secretary of the Sacramento Central Labor Council) gave his unqualified support for overturning Prop.8.  The article reads: “It does not matter that most rank-and-file union members voted in favor of Proposition 8, according to exit polls.……… Camp is a ruthless organizer and political operative whose punching power is masked by a soothing North Carolina drawl and amiable manner. In the fight over gay marriage, he is fighting for love.”  Bill Camp’s son is gay so the fight is a family matter for him.  He is not the least embarrassed over using his Labor Council to further his own and his family’s interest in clear contravention of what is in the interest of the majority of dues paying union members.  How is that for integrity and ethics in the man?  For more information click here. One can just wonder what would happen if a union leader used union money to support the “Yes on Prop.8” campaign.  The double standard at work is utterly astounding!

3. The Huge Disconnect
It was to be expected that the homo organizations and their cohorts in the CTA leadership would be very interested in Prop.8.  After all, it’s in our schools that most of the recruiting of future homosexuals will occur.  And with private schools off-limits, the real battle ground is in our public schools.

At no time was this more clearly illustrated than when Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco – confidently anticipating a “No” vote on Prop.8 - staged a lesbian wedding in City Hall in San Francisco to which they had bussed a class of first graders to witness the “beautiful” and “exciting” event.  But for the voters with children in public schools, this was an ominous indication of things to come, so they reacted accordingly at the ballor boxes on November 4 and passed Prop.8.  Click here or click here for a video clip showing the lesbian “wedding”.

The votes on Prop.8 by the teachers themselves are of course of great interest to all parents.  Since the actual voting record itself obviously remains unknown, the donations to the “Yes” and “No” campaigns probably serve as a good indicator.  Donations to the campaigns came from both “organizations” and from “private contributors”.  The private contributors stated the name, city, ZIP, employer and occupation.  So this information is available from the California Secretary of State and here it is:

3:1.  School Teachers etc.
We took a close look at the mandatory filings of contribution records with the Secretary of State both for and against Prop.8.  A total of 11 Prop.8 committees had filed with the Secretary to accept contributions in favor of Prop.8 and 16 committees against Prop.8.  But only 4 committees supporting and 9 committees opposing Prop.8 actually received contributions according to the reports filed.

We identified all contributions from people with occupations in the K-12 teaching professions.  The stated occupations were: “teacher, teaching, educator, education, teacher aid, education coordinator, and all other combinations/derivatives of teacher and education like school teacher, teacher aid, substitute teacher, high school teacher, elementary teacher, school librarian, school counselor and the like.  In short: any occupation suggesting an involvement with K-12 students.  Professors, College professors etc. were not part of the group studied. Only K-12 occupations were of interest. And then we also removed all contributing “teaching occupations” who lived in other states.  

The overall statistics for contributions from these likely K-12 “teaching occupations” in California are as follows:

	YES on Prop.8	No on Prop.8	Ratio (Y/N)
Number of teaching professionals (K-12) who contributed to Prop.8	1,580	1,357	1.16
Total amount contributed	$583,006.22	$275,682.75	2.11

In this statistic multiple contributions from the same person were added up and the sum counted as one donation.

We then looked at the listed “employer” for all these contributors and got a subset of teaching professionals employed by any of our 988 public school districts (K-12).  The statistics for this subgroup are as follows:            

	YES on Prop.8	No on Prop.8	Ratio (Y/N)
Number of teaching professionals employed by CA (K-12) public school districts who contributed	1,049	600	1.75
Total amount contributed	$478,167	$145,824	3.28

The numbers in the table above only include contributions by teachers employed by a CA public school district itself. There were also contributions from teachers employed by some of the the 58 "County Office of Education" for each county (269 such teachers contributing to the "Yes" campaign and 184 teachers contributing to the "No" campaign). The total amounts were correspondingly smaller.

When comparing the two sets of tables above (all K-12 teaching professionals and all K-12 teaching professionals employed by public school districts) the total number of contributors (as opposed to total dollar amounts given) is of more significance.  One or a few major contributions from a limited amount or contributors could easily give a wrong impression of sentiments among the teachers at large.

[Footnote: It should be noted that the Y/N ratio for the number of contributors is significantly different for “all teachers” (ratio=1.16) as opposed to “teachers employed by school districts” (ratio=1.75).  This reflects the kind of teachers who are not employed by school districts.  The “Yes-on-8” K-12 teaching professionals in this category are often employed by private schools (typically religious in nature) and contributions were rare by comparison, since the issue at stake was about what would be taught in our public (not private) schools.  Also, many of the “No-on-8” K-12 teaching professionals in this category were from individual companies engaged and paid for as “consultants” in one form or another by school districts.  They therefore had an incentive to contribute to what they perceived as politically correct based (in part) on Jack O’Connell’s actions on this issue (see discussion below).]

To the extent that these donations from teachers reflect the voting pattern by the rest of the teachers (a reasonable assumption) it’s a positive sign that so many teachers understood the issue involved.  After all, a full 1,049 teachers (employed by a public school district) contributed to the “Yes” campaign while only 600 teachers contributed to the “No” campaign. And by the amount donated the ratio was even greater (3.28).

At the same time it’s a sordid situation when the leaders and homosexual activists of the organization that is supposed to represent these teachers (California Teachers Association; CTA) donated a whopping 2$ million plus to the “No on Prop.8” campaign.  One might ask what’s behind this huge disconnect with the members of CTA?

Answer: As discussed in more detail below, the vast majority of California’s public schools are so called “closed shops” which means that membership in the California Teachers Association (CTA) union is mandatory.  Most teachers pay more than $100/month to CTA, some of which goes to National Education Association (NEA). That is per month!  With more than 340,000 members you can see how the CTA leadership rakes in a lot of money.

The CTA leadership consists of:
David A. Sanchez 
Dean E. Vogel 
Daniel R. Vaughn
Carolyn Doggett

These are the real decision makers

David Sanchez	Dean Vogel	Daniel Vaughn	Carolyn Doggett

Do these leaders represent the CTA due paying members' interest?  Not by a long shot! 

There is a blog for teachers at http://educationwonk.blogspot.com, where teachers often speak their minds.  Here’s what one of them writes (in part) under the headline Union Unaccountability.

“Union Unaccountability – The CTA Edition”:

(Note: David A. Sanchez has since replaced Barbara Kerr as president)

“Like most California school teachers, I am forced to pay dues to three unions. One is the National Education Association (NEA), the second is the California Teachers Association (CTA) and last (and definitely least) the Middletown Elementary Teachers Association (META).

As I have said before, I actually like the ideal of teachers having an organization that exists in order to advocate improved salaries and working conditions for teachers.

But...I will only support such an organization if it is democratically-run, financially transparent, and accountable to its rank-and-file. Neither NEA nor CTA comes close to fulfilling even one of these important criteria.

Concerning past increases in dues, it would have been nice if these "Associations" would have bothered to ask (via electronic polling/voting) us dues-payers what we thought about increasing the amount of monies withheld from our paychecks in order to pursue the unions' political aims.

But neither NEA nor CTA believe in that sort of thing…………

In both organizations, dues are increased upon the "recommendation" of an appointed "executive committee." The membership never has an opportunity to have a say in setting the level of monthly dues. And since California is a "closed shop" state, the withholding of dues (from the union) is not an option….

Most months, I receive a union propaganda-sheet-in-the-guise-of-a-magazine from C.T.A. called California Educator (It used to be known as California Teacher, but that wasn't high-falutin enough.)

As pointed out by Darren over at Right On The Left Coast, the February edition of this "magazine" informed us hapless members victims that CTA President Barbara Kerr, Vice President David A. Sanchez, and Secretary-Treasurer Dean E. Vogel have all been unanimously re-selected by the executive committee for another two year term.

Just like that. No contested elections, no debates, no opponents, and, of course, no vote. Laughingly, CTA refers to itself as a "rigidly democratic organization."

The salaries received by these full-time unelected union operatives are a carefully-guarded secret. Repeated attempts to learn them have been unsuccessful. What we have learned is that these union people all get free lifetime full-family medical and dental insurance, while most of use teachers (Who actually pay for all this.) wind-up on Medicare at age 65.

The union gravy-train continues running unchecked.”

(end quote)

And another teacher on the same web blog is chiming in as follows:
“We here at the 'Wonks think we know why these union people refuse to allow us ordinary dues-paying rank-and-file members to have a vote... They really are a legalized racket, and when is the last time you ever heard of a bunch of racketeers being democratic?”
(end quote)

Well, this is a far cry from the way democracy was supposed to work. The amounts of union dues raked in by the CTA leadership's "legalized racket" each and every month is truly staggering. But the portion of the money they allocate to each of the three parts (1.Their own salaries and expense accounts, 2.Activities in support of the interests of the rank-and-file members and 3.Their Personal Pet Political Projects and Programs; the so-called "P5") is a well-kept secret kept close to their own hearts. This political setup and lack of transparency is utterly mind-boggling and foreign to democracy as we know it. The question that comes to mind is of course: How could this sordid state of affairs ever come about? Enter Jerry Brown, the Governor of California between 1975 and 1983. In the waning days of the then sitting CA legislature, Governor Brown helped to fashion some so-called “midnight legislation” (so called to avoid the radar screen of public exposure) that gave the CTA monopoly status and made the public schools (except for charter schools) so-called “closed shops” decried by the teachers above. This legislation is what made it a "legalized racket". The teachers in any of these non-charter schools must belong to the CTA - and pay them the monthtly dues extracted from them - as a condition of employment, no matter how much the teachers hate the CTA leadership. So no wonder the cozy relationship between Jerry Brown and the CTA as they both try to throw out Prop.8 and introduce homosexual indoctrination of our school children. When Proposition 8 had gathered the necessary number of signatures it was submitted to the voters under the label “California Marriage Protection Act”.  However, Jerry Brown saw it fit to change the title to “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” in a blatant attempt to convey the impression to the un-informed portion of the electorate that the proposition was about removing a longstanding constitutional right.  In reality, the law (Prop.22 of March 2000) - passed by a large majority of California voters - had just been overturned by the slimmest possible margin by the California Supreme Court.  They (i.e. 4 Supreme Court justices) had just been making their own law on this issue in flagrant violation of the separation of legislative and judicial powers under the constitution.

Click here to find out how the teachers and board members in your school district contributed to the two Prop.8 campaigns.  It also lists how other people and businesses in your geographic area contributed.

3:2.  School District Board Members
An equally important aspect of donations to the “Yes” or “No” campaigns is how the elected members of the many Board of Education (sometimes called Trustees) donated to the two campaigns.  After all, it’s these Board members who appoint the Superintendent for the School District who in turns is pivotal in the hiring of principals for the many public schools.  And their ability to influence district policy when it comes to whether or not to promote the gay agenda to the children cannot be overemphasized.  So how did the elected Board members donate?

Whereas for “teaching professionals” (teachers, educators, etc.) it was easy and straightforward to identify every donor employed by any of the school districts (each donor had to state the employer), the same was not true for the elected members of the different Board/Trustee members.

As an example, there is person by the name of “Rick Adams” who is a member on the Board of Trustees for the Laton Joint Unified School District in Fresno County.  And there is also a “Rick Adams” living in San Diego who contributed to one of the campaigns.  This is very unlikely the same person and incongruities like this are therefore not part of the presented statistics.

But as another example, there is a Board member by the name of Ross Millerick who sits on the Novato Unified School District in Marin County and also a Ross Millerick living in Novato who is a Project Manager employed by CDI and who contributed $200 to the “No on Prop.8” campaign.  This is likely the same person.  But for each board member about whom you want information, it’s a good idea to check it out.  Past campaign information about occupation etc. of the elected board member (probably still on the Internet) would confirm the identity.  And why not simply call him or her to find out?  Each elected board member owes it to his constituency to reveal how he or she voted on an issue of such importance to public schools in California that the CTA leadership found it necessary to contribute over $2 million of membership dues to defeat this proposition.

With this proviso, the statistics are as follows:

	YES on Prop.8	No on Prop.8	Ratio (Y/N)
Number of elected Board members for School Districts (K-12) who contributed	44	44	1.00
Total amount contributed	$31,160	$25,617	1.22

The contributors include both members of County Board of Education and members/trustees of Board of Education of individual school districts.

For a listing of contributions to the campaigns by Board members/Trustees click here.

With this limited sample it’s difficult to draw conclusions.  Yet, the question that comes to mind is of course why the high Y/N ratio among the teachers is not repeated among members of the School Boards.  A possible answer is that elected officials sometimes have ambitions for higher office and want to conform to what they believe to be “politically correct” positions. 

4. Contributions from political campaigns
The political campaigns of many individual politicians contributed to the two Prop.8 campaigns. Only 5 of them  contributed a total of $17,724 to the “Yes on Prop.8” campaign while 51 of them contributed a total of $232,584 to the “No on Prop.8” campaign.  (Contributions by political parties and various other political organizations are not included in this statistics).           

“Mark Leno for Senate” contributed the most ($29,000).  San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has very graciously considered serving as our new governor should the people so desire.  The “Newsom for California Exploratory Committee” contributed $25,000 to the “No” campaign.  “Lockyer 2010” also contributed $25,000 but “Garamendi for Governor 2010” only gave $2,000 to the “No” campaign.

Click here for a list of the total sum given by the campaigns of individual politicians.

Or Click here for the individual donations and through which registered committee each donation was given.

The pressing question here is of course why so much more was contributed to the “No” campaign than was given to the “Yes” campaign.  The fact that California is overwhelmingly democratic is not the real answer. Since California voted “Yes” on Prop.8, why would not more democratic politicians want to be on the side of the people?  There are two answers:

#1.  It was assumed at the outset of the campaigns that the “No on Prop.8” would win by a wide margin and mainstream media was fast to trumpet this to the public.

#2.  This was a homosexual issue and any ambitious politician knows that lots of campaign money is flowing from three very deep homosexual pockets.  This is discussed in detail below.

4:1. A tidbit of profound insight
Have you ever thought of how little things (hardly noticeable) are often very revealing of the bigger picture going on?  Let me tell you a little bit about the above $25,000 contribution by the “Lockyer 2010”.  The $25,000 contribution was the same amount as Newsom’s $25,000.  They both want to be our next governor.

Bob Tyler, General Counsel for the “Advocates for Faith & Freedom”, (http://www.faith-freedom.com) gave the following testimony in an interview with Jim Garlow of the “Skyline Church” in San Diego.  (To see the whole interview go to www.protectmarriageca.com and click on the link titled “Dr. Jim Garlow interviews Attorney Bob Tyler regarding CA Supreme Court” or try by clicking here (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1873832651).

In the interview Bob Tyler relates his experience in connection with what happened in February 2004 when San Francisco’s mayor Gavin Newsom suddenly started performing wedding ceremonies for gay people in clear violation of the law (Prop.22).  (This was 4 years before the four activist judges threw out Prop.22).  Newsom had contacted Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Lockyer (and maybe others) well beforehand and let them know about his intent to violate the law by starting to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples at City Hall.  None of them did anything to stop Newsom.  Even Bill Lockyer, then the Attorney General of California, decided to do nothing.  Under normal circumstances such a failure to perform the duties of Attorney General would be an impeachable offense.  But circumstances in California today are not normal.  Even when contacted by Schwarzenegger to uphold the law, Lockyer replied that it was not for the governor to tell him what to do.

Well, Bob Tyler of Advocates of Faith & Freedom had to intervene and do the job that Bill Lockyer was paid to do.  On his flight to San Francisco Tyler read up a little on the judge (Warren) in San Francisco Superior Court, before whom he was to argue the case that California law was not being enforced by the elected officials.  He read that judge Warren (a grandson to Earl Warren; former Chief Justice of the very liberal Supreme Court of the United States) was a republican and a married man with two children.  So he thought that he might have a fighting chance. When he argued the case he felt it was like “banging his head against the wall”.  After arguing the case, a Sheriff Deputy escorted him from the court room. 

The Sheriff said to Tyler: “Don’t you know?”

“Know what?”  Tyler responded.

“That Judge Warren recently came out of the closet at a Christmas party and declared himself gay”

It’s easy to imagine how in a city like San Francisco there may be many who are still closet homosexuals and on whom the gay lobby can exert intimidation and blackmail to get their wills in the courts.  And what about officials like Attorney Generals who do not uphold the law.  In the interview with Pastor Garlow, Bob Tyler also pointed out the unfortunate circumstance that both the California Supreme Court and the famously extreme Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals are headquartered in San Francisco and therefore easily swayed by the permissive and promiscuous atmosphere in the city.   

5. Some very deep pockets are jeopardizing our form of democracy – Contributions to and from homo organizations
When the democrats in Colorado in November 2004 for the first time gained control of the legislature, is sent chills up the already corroded spines of many politicians.  Billionaire homosexual Tim Gill is the man who brought it about with his money.  Up until then Gill was not that well known.  But he is now an icon in league with George Sorros when it comes to buying one political victory after another for the homosexual activists.  Any political opponents to their chosen candidates are ruthlessly maligned in heavy media advertising that their money pays for in dirty political campaigns.  Another person in this class is David Geffen in Los Angeles.

Between the trio they spend money to get whatever they want in the political arena.  Just click here and here  to get an idea of how one of them is buying politician to champion their agenda.   But it’s one thing to buy state legislatures and an altogether different thing to pay for an agenda that wants to draw our children into the yoke of homosexuality. 

Tim Gill	George Soros	David Geffen

One irony is that these three very deep pockets like to be referred to as “philanthropists”.  For these billionaires, the spending of some hundred millions here and there is nothing.  The only reason they did not buy the victory for “No on Prop.8” was that they swing to a “Yes” victory came so fast and unexpectedly. But they are ready to spend what it takes for the final victory for the gay indoctrination of our children.  They know all to well that it’s a battle for the minds of our children.  Do you remember what George Soros said in the 2004 presidential election between Bush and Gore?  He had the arrogance to state publicly that he “would spend whatever it takes to defeat Bush”.   Well, it’s still an enigma why he did not (or could not) do it.  But it’s not likely to be repeated.  How is that for democracy at work?  If this trio of men continues much longer on the path they have embarked on, it will soon spell the end of democracy as we have come to know it.

Combined with the judicial tyranny that we see evolving and an electorate whose opinions are often formed by the mainstream liberal media, the future for democracy as we have come to know it is truly grim.  Judges and Justices are increasingly elected or appointed based on political considerations. 

Yet another example: Soros recently paid for sending a team of attorneys to Minnesota to steal the election from Norm Coleman and give it to Al Franken. Coleman had originally won but with fewer than 800 votes.  Whenever the winning margin is that small, layers go to work.  And the more money you have to pay for expensive attorneys, the greater your chance of winning questionable ballots.  It’s all a game played out in courtrooms.

Geffen was very instrumental and financially supportive when Obama started his run for the democratic primary.  So, expect a payback when our new president will nominate new Justices to the Supreme Court.  They are likely to be big promoters of the homo agenda.  Geffen contributed $250,000 through the official registered committees.  Gill contributed $782,500 ($652,500 of which came through the “Gill Action Fund”).  It’s impossible to know how much money they channeled through the myriad of their sponsored organizations in support of a “No on Prop.8.

The flow of money from the billionaire trio is easily concealed by using different organizations.  For example, whereas the reporting requirements for Prop.8 “committees” registered with the CA Secretary of State is spelled out in law, there are no such requirements for a vast array of homosexual groups and organizations.  Homosexual organizations contributed a total of $4,051,473.53 to the “No on Prop.8” campaign.  Click here for a summary of contributions from each of the 39 homosexual groups (14 of which were from other states) or click here for a listing of all the individual contributions from these groups and to which Prop.8 committee each of the contributions went.

It’s of course unknown how much of the $4 million plus in contribution from the homo organizations originated from the billionaire trio.  The homo organizations who funnel the money range the whole spectrum of homosexuality.  From the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, DC, projecting an aura of respectability, to the “PSLOD The Palm Spring Leather Order of the Desert” with the particular deviancy of using leather and physical pain to bring about sexual pleasure.

6. The Hollywood factor
Hollywood has never been known to promote fidelity or family values.  But the bias as reflected in the “No on Prop.8” contributions was worse than expected. I guess I wasn't prepared for how herdlike the Hollywood mentality and mindset really are. They are certainly not a diversified bunch of people. There's an almost a complete lack of diversity of opinions.

Here’s an example.  The Beverly Hills School District has 4 Elementary Schools and 1 High School in the following ZIP codes: 90210, 90211 and 90212.  In these 3 zip codes individual contributions were as follows                       

For Hollywood:	YES on Prop.8	No on Prop.8	Ratio (Y/N)
Number of contributors to campaigns	9	243	0.037
Total amount contributed	$3,066	$1,848,304	0.0017

For detailed information click here.

Compare this to the total contributions              

For all of California:	YES on Prop.8	No on Prop.8	Ratio (Y/N)
Number of contributors to campaigns	27,513	29,210	0.942
Total amount contributed	$32,933,329	$36,679,843	0.898

The numbers in these two tables are for private contributions only and do not reflect any out-of-state contributions.  Tables are meant to compare Hollywood to the rest of California.

The huge difference between Hollywood and the rest of California is further reinforced by comparing the donations to “Yes” and “No” from the following occupation categories:  “actor, actresses, film and movie editor” as well as other relevant combinations of “film” and “movie”.  The result is as follows:                          

For the movie industry	YES on Prop.8	No on Prop.8	Ratio (Y/N)
Number of contributors to campaigns	16	229	0.070
Total amount contributed	$48,125	$412,078	0.117

For detailed information click here or click here for a listing of all the individual contributions from these people and to which Prop.8 committee each of the contributions went.

These last tables do not reflect the privately held value system of all actors and actresses.  It’s common knowledge that an actor in Hollywood can be penalized by the movie industry if he or she does not share acceptance of the permissive and decadent Hollywood lifestyle.

However, in combination the “Hollywood tables” above go a long way in explaining the industry’s contempt for traditional family values and the flow of pornography, perversion and sewage from Hollywood’s entertainment industry to every corner of the world. Numbers don’t lie!

During the 2008 democratic presidential primary campaign, Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in a debate at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood on January 31, 2008.  The moderator was Wolf Blitzer from CNN.

Blitzer gave Doyle McManus the chance to ask this question:

“Senator Obama, we're in Los Angeles, the entertainment capital of the world. The audience here in the Kodak Theatre includes many of the nation's most influential directors, producers and actors. Now, for many years, parents have worried that there's just too much sex and violence coming out of Hollywood. Do you agree with that? And if you do, what will you do about it if you're elected president?”

OBAMA: “Well, I've got a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter. So I look at this not just as a legislator or a presidential candidate, but as a parent. And as a parent, yes, I am concerned about what's coming over the airwaves. Now, right now, my daughters mostly are on Nickelodeon, but they know how to work that remote.
(LAUGHTER)
“And, you know, the primary responsibility is for parents. And I reject the notion of censorship as an approach to dealing with this problem.”
(end quote).

This response was received with a rousing round of applause from the audience of pornographers and movie makers.  How utterly absurd!  There was not a word or follow-up question about all those children who don’t have a mom and dad to shoulder this responsibility for the children.  After a generation of filth and corrupting influences from Hollywood so many children today don’t have a mom and dad to take on this responsibility.

The rich Hollywood icons themselves send their own kids to private schools.  Their kids would never be bussed and made to participate in “beautiful lesbian weddings” at City Hall.

7. The religion factor
Parents do not need to be Christians, or Christians believing in the Bible, to join forces to resist homosexual indoctrination in the schools.  They can be of any or no religious stripe.  But they do need to understand that homosexuality is not in our genes from birth and that a child’s upbringing has a lot to do with his/her sexual orientation at the onset of puberty.  If someone disagrees with you on that count, as some still do, then they will have no reason to worry about their child’s future sexual orientation since nothing can be done about it anyhow.  Encourage such person/s/ to read (on this website) about Myth 2 (“You cannot influence your child as to what sexual orientation he will choose when puberty occurs”) and Myth 3 (“Sexual orientation is something inherited.  It’s determined by the genes”).  It presents a wealth of scientific facts and studies that dispel these myths. Above all: remember that the truth is on our side and that lies can prevail for only so long.

However, if you are a Christian, then there is something more to this issue and this section is for you.

When Obama campaigned in San Francisco he stated to a group of wealthy donors in San Francisco about people in small town America: “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them”. 

That was his somewhat condescending way of stating the fact that #1): Many people in America cling to their constitutional (2^nd amendment) right to rid themselves of tyranny (whether judicial or otherwise) and any attempts by a minority to abandon a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  And #2) they cling to their belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

The gay agenda is two-pronged with respect to religion:

They want to convince as many people as possible that the Bible is not true.  It’s arcane, written for another time and most definitely is not for our time and age.  They want people to believe that God is a construct of man, there is no personal God and we evolved as human from lower level of lives on planet earth.

But there will still be people who “cling to their religion” and believe the Bible.  This becomes a major obstacle to them since the Bible is extremely clear on the subject of homosexuality.  So, the approach they take is to redefine our faith with respect to homosexuality.  In other word: a new theology.

The December 15, 2008 issue of Newsweek had a feature article (by some Lisa Miller) titled “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage” with a picture of the Bible on the cover.  It presented all the arguments made a thousand times that the Bible really doesn’t mean what it says.  Grant it that we live in a time and country much different than God's chosen people Israel did.  We subscribe to democracy and are not a theocracy as Israel of old.  But we believe that the God who made us knows what is best for us as individuals and also what is best for the society of mankind.  How then can a God who judged the acts of homosexuality so severely among his people of old, suddenly change heart and approve of the act in our time and age?  Good try Lisa! But it won’t work for “people of faith”.

People of faith know that - apart from the redemption plan - God’s design for the family was the most important plan in his creation.  The design was a union between a man and a woman for the pro-creation of all mankind.

But Lisa never went as far as a recent publication in Stockholm, Sweden (published by the Swedish Church) that declared that Jesus was a homosexual pedophile.  For more information click here

So, the first approach (to rid our society of any vestige of Christianity) probably has the potential of the most success for them.  As we all know really well, the ACLU is of enormous help in this.  An important element will be to forbid preaching from the pulpit about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality since it will offend and show disrespect of an important minority group of people.  Such laws have already been enacted in other countries, notably Sweden and Canada. Click on www.akegreen.org for information of what happened to a Swedish pastor who dared to break the new law in Sweden.  The case went all the way to the Swedish Supreme Court where Pastor Green was ultimately acquitted.  But only because the European Court (with jurisdiction on human right issues like freedom of speech and freedom of religion) had not yet enacted laws that limited these freedoms.  But it may soon happen.  Even in our country the day will come when the Bible will no longer be proclaimed on this issue since it will be considered offensive to the gay community.

As faith in God disintegrates, so does society as we know it.  There’s an associated loss in ethics and morality.  If we just evolved from lower forms of life and through “survival of the fittest” became what we are, why would we care for our fellow man?  If we are not eternal beings and there is no God who will one day hold us accountable, what’s the point of morality?  As the rug is being pulled from under our children (by people like ACLU and the homo agenda) we can already see the consequences. Besides the tragic impact on individual lives, the costs to society is already enormous.  The families are breaking apart and our youth - without guidance by a mother and a father but instead influences from today’s entertainment business - are filling up our prisons at a huge cost to society.

Here's another aspect of how ethics and morality relates to our daily lives: If you are an employer you know how important it is with honesty in the character of your employees.  A person who believes in the Bible also believes that God created man and woman “in His image” and that marriage was His design for the procreation of mankind.  He also believes that one day he will be held accountable by his creator for his actions on earth.  On the other hand, a person who believes that he or she evolved over the eons from a single cell life form – no matter how such a complex DNA structure as that of even a single cell could suddenly come to planet earth – cannot possibly believe that marriage was the design for mankind by a creator or that he will one day be held accountable for his actions on our planet.  This does not mean that all non-believers lack ethics and morality, even though it’s not derived from a belief in eternal life.  But all other factors equal, a person of faith is more likely to think about the eternal consequences of dishonesty and immorality.

Just one more very apparent example of the evil in our society.  A few years ago, the City of Chicago saw it fit to name one of their streets in honor of Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy magazine.  What kind of message does that send to our children and young people regarding respect for women?

The consequences of evil in our society are already very apparent and can’t be denied.  They are there for everyone to witness.  But for a believer in a God who is interested in the affairs of man, there is yet another dimension. God’s judgment over the sins of a nation!  We as Americans have experienced enormous grace from God during our short history.  But is judgment - whether natural, economic or terrorist disasters - around the corner?  Click here for a discussion of the cycles of civilizations and how they finally end in self-destruction.

For people of faith it’s easy to despair when so many cards seem to be stacked against morality, ethics and righteousness in our state.  It’s easy to give up and believe that all is lost.  But people of faith count on someone who is greater than you and me and who knows what’s going on.  He is ultimately in control of the affairs of men and has infinitely more resources than earthly money can ever buy.  They know that they “wrestle not against flesh and blood but against…..wickedness in high places.”  So, they do what they feel led to do by their creator in resisting evil.  But by the end of the day, they know that they don’t need to worry and fret.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Our country is presently embroiled in moral controversy and strife like never before.  There is such a lack of goodwill between people of different opinions. There used to be in our country a sort of fabric that tied us together.  Some commonly shared system of values that transcended politics.  One such shared value was that if you did not win on a political issue that you cared much about, you nevertheless accepted the will of the majority.  And as a consequence there was goodwill between winner and looser and life went on. 

Such is not the case anymore!  The slogan for many people now is: if you loose in an election, use all the judicial tricks you can afford and mobilize them to force your will upon the rest of the people.  And access to lots of money and a lock on the judiciary have become their powerful weapons in this culture war.  As a consequence of such behavior we now see a polarization of the populace like never before.

It’s interesting that so much of the strife in our political arena has come to center around homosexuality and moral values.  Proposition 8 was such a catalyst for much of what is going on in our society.  If you look at it on the surface it seems to be so much about nothing.  Why would anyone care whether you call a homosexual relationship a civil union or a marriage.  It all seems to be wrapped up in an artificial definition.  But the real issue runs deeper than that.  It’s about whether the homosexual forces and their agenda for our children, will wrestle from the rest of us our God-given right to bring up our own children the way we want. 

The bottom line is that the promoters of the homo agenda want all children to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is equally desirable to a heterosexual lifestyle.  But parents do not want that.  And that’s what this war is all about.

Sodom and Gomorrah did not become homosexually possessed over night.  It probably happened over generations.  In small steps it worked its way into society.  Such is the nature of the spirit of homosexuality.  It craves new victims.  It’s never satisfied.

The ACLU is considered by many parents the Public Enemy number 1 in our raging culture war.  It’s the principal lobbying arm of America’s pornography industry.  Some may recall that in the 1988 presidential election, Governor Mike Dukakis even lost the election after he proudly stated: “I’m a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union”.  Click here for information.

And still nobody seems to be able to stop the evil activities in our society by ACLU.  Very predictably the ACLU donated money to the “NO on Prop.8” campaign.  A total of $182,841 in 38 different contributions to 2 different registered committees opposing Prop.8.

Another action that rips apart the fabric that holds a society together is when a political leader unnecessarily squanders taxpayers’ money on issues that are very divisive in society.  Such was the case when Arnold Schwarzenegger decided that California should spend $3 billion on embryonic stem cell research. Money that California could ill afford even in those days!  Such research is clearly the purview of the federal government and nothing on which only one of the 50 states should independently spend money.  But the federal government and congress had set ethical and moral limits on how far genetic engineering should go.  But this was not to Schwarzenegger’s liking.  So even if it was a divisive moral issue even in California he didn’t care.  That’s why California since November 2004 is stuck with repaying a divisive $3 billion bond issue for human embryonic stem-cell experiments.  It (i.e. Proposition 71) passed with Schwarzenegger’s enthusiastic backing.  It was the biggest-ever state-supported scientific research program in the country. Money that is sorely needed for so many other far more important programs.  Then in 2008 when Schwarzenegger declared his opposition to Prop.8 he again disappointed many. 

Suggested further reading:

1. David Kupelian, “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom”.
The book can be ordered for $16.47 from http://www.amazon.com

2. Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. and Linda Nicolosi, "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" - Intervarsity Press 2002
The book can be ordered for $ 11.56 from http://www.amazon.com