Laura Bush in favor of gay marriage and abortion

While pushing her new book, “Spoken from the Heart” on the Larry King show, Laura Bush dropped a bomb shell regarding her inner liberal leanings. She said that her stand in favor of abortion and gay marriage has been a point of disagreement between her and George Bush since before his first term as President of the United States.

She said that when (same sex) couples are committed to each other and love each other, they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has. When asked by Larry King if she could accept gay marriage, Laura Bush said, yes. The ex-first lady also told King she believes abortion should remain legal, an opinion she has held since before President Bush's first day in office in 2001. Laura Bush said abortion should remain legal, because she thinks it's important for people…

She even admitted to not being honest when interviewed by Katie Couric. On the day of George W. Bush's first inauguration, the first lady was asked by Couric if she was for the overturn of Roe versus Wade. Believing that her true liberal stand in favor of abortion might be detrimental to her husband’s presidency, she answered, “no.”

These statements came on the heels of another recent interview where she offered her approval of Obama’s latest pick, Elena Kagan, for the Supreme Court. Speaking of nominee, Laura said, "I think it's great." Kagan’s approval would mean that three women will be serving at once. "I'm really glad that there will be three,” said Bush “I like to have women on the Supreme Court…I like women to be represented in all parts of American political and civic life." Laura expressed approval of Kagan in spite of Kagan’s widely known stand in favor of socialism, and in spite of Kagan’s ruling that military recruiters should be banned from Harvard Law School. It seems strange that Laura Bush would support a greater representation of females on the Supreme Court even though Obama’s pick is known for her liberal policies. To Laura Bush, a greater representation by females on the bench trumps a person’s stand on moral issues.

Are you disappointed in Laura Bush? Does her stand cause you to waver? Do you feel that you don’t know who to trust? You can never fully trust another person. You must be diligent and you must do your homework. But at the end of the day, there will still be certain people who will let you down. Don’t use that as an excuse for you to give up or let up. Continue standing for that which is right. Continue speaking up about the issues of the day. Continue voting for the candidate who best fits in with the future of this country. Never let apathy rob you of your obligation to do your part in choosing the leadership of this country.

U.S. Federal Court Rules That Doing Business With The Boy Scouts Is Unlawful

On May 3, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn a lower court’s ruling that the Boy Scouts can no longer lease city-owned parkland in San Diego because the group is a religious organization.

A California U.S. District judge had earlier ruled that the City of San Diego acted improperly when it leased 18 acres of camp space to the Scouts because the group is a religious organization. The judge said the lease violated federal law that prohibits the government promotion of religion.

It all got started when with the help of the ACLU, a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple filed a lawsuit regarding the one-dollar per year lease agreement between the Scouts and the City. The lesbian couple had a beef with the Scouts due to their policy against using homosexuals to lead the scouts. The agnostic couple was against the Scouts due to their recognition of God.

The ACLU found a loophole in the law, permitting them to sue the city and the scouts. This loophole was centered around San Diego’s non-discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion.

The lawsuit argued that the city’s lease agreement with the scouts amounts to a subsidy of a religious organization that is violating the city’s non-discrimination law. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the two couples because they “suffered injury-in-fact.” What sort of injury did these couples suffer? Apparently, they suffered some sort of mental trauma when they avoided using the city park due to the Boy Scouts publicly expressed disapproval of lesbians, atheists and agnostics. The judge said that the city’s one-dollar lease to the Boy Scouts violates the state’s ban on support for religions.

The federal judge ruled against the Boy Scouts even though an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling stated that the Boy Scouts is a private organization with a First Amendment right to exclude gay people from its ranks.

Isn't it amazing that four people have the power to overturn the wishes of untold thousands of other people? How is it that the few can rule the many in today's society. The policies of non-discrimination started out as a necessary and a proper direction for our country to take. However, over the years, the definition of discrimination has evolved radically. To learn just how much and why, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to www.shadowtruthbook.com for ordering information.

School held hostage by the ACLU

A high school in Mississippi is being sued by the ACLU after it canceled its prom rather than permit a lesbian couple from attending. One planned to dress as a girl and the other was going to wear a tuxedo. The Fulton Mississippi school had a policy that all couples attending the dance had to be of the opposite sex, but the ACLU is seeing to it that such a policy is unconstitutional.

The ACLU sent a letter to the school informing them that there is a 1st Amendment right to bring same-sex dates to school dances. In addition to that, the ACLU stated that the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees were being violated. Forbidding this homosexual couple from attending the prom keeps them from being able to express themselves, have fun and make memories. Forbidding lesbians from attending proms is outright discrimination according to the ACLU, and discrimination should have been eliminated long ago.

Society is evolving so rapidly that two students can now control the majority. Political Correctness has run rampant on our country. We are now witnessing the times when the few can force their views and beliefs upon the many.

This event has been taken right out of today’s news. What else have you missed? You’d be surprised at the mountains of policy and law changes that are taking place right under your nose. Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate for an in-depth revelation. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for more information.

Uni-Sex restrooms coming to a school near you.

Following the tenets of Shadow Truth, the State of Maine now believes that the Maine Human Rights statute dictates that the use of “biology-based” restrooms and locker rooms is illegal and cannot continue. Maine is now giving serious consideration to implementing this new law.

The case is centered on “transgender” students who feel that it is their right to use which ever restroom or locker room they desire to use. Lawyers are suggesting that schools are guilty of discrimination when they prevent boys who perceive themselves as girls from using the girl’s locker rooms and restrooms. Therefore, schools cannot segregate students based on their biological identity.

The fact that a normal and straight girl might be shocked and offended by the fact that she is showering with a boy is not being considered in this ruling. Rather, this new ruling is completely focused on the rights of homosexuals and transgendered persons. What led to this consideration, is a case where a school “discriminated” against a boy by denying him access to the girl’s restroom.

Maine is not alone in this matter. Currently, Colorado, Iowa, Washington state, Washington, D.C. and California have rules, policies or laws dealing with transgender restroom accommodations. The Maine rules would even apply to elementary, secondary and private schools.

The Maine policy changes are in the news today, but they are by no means new. There are innumerable evolutionary changes going on in our society today, most of which the general populace knows nothing about. To discover what you’re missing, and to find out how seemingly unrelated issues are in fact intertwined into one disturbing movement, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for more information.

What exactly, is Homophobia?

Phobias are common in our society. There’s a phobia term for nearly every fear that exists. We’ve all heard of Arachnophobia which is the fear of spiders. Another common phobia is Chemophobia, the fear of chemicals. There are quite a few people who are affected by Clithrophobia, the fear of being enclosed in a tight space. And, there’s quite a number of lesser known phobias. Nevertheless, we can easily identify with them. There is Tomophobia-The fear of surgical operations, Glossophobia-The fear of speaking in public, Altophobia-The fear of heights, Isolophobia-The fear of being alone, Scelerophobia-The fear of burglars and other bad men, Lygophobia-The fear of darkness, Toxophobia-The fear of being poisoned, Dentophobia-The fear of dentists, and Brontophobia-The fear of thunder and lightning. There’s a phobia term for virtually every fear that exists. For a more complete list of phobias, look at http://www.phobialist.com/.

There is one interesting phobia however, that deserves your close attention: Homophobia-The fear of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual. “So what?” you may say. “I don’t fear homosexuality, and I certainly don’t fear that I’ll become a homosexual, therefore I’m not homophobic.” This all sounds perfectly logical, so what’s the problem?

It’s a bigger problem than you might think. Look up homophobia in the dictionary and you might find a different definition. First, let’s try Merriam-Webster. Go to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia and see what it says about homophobia. The dictionary seems to add a little bit to the meaning of homophobia. Instead of simply fearing homosexuality, the dictionary suggests that homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuality, an aversion to homosexuality, and discrimination against homosexuality. So, if you happen to think of homosexuality in a manner that some would consider to be irrational, you are homophobic.

Another modern viewpoint of homophobia is offered by Wikipedia. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia and see what it has to say about the fear of homosexuality. This definition of homophobia suggests that it is an irrational intolerance of homosexuality which is outside the bounds of traditional gender role expectations. Wikipedia expands even further beyond the simple fear of homosexuality. It suggests that homophobia covers a full range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality, including antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion and finally an irrational fear. Still not through, it states that homophobia is not unlike racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry.

Suddenly, according to modern definitions, you may qualify as a homophobe. If homosexuality is adverse to your way of living, or if you believe only in the traditional gender role of heterosexuality, or even if you are prone to publically express arguments that heterosexuality is the right and proper lifestyle, then you are a homophobe. You are no better than such low-life’s as racists, anti-Semites and bigots.

What is wrong here? Dozens and dozens of listed phobias refer to a simple fear of some particular situation. But when it comes to homophobia, virtually anything outside of love and promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is considered to be homophobia. Not being able to express your own position against this lifestyle is like not being permitted to state your position against drug abuse.

This is a good time to sit up and take notice of the shows on TV, and of those people who are reporting on homosexuality. You will find the term, Homophobe used rather frequently. If you pay close attention to the context of these statements, you will discover that anything short of complete acceptance and support of homosexuality is labeled as homophobia. We as a society, are being indoctrinated to accept a new and evolving definition of homophobia.

“Well, it’s not me,” you might say. “I’m not accepting those new definitions, and I’m not about to support that lifestyle.” Are you sure? Are you making your voice heard?

In the news today, is talk of repealing of the military’s Don’t ask—Don’t tell policy. First, let’s go back to the history of this policy. Since the early 1900’s service men have been discharged from the military if it was found that they were homosexuals. Later, the discharges were differentiated. In the 1940’s, service men who were found to be homosexuals, were discharged as undesirables. If those homosexual men happened to be actually be engaging in homosexual activities, they were dishonorably discharged.

Then in 1993, President Clinton signed the Don’t ask—Don’t tell policy into law. Under this new law, homosexuals in the military became acceptable. The Pentagon’s new policy guidelines stated that: Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.

With the stroke of a pen, our nation began its trip down the road toward acceptance, sensitivity and finally promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. “But that policy still did not permit open homosexuality in the military,” you might say. That’s true, but there’s still a big problem with that policy. Our nation would not have stood for outright opening the doors to homosexuals. So, this was one of Shadow Truth’s baby steps toward the promotion of homosexuality. People’s opinions cannot change overnight, but over time, anything is possible. For many years, homosexuality was outright denied access to the military. However, intolerance gradually evolved into acceptance. By the year 1993, 44 percent of Americans supported the idea that homosexuals could openly serve in the military. By 2008, a whopping 75 percent of Americans approved of that policy. What about Christians? What do they think? In 2009, the Don’t ask—Don’t tell policy was favored by 60 percent of weekly churchgoers. In the short 16 years since President Clinton signed Don’t ask—Don’t tell into law, a new generation of Americans has been raised in an atmosphere of greater acceptance. Even among older Americans, views of homosexuality have softened. So, with the support of favorable polls, and to standing applause by his listeners, President Obama promised the Democratic National Committee to abolish “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Little by little, step by step, and inch by inch, we have redefined homophobia. Political Correctness has singled out one phobia among dozens of other phobias, and changed its definition. The Christian majority has given its implied approval of such redefinitions. Had they not done so, they would have voted for more conservative leaders who in turn, would not have changed our laws as they have done.

Don’t Ask—Don’t Tell is in the news today. Yet there are a host of other evolving changes going on in our society right under our noses. You owe it to yourself to read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for ordering information. It may be the best decision you ever made.

Obama's Political Correctness at Work

In a move that is being hailed by gays, lesbians and transgendered persons, President Obama made his first appointment of a transgender person to a federal post. Amanda Simpson, formerly known as Mitch, was appointed to be the new Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce in the first week of January, 2010.

Until this point, Obama walked a fine line when dealing with members of the gay and transgender community. He was widely supported by gay voters in 2008, but soon came under harsh criticism from many of those same proponents for not acting fast or hard enough to expand their rights.

Equality among mankind dictates that discrimination must be done away with. Consequently, we as a nation were right to end discrimination against blacks and women. We were right to guarantee the same rights to housing, jobs and opportunities to every person regardless of their race or gender.

Now, the term "discrimination" is morphing into a new definition. Now, the choice a person makes regarding the gender they want to be is somehow entering the field of "discrimination." Appointing a black person to a high position is a right, thanks to our anti-discrimination laws. However, this latest appointment falls under the "New Political Correctness" frame of mind.

LGBT rights groups are overjoyed at the "progress" being made by this appointment. Amanda claims that he/she is highly qualified for this position, and that qualification should be the only factor to consider for such an appointment. However, he/she is concerned that his/her appointment will be labeled as a token that was hired because of his/her sexual identity rather than on his/her merits. He/she has expressed worries that his/her appointment was merely to fill a quota or to appease the LGBT groups.

One of the first statements of this new appointee is that he/she is excited about the opportunity to see hundreds of other transgenders being promoted as a result of his/her latest appointment.

In looking at many of the President's choices, it is clear that the new political correctness dictated this most recent appointment. The President's choices reflect his promotion of transgenerism. This new definition of discrimination is deconstructing one of the most fundamental concepts known to mankind. This appontment, and other similar appointments are effectively asking the rest of society to radically reorder the ways in which our culture views "gender."

To see where this sort of re-definition of discrimination is taking us, read "Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception" by Larry J. Tate. For further information, go to http://www.tatebook.com/ or go to http://shadowtruthbook.com/.

Your Gender Is Whatever You Want It To Be

We have often heard the statement, “As goes California, so goes the rest of the nation.” California has long been the trend-setter for our nation. California’s Senate Bill 777 is setting up a humanist agenda that is likely to spread into all of the nation’s public schools within a very short period of time. SB777 requires textbooks, instructional materials and school activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual marriages, all aspects of homosexuality, bisexuality and gay history.

Shadow Truth isn’t content to stop there. That is just the beginning. This law also redefines the term gender. Until recently, gender had been defined as having to do with the biological gender of a person. People are born either male or female. But that simple definition is far too black and white for today’s humanists. SB777 redefines gender to be whatever sex a person wants to be. If a boy feels like being a girl, then the schools will be required to register him as a female. If a girl feels like being a boy, then the schools will be required to register her as a male. If a boy decides that he wants to be a girl, then he may be permitted to participate in any activities formerly restricted to girls only. Boys will be able to run for Homecoming Queen, and girls will be able to run for Homecoming King. As if that is not enough, boys who decide that they want to be girls will be permitted to use the girl’s locker rooms and rest rooms. The same policy will apply to girls who prefer to live the life of a boy.

Many distraught parents began speaking out against this bill. In its defense, one of the bill’s sponsoring senators said that SB777 does not create a radical new definition of gender that allows boys and girls to shower together. She was right to a certain degree. Senate Bill 777 only reinforces prior policies! Before SB777 came on the scene, the Los Angeles Unified School District had already implemented a policy stating that a boy perceiving himself to be a girl may use the girl’s restroom and locker room, and a girl perceiving herself to be a boy may use the boy’s restroom and locker room. Project 10 of the LAUSD clearly spells out restroom and locker accessibility in its Reference Guide No. REF-1557. Teaching against the discrimination of homosexuality is not enough for the sponsors of this bill. Teachers will be required to promote these activities. Schools will be forced to teach and support the homosexual lifestyle. Any schools that dare not to teach such subjects will be sued by California state attorneys.

The California sex agenda will be taught to our children without any prior parental consent or permission. The only way a parent will be able to keep a child from involvement in these policies will be to put that child in a private school environment, or in home schooling. But Shadow Truth doesn’t want anyone to be exempt from its deceit. In order to influence children who are not in public schools, Shadow Truth is making inroads to discredit home schooling. In 2008, the California 2nd District Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision ruled that parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. Should this decision stand, more and more students may be influenced by Shadow Truth’s agenda.