Friday, February 29, 2008

“Roger Cardinal Mahony . . . Indoctrination by some of the Church's most Notorious Pro-'Gays'”

Catholics to Picket Cdl. Roger Mahony's Huge Pro-'Gay' Dissent-Fest
As Pope Benedict XVI Prepares to Visit the United States, L.A.'s Archbishop is Slapping Him in the Face by Hosting Many Speakers Who Undermine Catholic Teachings
ANAHEIM, Feb. 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- "It's a disgrace! Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles will subject tens of thousands of Catholics to indoctrination by some of the Church's most notorious pro-'gays' and dissenters--even though our Pope Benedict XVI expects bishops to shun dissent and teach the Church's official doctrines."

With these words, Kenneth M. Fisher, Chairman of Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc. (CRCOA), announced that on Saturday, March 1, 2008, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., his organization will demonstrate at Cardinal Mahony's Religious Education Congress, the world's largest training event for Catholic schoolteachers.

(The Congress will take place at the Anaheim Convention Center, February 28-March 2. CRCOA will supply picket signs and informational handouts to people who wish to picket on Saturday and/or the other three days of the Congress.)

"Cardinal Mahony is bringing in a 'wrecking crew' of pro-'gays,' women-priest advocates, occultists and anti-Pope rebels to tell tens of thousands of Catholic educators what to teach Catholic children," Fisher warned. "These educators will go home and infect millions of boys and girls with the errors they learned at his dissent-fest."

Fisher said, "Many scheduled presenters aren't objectionable, and Cdl. Mahony sometimes does have a few well-known 'token' orthodox Catholic speakers. But he rarely invites them back, whereas he books the dissenters time after time."

"The souls of millions of children are in grave danger," Catholic activist Fisher said. "The Bible warns us, 'For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine: But having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers after their own lusts, and they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.'" (II Timothy 4:3-4)

Fisher said members of CRCOA would give thousands of Congress-goers information exposing speakers who dissent from the Church's official doctrines. None of the 288 workshop topics for 2008, he noted, include central topics such as "Magisterium," "Catechism of the Catholic Church," "Tridentine Latin Mass," "Humanae Vitae," "contraception," "Adoration" or "Rosary." Here are some of Cdl. Mahony's 191 speakers:


A "partnered" lesbian Episcopal priestess who endorsed SIECUS's manifesto calling for "sexual and reproductive rights," i.e., killing preborn babies.
A professor who subtly undermines Church teachings on papal authority, sodomy, contraception and women's ordination.
A radical feminist, New Ager and would-be priestess who in 1993 "celebrated" a "Mass" and whom several bishops have barred from speaking in their dioceses.
A priest who at the 2006 REC mocked and disputed the new Vatican document nixing ordination of homosexuals.
A professor who co-edited a book that belittled "fundamentalist" Catholics who believe "in God and in absolute truth...and a desire to be faithful to God by following church teaching," such as pro- lifers and Pope John Paul II!

"Why does Cardinal Mahony thumb his nose at the Pope this way?" Fisher asked. "Shouldn't a cardinal make sure his speakers are loyal to the Church?"

Fisher is inviting faithful Catholics to join CRCOA's peaceful, prayerful demonstration. The protest will take place outside the main entrance of the Anaheim Convention Center's main exhibit hall.

Those who want to take part should call Kenneth M. Fisher at: 714-491-2284 or e-mail him at: crcoa@dslextreme.com. To get on CRCOA's Group E- mail list, go to: crcoa@aweber.com


Christian Newswire

Abortionist Obama: "The First Thing I’d do as President is, is Sign the Freedom of [Abortion] Choice Act"

Coming soon Planned Parenthood’s Barack Obama as the Abortionist President.

Fred

Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

Dessa Cosma: [W]hat would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?

Barack Obama: Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

[http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction]

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama Strongly Endorses Partial-Birth Abortion

[Barack Hussein Obama] said, "for the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s Obama an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong."

Notice, he doesn't use the words, "Partial-birth Abortion, " because just the name is disgusting and probably because 80% of the American people want it banned and here is why:

In this late term gruesome procedure, the entire baby is delivered except for the head, which they make sure stays in the birth canal (otherwise it would be murder), then the back of the baby's head is stabbed with scissors, the hole is enlarged, a rube is inserted and the baby's brains are sucked out with a powerful machine. All the while the baby suffers excruciating pain. It's enough to make you cry. How in the world, can a society condone such barbarism? Barack Obama can.

He said, "It is time for a different attitude in the White House. It is time for a different attitude in the Supreme Court. It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history."

The change Obama wants is to keep torturing and killing little children. Notice, he doesn't mention that it could be done to save the "life" of the mother, he states, "health," which is so broad that it could mean, "doctor, since Ive been pregnant, I don't feel good, or it makes me nervous, or I've been nauseated." It's all subjective.

Besides, a partial-birth abortion is not an emergency procedure as the cervix has to be dilated over a 2-3 day period. It's just a means for a mother to have her child killed late in her pregnancy, if she changes her mind and deems the child would be an inconvenience at that time.

He mentioned the swing vote of Justice Kennedy: "Without any hard evidence, Justice Kennedy proclaimed, It is self-evident that a woman would regret her choice.”

Obama ignores the women who have taken to alcohol and drugs after having their child killed. Too bad he hasn't read the reports of women who have killed themselves after having their child killed. One just last week.

He cited medical uncertainty about the need to protect the health of pregnant women. He said, "even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found no such uncertainty. Justice Kennedy knows many things, my understanding is he does not know how to be a doctor."

Ah, but the doctor that Obama speaks of is the doctor who is going to kill the baby, for a fee, of course. When he mentions Obstetricians and Gynecologists finding no uncertainty, he lies. The American College of Christian Obstetricians and Gynecologists found much uncertainty. They say abortion increases the risk of drug and alcoholic abuse as well as suicides. The Catholic OB AND GYN doctors found the same. But, he ONLY mentions doctors who have no respect for human life. The ACOG.

Barack Hussein Obama is so evil that he voted against giving aid to a baby who survived being killed. Just let him/her die, he insists.

Obama keeps mentioning Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court.

He said, "we’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom." This is true, but we're not a country that kills innocent little babies because they are an inconvenience.

He loves to say a women's reproductive freedom. As if pro-lifers are against that. Women can reproduce at will, but once the reproduction is over, then do not kill the child.

He is so backward in his thinking that he still thinks that condoms are the answer to stem STDs and pregnancies and abstinence teaching is a waste of time. Apparently he doesn't know that the more condoms that are handed out, the more STDs and the more pregnancies. Planned Parenthood knows this which is why they pass them out. The more they pass out the more abortions they can do and the more money they make. They're not stupid.

Obama, even mentioned the name of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, a woman, who if she had her way would have people like Obama killed.

On the rights of married couples to bear children, Sanger wrote, "Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child." On the rights of racial minorities, the handicapped and the mentally ill, she said, "More children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief aim of birth control."

On the extermination of blacks, she cautioned, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," Margaret Sanger referred to blacks, immigrants and indigents as "human weeds," and "reckless breeders." She wrote that they were, "spawning... human beings who never should have been born." By virtue of their numerical superiority, she saw poor people and the newly immigrated Slavs, Latins, and Hebrews as a real threat to Anglo-Saxon political and economic power.

Sanger responded to this "threat" by developing her own "Plan for Peace." In it she outlined her strategy for the eradication of those she deemed "feeble minded," including Catholic and Jewish immigrants. In addition to immigration restrictions and the administering of a special IQ test, her evil scheme advocated compulsory sterilization AND segregation to a lifetime of farm work under "competent instructors"...Practically speaking, she envisioned Concentration Camps!

There was little difference between Margaret Sanger and the German Nazi...In fact Hitler and Sanger were both proponents of Eugenics, a social philosophy which advocates the creation of a race of human thoroughbreds.
At the same time, Hitler spread birth control and abortion propaganda in the eastern territories outside Germany. Himmler, carrying out Hitler's orders, directed an intense propaganda campaign to persuade these so-called "inferior" people that having children was harmful.

Margaret Sanger believed that most people were not intelligent enough to share in the right to govern and wanted a totalitarian rule similar to Adolf Hitler's. She constantly attacked the Catholic Church and referred to it as "immoral" for opposing her evil schemes for "social progress." In 1942, this evil woman, the infamous Margaret Sanger, founded Planned Parenthood!

This is the organization that Obama has a love affair with, an organization founded on the principle that people like Obama should be eliminated and NEVER be given a chance to run for the presidency of the United State.

The fact that Obama heaped praises on Planned Parenthood means he does not do his homework or he is just plain stupid. Either way, besides his penchant for baby killing, stupidity is not a good trait if one wants to be president of the United States, especially during war time.

There is so much more that I can write about Obama's speech, but time does not permit.

Below, is the full text of Barack Hussein Obama's speech before the baby killing organization known as Planned Parenthood:


Frank Joseph MD

DrFrank@abortiontruths.net
http://www.abortiontruths.net

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


http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction

Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

Transcribed by Laura Echevarria, www.lauraechevarria.com, (view the video of this speech at www.imoneinamillion.com)

Barack Obama: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, well, Ariana, thanks for stealing the show. [Laughter] That’s how, that’s how we teach young people at Trinity United Church of Christ. They’re not shy. It’s so wonderful to see and thank you for the wonderful introduction and the great work that you are doing. You’re representing the church and the city of Chicago very, very well. All right—give her a round of applause [Applause].
I heard, Ariana, I heard your folks are here, where are they—Oh, I see, the one with the camera [Laughter] video taping everything. All right, I should have figured that out. Well, you should be proud, she’s extraordinary.


Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country—and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country. I want to thank Cecile Richards for her extraordinary leadership. I’m happy to see so many good friends here today, including Steve Trombley and Pam Sutherland from my home state of Illinois. We had a number of battles down in Springfield for many many years and it is wonderful to see that they are here today.

You know it’s been a little over five months since I announced my candidacy for President of the United States of America and everywhere we’ve been, we’ve been inspired by these enormous crowds. We had twenty thousand people in Atlanta, twenty thousand people in Austin, Texas, fifteen thousand people in Oakland, California and I would love to take all the credit for these crowds myself, to say to myself that it’s just because I’m just so fabulous, but [Laughter] my wife says otherwise. Michele, I think, confirms that these crowds are not about me. It’s about the hunger all across America for something different. It’s about the sense that we can do better—that we’ve come to a crossroads, that we’re not pointed in the right direction.

And as I look out over these crowds—and they are a wonderful cross-section of the country, male, female, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, disabled, gay, straight, old, young—what I’m heartened to see is particularly the young people who are getting their first chance to be part of a larger movement of Americans. I see young women who are Ariana’s age and younger, and I think about my own two daughters, Sasha and Malia, and sometimes it makes me stop and makes me wonder: what kind of America will our daughters grow up in?

What kind of America will our daughters grow up in?

Will our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as our sons? Will our daughters have the same rights, the same dreams, the same freedoms to pursue their own version of happiness? I wonder because there’s a lot at stake in this country today. And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

Within hours of the decision, an Alabama lawmaker introduced a measure to ban all abortions. With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election. The only thing more disturbing than the decision was the rationale of the majority. Without any hard evidence, Justice Kennedy proclaimed, “It is self-evident that a woman would regret her choice.” He cited medical uncertainty about the need to protect the health of pregnant women. Even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found no such uncertainty. Justice Kennedy knows many things, my understanding is he does not know how to be a doctor.


[Laughter and Applause]


He dismissed as mere preferences the reasoned judgments of the nation’s doctors. We’ve seen time after time these last few years when the president says otherwise, when the science is inconvenient, when the facts don’t match up with the ideology, they are cast aside. Well, it’s time for us to change that. It is time for a different attitude in the White House. It is time for a different attitude in the Supreme Court. It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history.


[Applause]

We know that five men don’t know better than women and their doctors what’s best for a woman’s health. We know that it’s about whether or not women have equal rights under the law. We know that a woman’s right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when—without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. We also know that there was another voice that came from the bench—a voice clear in reasoning and passionate in dissent. The voice rejected what she called, quote “Ancient notions of women’s place in the family and under the Constitution. Ideas that have long been discredited.” Unquote. One commentator called the decision in Gonzales, “An attack on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s entire life’s work.” And it was. But we heard Justice Ginsburg and we know what she was saying. She was saying, “We’ve been there before and we are not going back. [Applause] We refuse to go back. [Applause]”



We know, we know it’s not just one decision. It’s the blow dealt to equal pay in the Ledbetter [v. Goodyear] case, it’s the blow dealt to integration in the school desegregation case, it’s an approach to the law that favors the powerful over the powerless—that holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual. We don’t see America in these decisions—that’s not who we are as a people. We’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom. We’re the country that’s fought generation after generation to extend that equality to the many not restrict it to the few. We’ve been there before and we’re not going back.

I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito [Applause]

So, you know where I stand. But this more is than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work together on.


There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find common ground. Because we know that what’s at stake is more than whether or not a woman can choose an abortion.

Choice is about how we lead our lives. It’s about our families and about our communities. It’s about our daughters and whether they’re going to have the same opportunities as our sons. There are those who want us to believe otherwise. They want us to believe that there’s nothing that unites us as Americans—there’s only what divides us. They’ll seek out the narrowest and most divisive ground. That is the strategy—to always argue small instead of looking at the big picture. They will stand in the way of any attempt to find common ground.

At a time when a real war is being fought abroad they would have us fight cultural wars here at home. But I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page. We want a new day here in America. We’re tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff. [Applause] And I am convinced we can win that argument. If the argument is narrow, then oftentimes we lose. But if you ask everybody—you ask the most conservative person—do they want their daughters to have the same chances as men?, most will answer in the affirmative. The vast majority will answer in the affirmative.

We can win that argument. We can turn this page.

It is time to turn the page on policies that fail to deal with tragedy of ten thousand American teenagers getting an STD everyday. Of fifty-five contracting HIV and another twenty-four hundred becoming pregnant. It’s time to turn the page on a stance that refuses compassionate support of victims of rape and sexual assault. Not even to the brave servicewomen fighting for our country who aren’t getting the support they need when they come home as veterans of the United States of America. [Applause] If they’re fighting for us, they should be getting the services that they deserve. It’s time to turn the page on a policies that provides almost 1.5 billion dollar to teach abstinence in our schools but refuses to teach basic science and basic contraception.


Pam, we’ve been through these fights in Illinois, we’re going to be in these fights here in Washington. There’s nothing wrong with science. It’s actually made our lives better. [Applause] Let’s teach science to our kids. We need, we need to make choices about what happens before pregnancy. It’s a false argument to say that the only way to prevent disease and unintended pregnancy is abstinence education. Just as it is a false argument to say that the only way is through contraception. As Martin Luther King used to say, “It’s not either/or it’s both/and.”


There’s a moral component to prevention. And we shouldn’t be shy about acknowledging it. As parents, as family members, we need to encourage young people to show reverence toward sexuality and intimacy. We need to teach that not just to the young girls, we need to teach it to those young boys. [Applause] But [Applause] But even as we are teaching those lessons, we should never be willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of a lack of access to birth control or a lifetime of illness because she doesn’t understand how to protect herself. That’s just commonsense. There’s common ground on behalf of commonsense—there we have an opportunity to move forward and agree.

People of all faiths—from members of Ariana’s and my church, Trinity United Church of Christ to United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, understand that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal but often not the reality.

We need more programs in our communities like the National Black Church Initiative which empowers our young people by teaching them about reproductive health, sex education and teen pregnancy within the context of the African-American faith tradition.

We need more leadership at the federal level. That’s why I’m an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act. [Applause] To guarantee equity in contraceptive coverage, provide comprehensive sex education in our schools and offer rape victims factually accurate information about emergency contraception.

We need to tackle the tragedy of unintended teen pregnancy. When seven hundred and fifty thousand teens become pregnant every year, and half of Latina and black teens will become mothers before reaching their twenties, it’s not just a public health problem. If we reduce teen pregnancy, we can also reduce poverty.

Now the good news is that there has been a decline in the teen birth rate,in part due to the outstanding work of Planned Parenthood. But we all know that we can do more. That’s why I’ve been working on this in Congress. Today, I introduced the Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act to increase funding for programs to combat this problem in communities all across this country working with grassroots organizations [Applause] to increase education. We need, we need to ensure that pharmaceutical companies can offer discounted drugs to safety net providers like Planned Parenthood [Applause] and university clinics so that access, so that access to affordable contraception is not just a privilege for the few but an option for all women. It’s amazing how many women tell me the stories of how important it was for Planned Parenthood to provide them services when they were in college and they did not have the health insurance or the access to a regular doctor that they needed. To be able to have somebody they could trust to deal with so many of their basic and essential health issues.

And we can’t stop there because we know that there is more at stake. The struggle for equality is also a struggle for opportunity. You’ve worked in the communities. You’ve seen women and families trying to keep pace. You’ve seen our daughters hit the glass ceilings and come to closed doors.

The social contract in this country was made for a time when most women stayed at home with the kids. But even though this time is long passed, we still have social policies designed around the old model. The, as Justice Ginsberg said, “Ancient notions of women’s place in the family,” and so women still receive less in pay, less in health benefits, less in pensions, less in social security. When women go on maternity leave, America is the only country in the industrialized world to let them go unpaid.

If you’re a single mom, like my mom was, and you can’t afford health insurance for yourself and you’re trying to figure out whether your kids are going to be covered or not, the message from this current administration is: tough luck, that’s the breaks.

The truth is, too often our daughters don’t have the same opportunities as our sons. But that’s not who we are. That’s not the America we want for our children and I am absolutely convinced that we can make this change. We can update the social contract so that caring for a newborn baby isn’t a three month break, it’s a paid leave—so that all of our children have basic health care. [Applause]

We should be ashamed that the President of the United States is fighting providing health insurance coverage to all children because he’s worried that’s socialized medicine. He would rather fight an ideological battle than make certain that children who have preventable illnesses, like asthma, are getting regular checkups instead of going to the emergency room, which is costing all of us more money.

We can update the social contract so that our kids can go to school earlier and stay longer; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; we can go to work, she can go to work—knowing that there is affordable quality child care for her children; so that more families can stay together and prosper and our daughters have no limits to the shape of their dreams.

We can make these changes but first we gotta get rid of the can’t-do-won’t-do-won’t-even-try style of government that we’ve had in Washington over the last several years. An administration that says, “We don’t have the money to do it.” But we’ve got ten billion dollars a month to fight a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized [applause] and should have never been waged. We can find the money to make sure our daughters have the same rights as our son.

We can make this change.
We can make this change but first we have to get rid of the politics that’s obsessed with who’s up and who’s down. A politics that is power for power’s sake. A politics of cynicism and fear—fear, above all, of the future.

This kind of change is about more than any one judicial appointment or law—as important as they may be—it also about leadership.

It’s about not settling for what America is but working for what America might be.


You know, I’m here as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America because I had a grandmother who never got more than a high school education. But she worked on a bomber assembly line—she was Rosie the Riveter—and then went to work after she and my grandfather had married, and her daughter had been born, she went to work as a secretary. And worked her way up to become vice-president of a bank, the same bank where she started as a secretary, and ended up being the financial rock for our entire family.

I’m here because of a mother, who for most of her life was a single mom, and yet was able to put herself through school and get a Ph.D. and end up specializing in women’s development and starting micro-enterprises for women in Africa and Asia and all around the world. And still somehow added, had the time and capacity to fill up her children with love and affection.

I’m here because of my wife, who as many of you know, is smarter, and tougher and better-looking than I am [laughter]. And many people ask why she shouldn’t be the Obama running for President and I explain that she’s too smart to want to run for president. She’d rather tell the president what to do. [laughter]


But most of all I’m here as a candidate because there are these two little girls that I try to tuck in every night—it’s harder during the campaign season—whose futures depend upon us creating a more equal society.

I want my daughters to grow up in an America where they have the exact same opportunities as America’s sons. I want Sasha and Melia to dream without limit. To achieve without constraint. To be absolutely free to seek their own happiness.

At this crossroad, we need to talk about what America might be—an America of equality and opportunity for our daughters. We need to talk about what Justice Ginsberg called, “A woman’s ability to realize her potential.” Because when we argue big, we win.

I am convinced of that.

I am convinced that Republicans and Democrats and Independents, Blue-state voters and Red-state voters, they want a fair shake for their daughters.
In 1966, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America gave its first Margaret Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. And in his acceptance speech, which was delivered by his strong and wonderful wife Coretta, Dr. King wrote, “Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by non-violent, direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.”

That struggle for equality is not over and now we are at one of those rare moments where we can actually transform our politics in a fundamental way. But it’s going to take people as resolute as Mrs. Sanger and Dr. King—people like your own Cecile Richards—it’s going to take young people like Ariana. It’s going to take millions of voices coming together to insist that it’s not enough just to stand still. That it’s not enough to safeguard the gains of the past—that it is time to be resolute and time to march forward.

I am absolutely convinced that we stand on the brink of that kind of achievement. And if we succeed in raising the awareness all across America that what is good for our daughters is also good for our sons. That when we expand opportunity for some, we expand opportunity for the many.

When we have achieved as one voice a strong call for that kind of more fair and more just America, then I am absolutely convinced that we’re not just going to win an election but more importantly we’re going to transform this nation.

Thank you [applause] very much, appreciate you guys, thank you.


Thank you.


[applause continues]


Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you, Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you guys, you’re very gracious, thank you.




Thank you.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

NEA Pushes Homosexuality in School Booklet, Group Says

NEA Pushes Homosexuality in School Booklet, Group Says

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor

February 26, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - A 24-page pamphlet sent to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States -- by a coalition led by the National Education Association and the American Psychological Association -- is "a renewed effort" to protect the well-being of all students, including, the pamphlet says, "those who are at higher risk because of their sexual orientation."

However, a national pro-family group is criticizing the publication as "giving parents 16,000 new reasons to question the agenda of national teachers' union leaders" and is offering a flier of its own to equip parents "to oppose this promotion of homosexuality in your child's school."

"Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel" serves as a guide for public school employees "who confront sensitive issues involving gay, lesbian and bisexual students," the coalition of 13 national associations said in a news release announcing the distribution of the booklet.

According to the "group of education, health, mental health and religious organizations," the brochure "includes the most recent information from professional health organizations, as well as up-to-date information on the legal responsibility of school officials to protect students from anti-gay harassment."

"The opportunity for students to learn is diminished when they do not feel safe or supported at school," the coalition stated. "In addition to assault and harassment, gay, lesbian and bisexual students experience high rates of emotional distress, suicide attempts and substance abuse.

"These factors hinder their emotional and social development, as well as their ability to succeed in school," the organization added. "It is our responsibility to provide accurate and factual information. We believe this publication will be a valuable tool to help educators, administrators and others concerned with caring for America's students."

First formed in 1998, the coalition produced the original version of "Just the Facts" to respond to concerns that school personnel were receiving inaccurate information on the issue of sexual orientation. The updated publication reflects the coalition's continuing concern about the safety and well-being of "gay, lesbian and bisexual" students.

Led by the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Psychological Association (APA), the coalition includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers and the American School Counselor Association.

The release was distributed by the APA, "the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States" and "the world's largest association of psychologists."

'Incubators for radical social agendas'

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council (FRC), dismissed the project in an e-mail statement as evidence for parents to question the agenda of the NEA and its allies.

"Among the so-called 'facts' in the 24-page document is the opinion that homosexuality is 'a normal expression of human sexuality,'" Perkins said.

"The booklet also warns teachers not to discuss 'transformational ministries' that suggest homosexuality is a condition that can be changed," he said. "Religious-based views are regarded as harmful, if not dangerous.

"This is no surprise to those who have followed the leftward drift of the NEA leadership," Perkins added. "For years, the organization has used teachers' dues to subsidize its top officials' left-wing fanaticism, which includes everything from promoting homosexuality and abortion in schools to pushing birth control."

And the APA "is no better," he said. "In the past few decades, the group has gone from listing homosexuality as a mental disorder to becoming one of its biggest champions in the public square.

"Now both groups are using their influence to transform public schools into incubators for their radical social agendas," Perkins said. "These lessons in political correctness must stop!"

To "equip parents to oppose this promotion of homosexuality," the FRC offers a 36-page document of its own: "Homosexuality in Your Child's School" by Peter Sprigg, the group's vice president for policy.

"Despite decades of activism and media propaganda promoting acceptance and celebration of homosexuality, and a number of political and judicial victories for the pro-homosexual movement, polls show that a clear majority of Americans still believe that homosexual behavior is 'morally wrong,'" Sprigg stated in the brochure.

Homosexual activists have therefore decided that "indoctrinating impressionable school children is an easier way of changing public attitudes toward homosexuality than persuading adults," Sprigg noted.

"That's one recruitment drive that has no place on the campuses of America's public schools," Sprigg added.


Contact page for the NEA http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/contact.html

Do Mad Scientists Control the World?

A web service from Trinity Communications. © 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Do Mad Scientists Control the World?
Dear Mr. Martinez,


One wonders why so many politicians wish to protect the kind of experiments which, just a few decades ago, would have been conducted only in horror movies featuring mad scientists. In the present instance, I refer to the proposed legislation in the United Kingdom permitting the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos.

I suppose one does not really need to wonder for very long. In our fallen state, we have a powerful thirst for total autonomy and a painless way to cheat death. It's as if someone is whispering in our ears: "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you [do this] your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods" (Gn 3:4-5).

What one really wonders is how a serpent with a crushed head can still speak persuasively. Anyway, the Church in the UK is putting up a fight. See, among other evidence, the letter from the bishops of Scotland: Scottish Bishops' Pastoral on Human Embryo Legislation.

In league with the mad scientists is basketball coach Rick Majerus of St. Louis University, whose outspoken defense of abortion rights and stem-cell research has drawn the ire of his bishop, Raymond Burke. Sports fans don't often get this kind of story, so we're following up our previously-cited blog entry with an interview given by Archbishop Burke entitled Catholic Identity.

One more bit of gloom and doom before we turn to something brighter. I promised to say more about the Pope's final words to the Jesuits, because it is clear that Benedict is rejecting the Order's own self-assessment. That's fairly significant; I want to be sure everybody gets it: The Pope and the Jesuits: Explaining the Problem.

What's Good is Very Good

Some time ago I referred to a question and answer session between Pope Benedict and seminarians. Now the Vatican has published a similar Q&A session with priests in Rome. It enables us to witness a spontaneous demonstration of our Holy Father's pastoral care, warmth, wisdom and spiritual depth, all of which I find enormously encouraging.

See if you respond the same way: Pope Speaks with Roman Priests on Lent, Evangelization, Judgment.

Jeff Mirus
President
Trinity Communications


www.CatholicCulture.org - Email: contact@catholicculture.org
To learn more or make a tax-deductible contribution, visit www.CatholicCulture.org/promo/contribute/ today.

To unsubscribe from the CatholicCulture.org email list, simply use the "Control What We Send You" link in your Account Options, and then uncheck the email categories you wish to decline. CatholicCulture.org does reserve the right to send occasional fundraising requests to your address. If you do not wish to receive fundraising messages, please contact us and we will deactivate your account in our system. Please note that this will preclude you from receiving any email from CatholicCulture.org in the future.

Trinity Communications - 13705 Orlando Road, Nokesville, VA 20181

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Gay Fascism Persecutes Catholic Publisher

Canadian Gay fascism is persecuting the Catholic Insight magazine. The new Aryan is the homosexual and the new Jews are Christians or Jews who uphold their traditional moral teachings.

Gay fascism is coming to the USA if Hillary or Obama win.

Fred

Canadian Catholic magazine faces 'Human Rights Commission' for opposing homosexual conduct
1/15/2008
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

“From its beginning in 1993, the magazine has traced and exposed homosexual activists for their attacks against Christians defending the traditional order in law and society and their use of derogatory language against all who stand in their way,” the magazine said.

Advertisement
TORONTO (CNA) - A Catholic magazine in Canada faces severe legal attack and possible censorship after a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleged it made derogatory comments about homosexuals.

In February 2007 Rob Wells, a member of the Pride Center of Edmonton, filed a nine-point complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Catholic Insight had targeted homosexuals as a powerful menace and innately evil, claiming it used inflammatory and derogatory language to create a tone of “extreme hatred and contempt.”

Catholic Insight responded to these charges in its January 2008 issue, saying the complaint consists of “three pages of isolated and fragmentary extracts from articles dating back as far as 1994, without any context.”

Catholic Insight continued, saying, “these isolated quotes are not meaningful without the contexts of the articles themselves from which they were culled; in fact, most of them are even out of context from the sentences from which they were taken.”

“C.I. regards all of these charges as unfounded and made with the intent to harass. It intends to defend itself vigorously should the CHRC proceed. The magazine has continually emphasized that, with the respect to homosexual activity, it follows the guidance of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has made clear that persons with same-sex attraction must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

The magazine also reiterated its support for Catholic teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, noting its long-time coverage of the political manifestations of the issue.

“From its beginning in 1993, the magazine has traced and exposed homosexual activists for their attacks against Christians defending the traditional order in law and society and their use of derogatory language against all who stand in their way,” the magazine said.

The human rights complaints process in Canada currently funds the legal costs of complainants, but defendants must pay for expenses out of pocket. Rules of evidence for criminal court proceedings are also not followed in human rights hearings.

Catholic Insight said that the complainant Wells had also sought to shut down other websites, and had targeted Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party. The magazine reported Gray’s claims that in his conversations with the CHRC, an official of the agency had admitted to him that the Human Rights Act is about censorship.

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said he never imagined the human rights commissions would be used to undermine freedom of speech. He said that acting as censors was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions.”

In a Catholic Insight editorial, the magazine said,

“Today, Catholic Insight magazine has also become a victim of the new anti-religion. We, too, have been denounced to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa for speaking out against the activists who agitated for adding so-called sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes Act in 2003 and the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in 2005. The politically correct activists brook no opposition.”

[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:43G_38rUGEsJ:www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php%3Fid%3D26444+catholic+insight+same-sex+marriage+persecution+of+publisher&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Friday, February 22, 2008

"Father who was Handcuffed and Arrested after Objecting to . . . [Gay] Indoctrinating"

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

February 21, 2008

Dad challenging 'manipulation' of kids

'Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars'


By Bob Unruh

A Massachusetts father who was handcuffed and arrested after objecting to teachers and school managers indoctrinating his 5-year-old son in the homosexual lifestyle will be appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his case because of the "national significance" of the precedent.

"[Unless the case is overturned,] it now would allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be," David Parker told WND.

He and his lawyers, of Denner Pellegrino LLP in Boston, recently confirmed they will be seeking permission to submit the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court, following an appeals court decision that, as Parker described, allows the "indoctrination" of small children.

"The teachers do not have a constitutional right to do that," he told WND. "That, to me, is the crux of this."

He said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents' free exercise of religion to have their children taught ideas at a public school that violate the parents' religious teachings.

"They can just teach the children at home," Parker said the court found regarding parents.

"But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years," he said. "That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these federal courts so far.

"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]" he noted.

"It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.

"It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars.

"Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds," he said.

"What the pro-homosexual camp has done is positioned so-called 'gay' rights' to completely trump parental rights and parental authority in public schools," he said.

He said such a plan eventually will cause those schools to "implode," because so many concerned parents will see they have no alternative but to remove their children from public schools.

That's an issue that California already is facing, as WND has reported. There, a coalition of organizations is encouraging parents, and providing resources for them to be able to remove their children from public schools. The coalition's goal is to take 600,000 children from California's public districts, because of a new state law there requiring indoctrination that not only is pro-homosexual, but also affirms bisexuality, transsexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"The human secularist religion of the [National Education Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now turn public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker said. "[They say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be citizens.' But it's a religion. It is a devious and evil form of religion."

He said it is the responsibility and right of parents, not schools, to "keep the boundaries."

"That is how you raise children. If you wipe the boundaries away, that's the worst thing for children," he said.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Lexington, Mass., school district can teach children contrary ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.

"Public schools," wrote Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them."

Lynch's reasoning was based on the Massachusetts Supreme Court's groundbreaking 2003 decision ruling "that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage."

As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf originally dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker, concluding there is, in fact, an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

The case, which has been chronicled extensively by the non-profit advocacy group MassResistance, poses great dangers, Parker told WND, because if homosexuality and bisexuality can be taught by public school teachers to children as young as age 5, there is virtually no topic, up to and including Nazism, that educational precedents would not allow to be taught to young children.

"There is a history of civil rights and First Amendment cases losing badly in the local and federal courts and then winning in the U.S. Supreme Court, including the famous Hurly South Boston Parade case (parade organizers vs. homosexual activists) in the 1990s which won 9-0 after losing 17 times in state and federal courts," Mass Resistance said.

The appellate ruling reflected the same attitude that the trial judge did, Parker said. The appeals court said that if the parents were "offended," they "may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state."

The trial judge had suggested the parents could provide homeschool or another alternative as a solution.

The dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

The Parkers filed suit against the Lexington school district in 2006 and later were joined by Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, whose second-grader's class was read a story during class time about two princes who become lovers.


Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

"Muslims . . . Issuing Death Threats Against the Pope because he Allegedly said Islam was … well, Violent"

The Death of Irony

Benedict and the Enemies of Reason

BY ANGELO MATERA

If irony abounds, but no one notices, does that mean irony is dead? Or does it mean we’re living in the most ironic of all possible worlds?

That’s the question that comes to mind watching the intellectual controversies Pope Benedict XVI has had to confront on the world stage in the past year and a half.

First, there was the Regensburg speech flap, and the irony — willfully ignored by most commentators — of Muslims around the world angrily protesting and issuing death threats against the Pope because he allegedly said Islam was … well, violent. (It’s like the old joke — “There is no Mafia, and we’ll kill anyone who says there is.”)

And now, we have professors and students at Italy’s La Sapienza (the term means wisdom) University angrily protesting against — and forcing the cancellation of — the Holy Father’s visit to the school over Galileo.

The subject the Pope planned to address in the speech that was suppressed: how to encourage dialogue between faith and science.

According to the dictionary, irony “relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal … the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens.”

Based on that definition, Benedict has been living in a whirlwind of irony since he was elected in 2005. Look at the “gaps” or “incongruities” between what this Pope is supposed to be like — “God’s Rottweiler,” oppressor of free inquiry and critical thinking — and the reality, which is the exact opposite.

No world figure has spoken out more forcefully than Pope Benedict XVI on behalf of reasoned debate and dialogue on the great issues of the day

The problem is that the people who are supposed to be good at perceiving irony — the young, radical, postmodern intellectuals who dominate most of the world’s universities — have lost their ability to see the irony that’s before their eyes, which means they’ve lost the ability to think straight at all.

That becomes clear when we examine the additional layers of irony that abound in the La Sapienza affair. The whole incident is based on mistakes.

The source of the protests was a 1990 statement about Galileo made by then Cardinal Ratzinger that was extracted — out of context — from a speech entitled “The Crisis of Faith in Science.” The statement read:

“The Church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just.”

The irony is that this statement was not made by Cardinal Ratzinger at all. The cardinal was quoting someone else. And when you read the entire speech, it’s not only clear that the cardinal didn’t say it, he disagreed with it.

Far from using these ideas to exonerate the Church for persecuting Galileo, Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the temptation to do so, and concluded by saying:

“It would be absurd, on the basis of these affirmations, to construct a hurried apologetics. The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality.”

But there’s more. The greatest irony is that the words mistakenly attributed to the Pope were uttered by one of the most subversive and controversial postmodern thinkers of the late 20th century, the deceased Austrian philosopher, Paul Feyerabend.

Before considering Feyerabend, we have to briefly define — however inadequately — the term “postmodern,” the philosophy that holds sway over most of the world’s intellectuals.

Put simply, postmodernism is a philosophy that arose from the ruins of World War II and the apparent collapse of Western culture. Postmodernists rejected the “modernist” ideas that originated in the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries — that man can, without God, know absolute truth and universal values through his reason alone.

While some postmodernists came up with legitimate criticisms of rationality, and especially those situations in which reason was misused to support man-made totalitarian ideologies such as fascism and communism, many others went too far. They became philosophical nihilists, believing in nothing.

These postmodernists — exemplified by the crazed student radicals Joseph Ratzinger encountered during his university teaching days in the 1960s — believe all truth claims are merely propaganda used by the powerful to justify their positions and to oppress the weak.

They reject any form of hierarchy and authority and instead embrace the most radical relativism.

Not surprisingly, for postmodernists, the Catholic Church — and the pope — are the epitome of power and privilege. For postmodernists, the Church must always be opposed, even when it’s on their side on issues of war, social justice and human rights (for different reasons, of course).

It also means condemning the pope, even when he appears to ally himself with a philosopher who was one of the leading figures of postmodernism!

Paul Feyerabend’s motto was “anything goes,” although that’s a bit misleading. He was, despite his reputation, a serious philosopher, which is why the cardinal bothered to quote him at all.

That takes us to yet another irony. While Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 1990 speech, rejected Feyerabend’s critique of rationality and his defense of the Church in the Galileo case, the cardinal and the “pomo” philosopher did share legitimate concerns about science run amok.

In his recent encyclical Spe Salvi (On Christian Hope), Benedict wrote about science:

“Francis Bacon and those who followed in the intellectual current of modernity that he inspired were wrong to believe that man would be redeemed through science. Such an expectation asks too much of science; this kind of hope is deceptive. Science can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it.”

This is the sort of critique that serious postmodernists came close to making, albeit in a reckless way, when they’ve said, for example, that there is a direct path that leads from Galileo to the atom bomb.

There is no doubt that Pope Benedict would reject such a statement; as the statement above makes clear, he believed Feyerabend’s rejection of reason was excessive.

Instead, the Catholic position might agree more with the Church’s most prophetic critic of the Enlightenment, the scientist-mystic Blaise Pascal. He was 10 years old when Galileo was tried for heresy, and would go on to nearly equal the Italian as a scientist, as well as write Pensees, one of the most profound defenses of the Christian faith ever written.

Pascal wrote: “Two extremes: to exclude reason, to admit reason only.”

Of course, such subtleties eluded the protesters at La Sapienza University. Their confusion, and their utter disregard for logic and consistency of thought, perfectly illustrated what the Holy Father has been warning about for decades, regarding the dangers of the “dictatorship of relativism.”

This “dictatorship” makes it impossible for most universities in the West to intellectually engage Pope Benedict XVI’s ideas on how to reconcile faith and reason.

And that may be what’s most ironic of all, especially for serious postmodernists who have legitimate criticisms of systems of thought that leave no room for the mysteries of life and love (for example, scientists who refuse to admit that there are mysteries that can’t be explained by Darwinism or physics).

The best postmodernist thinkers used irony to criticize real-life hypocrisy in Western societies, the gap between the reality of suffering and injustice and the ideals of truth and love. These incongruities, based on distorted reason, led political leaders to incinerate entire cities with nuclear weapons, and scientists to experiment on human beings in laboratories.

But when the postmodernists turned on reason itself, they destroyed the basis for their criticisms, and their humanity. Without a grounding in truth, post-modernism lost the capacity to perceive irony.

And without that perception, they’re now fated to erect new forms of intolerance and oppression that are worse than the power structures they seek to bring down.

And that’s really the ultimate irony. An irony, despite it all, you won’t find Pope Benedict laughing about.



Angelo Matera is editor

of Godspy.com.
[http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_g4PzwBdt7YJ:ncregister.com/site/article/7917+national+catholic+register+Benedict+and+the+enemies+of+reason&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Why Chastity is Impossible Without Prayer

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:KolfptxkpgIJ:www.therealpresence.org/archives/Chastity/Chastity_006.htm+john+hardon+grace+prayer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Prayer and Chastity
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Our title for the present conference is “Prayer and Chastity.” It could just as well be “Without Prayer There Can Be No Chastity.” Or again the title could be “Christian Chastity Is Impossible Without Prayer.”

All that we have so far seen about Christian chastity tells us that this virtue is humanly impossible. I wish to stress the word humanly impossible. The moment we say that, we are in effect defining the meaning of divine grace. The grace that only God can give.

Why Chastity is Impossible Without Prayer
Over the centuries, chastity has been called the difficult virtue and Christ's teaching on chastity the difficult commandment. But that is an understatement. When Christ told us that, “without me you can do nothing,” He meant two things. He meant that without the possession of His grace in our souls no one can reach heaven. He also meant that without grace we cannot practice the virtues which He told His followers are necessary to remain in His friendship.

Our focus here is on the need for grace to practice the virtues prescribed by Christ as a condition for salvation. Two thousand years of Christian history have taught us that there are two virtues that require the grace of God, charity and chastity. Between these two, charity is certainly the most sublime, but chastity is the most difficult.

Once we say that we cannot practice any Christian virtue without the help of God's grace, we must logically admit that to remain chaste we need a superabundance of grace. Why? Because Christian chastity is so demanding on the generosity of the human will.

We go a step further. If divine grace is so necessary for the virtue of continence, how do we obtain this grace? We obtain this grace mainly and, in fact, indispensably through prayer.

Another question: why is prayer for grace so necessary? The basic reason is that we have a fallen human nature. Remedial grace from God is necessary if we are to practice Christian chastity. The most basic and most available source of this grace is prayer.

The next question I consider one of the most important that we can ask in life. Are we always assured the grace we need in time of temptation? No! We are not necessarily assured the actual grace we need to resist a temptation at the time it occurs.

As we have been saying in one conference after another, we can almost describe the modern world as demonically possessed to seduce people into sins of unchastity. How, then, are those who believe in Christ to remain faithful to His teaching on chastity? They must pray as no generation of Christians in two millennia has had to beg the Lord for His grace.

This raises another question: does this not seem to be an injustice on the part of God? Would we not expect Him to provide us with the light and strength we need to live up to the purity that He requires of those who claim they love Him? He does provide us with this light and strength but conditionally. The one grace that we can always be assured we have, is the grace to pray.

This means that our Lord is to be believed when He says, “Ask and you shall receive.” By implication, He is telling us, “If you do not ask, you shall not receive.” Either we have the humility to ask for divine assistance, or we pay the price for our pride. Those who are humble, pray; those who are proud, do not pray. In other words, those who pray are chaste; no one else is.

One more observation should be made. We spoke of the remedial grace that we need to practice Christian chastity. The language may sound strange, but “remedial grace” is the help that only God can give us to cope with the built‑in tendency that we all have to what we casually call the seven capital sins. They are really the seven capital tendencies that all of us have to satisfy our own desires independent of the will of God.

We are here dealing with a deep mystery. But as far as we can understand, God had at least one reason for allowing our first parents to sin and thereby lose for themselves and their posterity the innate control of our desires. Surely one reason was to keep us humble and make us realize that we cannot master our passions without His constant support. Among these passions, none is more imperious than the passion of lust. Only humble prayer can make us chaste.

Understanding Our Passions
We commonly associate prayer with asking God to strengthen our wills in His service. This is correct, but inadequate. The primary grace that we need is light for our minds. After all, the will is a blind faculty. It needs to be enlightened by the mind to know what to desire, what to choose and what to love. Correspondingly the will needs to be told by the mind what not to desire, what not to choose, and what to reject.

We may therefore say that prayer is necessary to enlighten the intellect on the beauty of chastity and, for our purpose, on the power of our passions.

Except for Christ and His Blessed Mother, the rest of us must either pray constantly to overcome our concupiscence or we shall give in to our irrational drives. Anger and pride and lust, avarice and envy and sloth and gluttony, are not only the names of the seven capital sins. They are the seven deadly enemies of our soul, synthesized by the Apostle in that one simple word, our “flesh.” These drives, irrational, maddening, unreasonable, persistent, are not only urges of the body; they are also urges of the spirit. It is not only that our bodies are fallen, but our nature is fallen, and that means body and spirit. There is no conquering these enemies or even controlling their hostility except by the grace of God to be obtained through incessant prayer. Why incessant prayer? Because we have incessant drives! That is why we should not stop praying, pardon the expression, until the moment after we have died.

People are not naturally humble. Did you know that? People are naturally proud. Memorize that! Human nature is naturally proud. When you see humility, say to yourself, “that is grace walking,” and it is not a woman's name.

People are not naturally chaste. They are naturally lustful, or as the expression goes, they are natural. Amen. So they are! That is what natural means — being lustful! They require and maintain chastity only if they pray, and pray as much as they need to resist the onslaughts of the flesh.

There is more reason for associating pride and lust than mere rhetoric. It is not only that pride and lust are the first two capital sins. The two go together as cause and consequence. Saint Paul is our authority for this. He tells us that God allowed the ancient Romans to become such slaves of lust because they were so terribly proud.

The wisdom of God is beyond our comprehension. But surely He knows, and we had better know, that either we bend our wills in humility by praying for His constant aid, or chastity is only a pious dream.

Coping with the Evil Spirit
Have we said everything that needs saying about the necessity of prayer for the practice of chastity? No, there is one more malevolent reason why we must pray to be chaste. That is the devil. Prayer is therefore necessary not only because we are creatures as we so pathetically are; and because we have a fallen nature that constantly needs divine grace to keep it from caving in.

Prayer is also dreadfully necessary because the evil spirit is so active among the sons and daughters of the human race. No one who sees what is happening in the world today, including what is going on in the Catholic Church, should have any doubts. The devil is more than ever at work in our times and phenomenally successful in leading not just individuals but multitudes, it seems whole nations, away from God. Need I say that the devil's principal lure is lust. With divine assistance available through prayer we can resist the evil one, but alone and without prayer we shall be overcome.

There are especially two principles to remember in dealing with the devil. The devil is a consummate liar and for all his cunning and deceit, he is never allowed to tempt us beyond our strength.

Suppose we look at each of these two principles separately and see them in the context of prayer. The devil is a liar by his fallen demonic nature. He tries to deceive us by presenting what is really evil as though it were something good. He tries to hide his malicious designs behind a mask of piety.

On this level, to cope with the devil we need light that we do not naturally possess. We are not naturally smart enough to out-smart the evil one. We must therefore pray for light to recognize the devil, here in order to preserve and protect our chastity. Leave it to the devil; he will never appear for what he is. He will hide himself behind all kinds of disguises. Forty-eight years in the priesthood have taught me many things. Not the least of these is how clever the evil spirit can be in seducing good people into lechery.

But good people must also be humble people. Proud persons are no match for the devil. The best remedy for pride is the practice of humble prayer, although I would add, besides praying in general, pray in particular. Our prayer is already an act of humility which earns graces from God. What we should ask of Him is the light to know beforehand what persons, places, reading, entertainment, even what conversation can be used by the devil to lead us into sins against the sixth and ninth commandments of God.

Our second principle in dealing with the evil spirit is the fact that he is never allowed to tempt us beyond our strength. What exactly does this mean? It means that we always have enough grace to overcome the devil; if I stopped here I would not be telling you the truth. We touched on this before, but let me be even more clear. Is it true that we always have enough grace to overcome the devil ‑ period? Absolutely not! We always have enough grace to overcome the demon of unchastity, provided we have prayed.

I cannot too strongly emphasize that when God permits the devil to tempt us, this does not mean that necessarily we already have enough light to recognize the demon or enough strength to resist him. We cannot bank on grace already had. We must, pray for additional light and more strength to identify and resist the evil one when he assaults us.

Daily Examen and Chastity
This conference would not be complete unless we looked at one form of prayer that, I am afraid, most Catholics would hardly associate with the virtue of chastity. This is a daily examination of conscience.

Call it a daily inventory, or a daily reflection on one's conduct, the examination of conscience is indispensable for the preservation and certainly for developing the virtue of chastity. In practice, it means that I ask myself, if only for a few minutes every day, how I stand before God. This will help me to know what occasions of sin I should avoid, what I should say, how I should act ‑ by anticipation. It will also keep me alert to temptations. I will learn to see them as actual graces for growing in what the saints call, “the angelic virtue.”

We have stressed how necessary is prayer for keeping and growing in Christian chastity. The daily examen of conscience provides us with the opportunity of becoming forearmed with God's grace. We ask the Lord beforehand to give us the light we will need to recognize a temptation against chastity from the world, the flesh and the devil. We ask Him by anticipation to give us the strength we will need to resist the temptation when it comes. All of this is good Christian strategy if we are going to preserve the one virtue, without which no one gets to heaven.

Dare we say that temptations against chastity are actual graces from God? Yes. We know that with God nothing happens by chance. What we call temptations are therefore part of God's mysterious providence. From His divine perspective, their purpose is to provide us with the opportunity of not only proving our love for Him, but growing in His love. But all of this presumes that we are prepared to profit from the temptations by our daily examen of conscience in the presence of God.

One of the factors which increases the merit of our good acts is the will power we put into whatever we are doing that is pleasing to God. Temptations are a providential means of evoking a maximum of will power in our cooperation with divine grace.

Resisting temptations to unchastity thus becomes a blessing. By demanding more effort on our part, we receive an increase in our supernatural life, including our possession of the virtue of chastity.

Does regular examination of conscience also help us to control unchaste thoughts? It certainly does, as the history of the saints so clearly shows. I plant the kind of thoughts I want to have, or not have, and on a positive method of controlling them. In this way, I give myself the best assurance of success. The reason is that thoughts are more elusive than actions. The power of the will over my thoughts is described as diplomatic rather than despotic.

I cannot say to my mind, “don't think this,” as I would say to my hand, “don't touch that,” and hope for an immediate response. I need to substitute another thought pattern for the undesirable one and thus drive the latter into subconsciousness. There is no more effective way of growing in chastity than to cultivate the habit of training myself to think chaste thoughts through a daily examen of conscience.

One last question: how does an examen of conscience help to plan a chaste lifestyle? Through the examination, I foresee what actions can be, substituted for the usual ones with consequently different thoughts evoked in the mind. I may have found that certain reading, perhaps innocuous in itself, brings on a train of thought that causes me trouble with carnal images. The foresight gained by examination will recommend changes in my reading habits, company keeping, conversation pattern, with corresponding freedom from disturbance in the mind.

I can even use my prayerful examen to plan on what kind of thoughts to substitute for the salacious ones; how I should maintain myself in peace when the body is aroused, and how to divert my attention to what is attractive but harmless, and away from what is sexually attractive but potentially sinful. This single rule: overcome venereal satisfaction with innocent enjoyment is a talisman of spiritual psychology and has been found effective since the dawn of Christianity.

Some Maxims of the Saints
The writings of the spiritual masters are filled with wise directives on how chastity is the fruit of God's grace through the practice of humble prayer.

Alphonsus Liguori recommends, “When an evil thought is presented to the mind, we must immediately turn our thoughts to God‑but the first rule is, instantly invoke the names of Jesus and Mary and continue to invoke them until the temptation ceases.”

Charles de Foucauld goes to the extreme of crediting God almost exclusively with the precious gift of continence. He is speaking to the Lord.

By force of events, you made me chaste …chastity became a blessing an inner necessity for me. It was you who did that, O God ‑ You alone. I, alas, had no part in it. How good you have been! From what sad and culpable relapses you miraculously preserved me! …The devil is too much the master of an unchaste soul to let truth enter it. You could not, O God, come into a soul where the devil of unbridled passions rules supreme. But you wanted to come into my soul, O good shepherd, and you yourself expelled your enemy from it.

But the classic passage from the saints on the need for prayer to practice Christian purity is Saint Augustine's historic passage in his Confessions. He is describing how he struggled with his passions and how he feared that by praying he might be cured. Speaking to the Lord, Augustine prayed, “In my great worthlessness, I had begged you for chastity, saying: ‘Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.’ For I was afraid that you would hear my prayer too soon, and too soon you would heal me from the disease of lust which I wanted satisfied rather than extinguished.”

Augustine knew that he could not be cured from the disease of lust except by prayer. He also knew that his prayer had to be sincere. He knew that God will give us the grace we ask for, provided we are willing to cooperate with the grace which He confers.

Prayer to Our Lady
“Immaculate Virgin Mary, I confide my chastity to your maternal heart. I ask your help to guard my senses, especially the eyes, for an unchaste eye is the messenger of an unchaste heart. Knowing my pride, I pray for that humility which invites the mercy of God. Knowing that I am human, I shall not be surprised at the urge of concupiscence, but trusting in your care I rely on your protection and all the graces that I need from your divine Son. Amen.”

Copyright © 2002 Inter Mirifica

How to Keep Your Children Catholic

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:qmaAZWc0XosJ:www.therealpresence.org/archives/Family/Family_008.htm+john+hardon+grace+charity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

How to Keep Your Children Catholic
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

This is surely an unusual subject for today’s conference, “How To Keep Your Children Catholic.” The subject may be unusual but it is desperately important.

I would like to briefly address myself to three questions, expressed in three words, Why? What? and How?



Why?
I don’t think anyone here has any doubt about why we should speak about keeping our children Catholic. The widespread loss of young Catholics to the true faith is unparalleled in Christian history. Millions of teenagers and those in their early twenties are leaving the Catholic Church in one so-called developed country after another. I will never forget the dinner I had with a Catholic father and mother who sadly told me that their seventh child had just left the Church. All seven had been given a nominally Catholic education, at great sacrifice to their parents.

The experience in the United States has been duplicated in Europe. Young people in England, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy are leaving the Church of their Catholic heritage in droves.



What?
What is the cause of this tragic phenomenon? To begin with, let me say that no one loses the Catholic faith. It is the Church’s infallible teaching that a person who has been baptized as a Catholic and has learned at least the basics of his religion does not lose the true faith. We must say such a person abandons the faith. In other words leaving the Catholic faith implies culpability.

Behind this teaching are two facts. No one can reason himself out of the Catholic Church. There are no rational grounds for giving up one’s Catholic commitment. Moreover, God is never wanting with His grace to preserve the faith He has once given to us and we have professed.

How then explain the deluge of departures of so many young people from their Catholic heritage? Only God knows the final explanation.

But this much we can say. The modern media of communication, in the words of Marshall McLuhan, “are engaged in a Luciferian conspiracy against the truth.” From infancy, children are exposed to all the means of communication. The masters of communication are not friendly to Christianity. In fact, most of them are openly hostile to the teachings of Christ and, with resounding emphasis, to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Add to this, young people from their earliest days are exposed to the good things of this world to a degree never before known in human history. Is it any wonder that our dictionaries define “nonsense” as whatever cannot be perceived by the senses. On these terms, the human soul, angels and saints, even God Himself is nonsense. Prayer becomes a pious practice of persons who are living in an unreal world.



How?
We return to our opening question: How to keep your children Catholic? To keep your children Catholic:

Be a channel of grace to them.


Pray with and for them every day.


Train them to understand what they believe.
Channel of Grace. In His ordinary providence, God communicates His grace through other people. He uses believing Christians as channels of His grace of faith to others. He uses loving Christians as channels of His grace of charity to others. He uses trustful Christians as channels of His grace of hope to others. He uses prayerful Christians as channels of His grace of prayer to others. He uses chaste Christians as channels of His grace of chastity to others. He uses patient Christians as channels of His grace of patience to others.

What are we saying? We are saying that the first and most fundamental way in which parents can keep their children Catholic is for the parents themselves to be authentic, and I mean authentic, Catholics themselves.

This is more than giving a good example. This is the mystery of serving as a conduit of God’s grace to everyone whose life we touch.

There is no one on earth who is a more important and indispensable channel of divine grace to children than their parents.

God does work miracles. But, unless parents are expecting God to work a miracle, they must live a truly, fully Catholic life themselves if they expect their children to remain Catholic in today’s Christless world.

Pray with and for the Children. No words can describe the necessity of a family praying together in order to obtain the blessings of God.

At the heart of a Christian family is the supernatural life that requires constant light and strength to be sustained.

Father Peyton’s well-known statement, “The family that prays together stays together,” is not a pious cliché. It is the verdict of twenty centuries of Christianity. Just a few practical recommendations: say the Rosary together, if possible, every day; recite the Angelus together at least once a day; say the grace before and after meals as a family; have a holy water font inside the front door for people to bless themselves as they enter the house; have at least a small shrine to our Lady inside the house; have a crucifix and some sacred pictures on the wall.

Every one of the above recommendations was the way I was brought up from childhood by my widowed mother.

Train the Children to Understand their Faith. It is one thing to believe; it is something else to grasp what we believe. In today’s academically sophisticated world there is no choice. Either understand your faith or lose it.

It is not enough for parents to have their children know their prayers and memorize certain articles of faith. The children must grow in their faith. Parents must explain the meaning of what their children believe. Children ask questions from infancy about, “Who is Jesus? Where is God? Does God know what I am thinking? Why should I pray if God already knows what I need?”

Moreover, children are now exposed to all kinds of confusion. One priest says one thing, another says something just the opposite.

Children grow not only in size and weight. They grow in intelligence. Parents must make sure that their sons and daughters mature not only in body but also, and especially, in spirit.

In the gospel of St. Matthew, our Lord gives the parable of the sower who went out to sow, all good seed, but not all on good ground. The first seed fell on the wayside. Immediately the birds of the air came down and picked up the seed lying on the hard ground. So the seed produced no fruit. When Jesus explained the meaning of this parable, He told His disciples the seed falling on the wayside symbolizes those who have received the word of God into their hearts, but fail to understand it. So what happens? The devil comes along and steals the word of God from their hearts.

Of course, you parents must yourselves understand what you believe if you are to explain to your children the meaning of their faith.



Prayer
Let me close with a short prayer: “Mary, Mother of the Holy Family, obtain for us from Jesus the light we need to keep our children in the Catholic faith. Ask your Son to give us the strength we need to bring our families to heaven, to the arms of the loving God from whom they came. Amen.”

Copyright © 1998 Inter Mirifica

Jesus Christ's Resurrection is a Historical Fact

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:-6nTooe8S8IJ:www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_015.htm+john+hardon+resurrection+fact&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

The Meaning of Easter
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Easter is the most important feast in Christianity. In fact, it is the pivot of the ecclesiastical year around which everything in the Church's calendar revolves.
Already in the first century of the Christian era, Sunday replaced Saturday as the Lord's Day, a weekly commemoration of Easter. Yet in secularized cultures like the United States and Canada, Easter is not much celebrated except liturgically. It is too religious and too Christian for people who are immersed in the things of this world to pay much attention to a world to come and to a life after death, yet that is what Easter is all about, to those who believe.

My purpose here is to ask three questions and briefly answer each one in sequence:


What do we commemorate on Easter Sunday?


Why did Christ rise from the dead?


How are we to live out the mystery of Christ's resurrection?




What Do We Commemorate?
On Easter Sunday. we commemorate the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the grave on the third day after His crucifixion and death on Calvary.
Of course. the resurrection of Christ is a mystery that we believe. But it is also and emphatically a historical fact that we know actually took place.

It is a historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth really lived, really died, was really buried, and really rose from the grave.

It is a provable fact that Jesus came back to life after being crucified, that His disciples were unwilling to accept the fact, but were given overwhelming evidence that Jesus had truly risen. It is a fact that Christ's resurrection was no mere subjective experience. It was no illusion or merely spiritual phenomenon. No, the risen Christ had a body, and flesh, and could be seen, heard and touched.




Why Did Christ Rise from the Dead?
The great minds of Christianity have written volumes in explanation of why Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave.
The resurrection of Christ is the great vindication of divine justice, which elevates those who humble themselves. In the words of St. Thomas. "Since Christ humiliated Himself even to the death of the Cross out of love and obedience to God, He was therefore exalted by God even to His resurrection from the dead." It is this glorification of His risen humanity to which Christ refers in St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises when He says, "My will is to conquer the whole world and all my enemies, and thus to enter into the glory of my Father."

The resurrection of Christ is also the great proof of His divinity and in that sense the keystone of our faith. During His mortal life Christ had often professed Himself to be God in human flesh. "The Father and I are one." He declared. In testimony of this claim He allowed Himself to be crucified, died, and by His own power arose from the dead; thus clearly manifesting that He was indeed the Resurrection and the Life, first in His own favor and then for all the rest of mankind. Without the divinity of Christ, confirmed by the miracle of Easter Sunday, the incarnation is a misnomer and the redemption a sham. "If Christ has not risen," says St. Paul, "vain then is our preaching." And vain all the mysteries of our faith.

Besides confirming our faith in His divinity, Christ's resurrection gives the hope of our own restoration from the grave. As the first fruits of those who sleep, the Head of the Mystical Body became a pledge of immortality to His faithful members on the last day. This is integral to the promise of Christ that those who follow Him in labor and suffering will also follow Him in glory. While only part of the reward, the glorification of our body after the example of Christ can be a powerful motive in the spiritual life. Since the control of bodily passions by "acting against sensuality and carnal desires" often demands a great deal of sacrifice, there should be a corresponding remuneration, not only for the soul but also for the body which shared in the earthly struggle. For the soul, this reward is the beatific vision, for the body, it is the resurrection which endows the sensible faculties with transcendent powers and inebriates them, in the words of revelation, with the torrent of God's pleasure.

Finally and most importantly the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our reinstatement in the friendship of God. As the result of Adam's fall we were twice removed from divine love, once by reason of original sin that infected our human nature and once again by the loss of sanctifying grace that gave us a title to the vision of God. Two kinds of life were to be restored, as there were two kinds of death from which we had to be redeemed, the one bodily and the other spiritual. As the passion of Christ removed both forms of death, so His resurrection restored both forms of life.




How Can We Live the Mystery of Christ's Resurrection?
The answer to this question is as simple as it is startling. We live the mystery of Easter by our devotion to the Holy Eucharist. Let me repeat: We live out the mystery of Christ's resurrection by our devotion to the Eucharist.
How is that? Or better, how is that possible? It is not only possible but practicable because the Holy Eucharist is the Risen Christ. It is the Risen Jesus, now on earth in our midst.

In the Eucharist the Risen Lord is ready to bestow His graces, provided we believe and humbly ask Him for what we need.

The Eucharist is the Risen Savior offering Himself in the Mass, coming to us in Communion, and living among us by His very Real Presence on our altars.

The Catholic Church is undergoing the most difficult ordeal in her history. She has had more martyrs since 1900 than in all the previous centuries put together.

But the Church will survive and even thrive where and in so far as she has faithful members who believe that the risen glorified Jesus Christ is with us - as He promised - in the Holy Eucharist, even until the end of time.




Copyright © 1997 Inter Mirifica

Friday, February 15, 2008

Why is Ann Coulter Campaigning for Hitler, Hillary and Romney?

Why is Ann Coulter campaigning for Hitler, Hillary and Romney? The one thing all three had in common is a gay agenda.

"Coulter noted, if McCain made former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney his vice president, she would support the Republican ticket."[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080208f.html]

Romney or Giuliani being the VP would be a reason for me and many pro-family voters not to vote for McCain. Although we could never join Ann in voting for Clinton. Maybe Coulter needs to ask Hillary to make Romney her VP.

Fred


Unlike McCain, Hitler 'Had a Coherent Tax Policy,' Coulter Says
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
February 08, 2008

(Clarification: Ann Coulter's appeared at the Omni Shoreham hotel but not at CPAC.)

Washington (CNSNews.com) - In a speech at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., Friday, just down the hall from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), author Ann Coulter said that the primary difference between Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Adolf Hitler was that Hitler "had a coherent tax policy."

Coulter compared a potential alliance between disillusioned conservative Republicans and Sen. Hillary Clinton to the alliance between Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin during World War II, which was formed to defeat Hitler.

"I'm not comparing McCain to Hitler," she added. "Hitler had a coherent tax policy."

The remark received wild applause from the audience of about 500 conservative activists. Many in the crowd seemed hostile to the idea of a McCain presidency and cheered Coulter's attacks on the Arizona senator.

Coulter also criticized McCain for his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, accused him of wanting amnesty for illegal immigrants, and mocked his frequent touting of his military service in Vietnam.

"Couldn't we pick a POW who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo?" she said.

Coulter even attacked McCain's age, quipping that he had been in the Senate since the Spanish-American War and wondered if his age had influenced some of his more moderate positions.

"At John McCain's age, he's looking for posterity," she said. "He's worried about his New York Times obituary."

Nevertheless, Coulter noted, if McCain made former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney his vice president, she would support the Republican ticket.

"I've led one impeachment. I can lead another," she said.

Coulter was not invited to speak at CPAC this year, but she gave her speech in the same hotel where the conference occurred.

[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080208f.html]

Mitt Romney's Liberal Paradigm Shift: a Republican FOR Homosexual 'Special Rights'

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values, today criticized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his "novel pro- homosexual positioning in the GOP." On Dec. 16, Romney (the alleged "conservative" in the race) told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "it makes sense at the state level" to enact pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" laws. (Last week, CNN's Roland Martin reported that Romney told him that he opposes "gay marriage," but supports "gay rights.")

LaBarbera issued the following statement:


Mitt Romney just doesn't get it on the homosexual agenda, and if he doesn't get at after serving as governor of liberal Massachusetts -- where "gay marriage," homosexual adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination in schools ALL were advanced by the sort of pro-gay "sexual orientation" laws he's now espousing -- then he's not going to get it at the federal level.

Romney is already using his bully pulpit as a candidate to affirm "gay rights"-- even AFTER he's earned the backing of pro-family leaders who seemingly would have much to teach him about the danger and misuse of pro-homosexual laws. (Note that Romney uses gay-affirming "discrimination" rhetoric even with regard to the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexuals.)

I don't know any serious pro-lifers who are pro- homosexuality. We all have compassion for homosexual strugglers, but we draw the line at laws that would distort "civil rights" to include sinful and changeable homosexual behavior -- because these laws will be used to compel individuals, business and even ministries to violate their beliefs and support homosexual relationships (see the Weekly Standard article, "Banned in Boston," about Boston Catholic Charities electing to close down its historic adoption agency rather than place kids in homosexual households).

Romney is trying to shift the GOP's pro-family paradigm on homosexuality, and it's an unwise shift -- much like retreating from a principled position on pro- life (e.g., "I'm pro-choice but not pro-partial-birth abortion"). Due to Romney's potential for being the "Nixon-goes-to-China" president who advances pro-homosexuality agendas in the GOP -- I cannot support him.

Why do the same conservative pundits who have assailed Mick Huckabee and John McCain as too liberal, promote the fiction that Mitt Romney - who strongly defended abortion-on-demand and who remains in favor of anti-Christian homosexual special rights laws as a Mormon -- is a "conservative"?



Christian Newswire


THE PINK SWASTIKA AND HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST HISTORY
http://caosblog.com/5803

The Pink Swastika- by Judith Reisman
Filed under: General , Communism, Socialism and the Nazis @ 4:52 am
This is published here at CB with Dr. Reisman’s written permission.

THE PINK SWASTIKA AND HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST HISTORY
by
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
The Institute For Media Education1

The greatest sacrilege to the millions of innocent infant and aged Nazi victims, would be allow these dead to be exploited as political fodder to re-arm the same ideologues who ushered in Germany’s “final solution”. The Pink Swastika challenges the historical meaning of The Pink Triangle and in doing so, brings light to one of the darkest pages of human history.

Are the Victimizers Co-Opting the Holocaust?

Under the banner of The Pink Triangle (a Nazi symbol for incarcerated homosexuals), a mass media campaign by the major broadcasters and press, has been awarding Nazi victim status to homosexuals. Claiming to have been victimized by the Nazis just like the Jews, pink triangles are sweeping the land, embossed on fancy stationary, upscale check books, flags, posters, stickers, shirts, pins, and the like. After losing nearly all of my (Jewish) family in the gas chambers during World War II, I was deeply disconcerted when Holocaust museums world wide advertised new exhibits alleging the Nazi mass murder of homosexuals. One of the complaints of those curating these exhibits has been the dearth of evidence with which to document museum assertions of a Nazi aminus toward homosexuals. Now, here come the authors of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, to document why evidence of a fatal form of Nazi “homophobia” has been uniformly lacking.

Instead of evidence finding Nazism in conflict with homosexuality, Lively and Abrams report the strategies of the German homosexual movement to ensconce National Socialism (the Nazi party) and Adolf Hitler, triggering a holocaust which engulfed all of Europe. Writing of those days in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, radical German sexologist and Hitler contemporary, Wilhelm Reich, warned that Nazi leadership was both ideologically and actually homosexual.2 Almost as an aside, Reich noted Nazi leaders such as “Bluher, Röhm…. Rosenberg” represented Hitler’s fascism, which was, Reich said, “a male state organized on a homosexual basis.” 3

But, the primary confirmation of The Pink Swastika and Reich, are the formal writings of Adolf Hitler himself, in the bible of the Nazi movement, Mein Kampf [My Struggle]. Here the reader meets up with page after page of Hitler’s outspoken hatred of Jews, Marxists, Negroes, Chinese, Arabs, women, and all Eastern Europeans along with his overwhelming worship of power and disdain for Judeo-Christian morality alongside his strategy for world domination. In his introduction to Mein Kampf, Konrad Heiden reconfirms Hitler’s hatred for Christianity, as he viewed the “belief in human equality” to be a Jewish plot, made popular due to “Christian churches”. (Emphasis mine)

Hitler is documented as classifying who he and Germany should hate. He hid nothing. Jews and the like were subhuman, they were “parasites” “vampires,” “liars” “cowards,” “traitors,” among other adjectives. But, search the Nazi manifesto for any animosity, contempt, much less hatred of homosexuals. To do so is to search in vain. In point of fact, as Reich knew personally, Hitler eulogized and venerated the archetypal super macho Aryan male, for whom women were seen to serve the role of breeders for the race of supermen. The Fuhrer’s contempt for women is made vivid by the abnormal way in which he used his niece and the few other women close to him, including Eva Braun.

Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf who would live and who would die: He stated who would be slave and who would be master. The Pink Swastika opens his fascist bible to the prototypical Nazi macho homosexual male best expressed today in the widely popular “Tom of Finland” fantasy drawings sold in all homosexual book stores, magazines, as well as in general advertisements for “gay” films and phone sex. Common are the blond, square jawed muscle men wearing Luftwaffe caps, skin tight black pants, high black polished boots, sporting a black leather strap going from the shoulder diagonally across a hairless, bare, Aryan chest, a whip swishing alongside the hero’s slim hips.

The authors recall the 1920s post WW1 Weimar Republic, the near starvation and wild currency fluctuations in Germany against the backdrop of the sex and drug “Cabaret” scene of Europe and Gay Berlin. They point to Berlin’s world famous coterie of Bohemian artists, sadosexual transvestites, lesbians and homosexual nightclubs and baths, as well as the rampant control of Berlin by pornographers, organized crime and drug dealers. In this milieu, reports Elson in Time-Life Books, Prelude to War, thousands of prostitutes walked Berlin’s city streets half nude, dressed as “dominatrixes” and school girls, while transvestites and “powdered and rouged young men” everywhere sold their wares to financiers and military men alike.

The famous German Jewish homosexual sex “scientist,” Magnus Hirshfeld, reported that roughly 20,000 boys and youths were prostituted to Germany’s flourishing “gay” population. (The British, qua-American homosexual icon, Christopher Isherwood blissfully said of Berlin’s 1920’s boy brothels, “Berlin is for boys…The German Boy….the Blond”).

In the midst of such pansexual revelry it could be argued that were Hitler a shy, retiring sort of bookworm, he might not notice the dominating homosexual sensibility and the erotic mix of sexes. However, Lively and Abrams conclude that as a young aspiring Viennese artist, Hitler would be especially familiar with the artistic homosexual fraternity for Vienna was the hub of Bohemian culture. Hitler claims to have been destitute, and in the midst of the Cabaret era, he was reduced to living in a men’s hostel for down-and outers. Both male and female prostitution were rife, the younger the better. Such a poor young artist would have met many “different” and adventurous people whose celebrity. like today, was gilded by an intimacy with homosexuality. The authors present a reasonable body of evidence to the jury of public opinion, including the possibility that Hitler earned extra cash as a youthful Viennese prostitute, serving a male clientele.

In a fascinating read of 204 well documented pages, the authors of The Pink Swastika track down the facts behind the homosexual movement’s current claims for Nazi-victim status. Divided into seven parts, the story opens as the new Nazi party is founded in the smoky din of the Bratwurstglockl, “a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys….a gay bar,” favored by Hitler’s closest comrade, Captain Ernst Röhm. Almost every biography of Hitler reports that Rohm was a flagrant homosexual and the only man Hitler called by the familiar “du.”

Hitler’s beloved Storm Trooper Chief and founder of the Brown Shirts, the authors note, had a “taste for young boys.” Almost as close to Hitler as Röhm was Rudolph Hess, known for his dress-up attire as “‘Black Bertha’” in the gay bars of pre-war Berlin” In fact, Mein Kampf was dedicated to Hess while Hitler was in prison. The Pink Swastika reports that Hitler was given power by a homosexual gang, a gang says Dr. Carroll Quigley, President bill Clinton’s college teacher and mentor, that subverted Germany’s free elections by underhanded and brutal strategies.

According to Quigley in Tragedy and Hope (1966) Hitler’s intimate friend, Captain Röhm and his trusted homosexual cadre of Storm Troopers staged the famed burning of the Reichstag, along with other bully-boy tactics, to frighten people into supporting the Nazi party and Hitler. For our purposes here it is useful to see what Quigley says about homosexual Nazi Storm Troopers:

Accordingly….a plot was worked out to burn the Reichstag building and blame the Communists. Most of the plotters were homosexuals and were able to persuade a degenerate moron from Holland named Van der Lubbe to go with them. After the building was set on fire, Van der Lubbe was left wandering about in it and was arrested.

This is especially interesting. The Pink Swastika addresses the many myths surrounding “The Night of the Long Knives” or the “blood purge” when supposedly only homosexuals such as Röhm were murdered by Hitler. Quigley offers another interesting insight, saying that “Most of the plotters were homosexual”. He adds that many of those who knew the truth were murdered in March and April while ”Most of the Nazis who were in on the plot were murdered by Goring during the “blood purge” of June 30, 1934” (emphasis added).

Also, as Lively and Abrams report, it was under Röhm and his Storm Troopers that the records and books of “the Sex Research Institute,” were burned. The authors reveal that Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, the Jewish “feminine” homosexual director of the Institute, maintained detailed records of his many court-referred sex offenders, including important Nazi rapists, and homosexual child offenders, pederasts. Quigley confirmed that Röhm and other key Nazis who knew too much about Hitler’s criminal activities were killed for allegedly plotting against Hitler.

Lively and Abrams track the role of Röhm in recruiting and training a total of roughly 2.5 to 4.5 million Storm Troopers (SA) and Gestapo (SS) compared to about 100,000 men in the regular German army. Once the SA was disbanded after the June 1934 blood purge, most of these experienced SA homosexual leaders moved into other power positions in the German military.

The authors raise many questions in The Pink Swastika. If he feared homosexual influence on boys, why did Hitler chose known homosexuals to serve as key youth leaders? Karl Fischer, a homosexual teacher, began the Wandervogel (a German version of the boy Scouts), which became “The Hitler Youth” in 1933, under a well known pederast, Hans Blueher, who wrote of man-boy “love.” Gerhard Rossbach, homosexual Nazi leader of the Freikorps gave over leadership of the Schill Youth to Edmund Heines, a convicted Nazi pederast, and murderer, all under the watchful eye of Adolf Hitler.

The Pink Swastika reports that while Hitler and his Gestapo chief, Heinrich Himmler methodologically annihilated all German and European Jews via mass deportations to death camps, beyond political homophobic rhetoric after the Röhm murders, and a demand that men produce children for the Aryan race, Hitler refused to attack “homosexuals.”

Adolf Brand, a pederast-child pornographer was one of many prominent “butch” advocate homosexuals who continued to live, write and entertain in Germany, untouched by the Nazis. Other homosexual and bisexual leaders cited by these and other authors included Bladur von Schirach, Hitler Youth Leader; Hans Frank, Hitler’s Minister of Justice; Wilhelm Bruckner, Hitler’s adjutant; Walther Funk, Hitler’s Minister of Economics; friend and advisor Hermann Göring, Hitler’s second in command (who dressed “in drag and wore camp make-up”), Hans Kahnert, who founded Germany’s largest “Gay rights organization (Society for Human Rights) which counted “SA Chief Ernst Rohm among its members,” Edmund Heines, a pederast sadist, Dr. Karl Gunther Heimsoth, a homosexual Nazi who coined the term “homophile,” and Julius Streicher, an infamous pornographer and pederast who was very close to Hitler.



Most interesting was Emil Maurice, Hitler’s close personal secretary and chauffeur. One of the Röhm purge assassins, apparently Maurice had secured a blackmail strategy that preserved his life until the war’s end. For Lively and Abrams cite Maurice as homosexual, while Mollo, in his history of the SS, portrays Maurice also as Jewish described in a famous photograph:



Hitler and four of his first SS men (a fifth has been erased). L to R: Schaubk, Schreck, Hitler, Maurer and Schneider. The fifth man was Emil Maurice who was thrown out of the SS in 1935 when found to be a Jew, but later allowed to retain his appointment and privileges, and wear [sic] SS uniform.

A look at another photograph of Hitler finds him voluntarily posing enthusiastically before a massive statue of two nude, muscular men holding hands. This suggests we ask if Hitler had a sexual relationship with his handsome young chauffeur (a not uncommon arrangement as identified in reports of the time), . Maurice is identified as the man erased in the SS photograph, his two shoes still quite visible in the picture. Elsewhere, pictures of Maurice reveal a dark-haired, rather Semitic looking young man. Could Maurice have been Hitler’s Jewish, SS lover? What a fascinating research question. The captions read:

[Picture #1] “Hitler in prison with Maurice, Kriebel, Hess and Dr. Fredrich.” [Picture #2] “Common room of Nazi prisoners at Landsberg. Behind Hitler, Emil Maurice, early companion and chauffeur.”

Most histories of World War II (see especially Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) report Hitler’s ties to the “notorious” homosexual, Ernst Röhm and other males within his coterie. The Pink Swastika notes, if anything, that sex laws under Hitler’s Reich Minister of the Interior Henrich Himmler were largely tolerant toward the “2 million” Germans Himmler said were registered in homosexual organizations in 1933, for “only repeat offenders can be incarcerated.” “Repeat offenders” meant a fourth public sex offense, or someone who had already served six months in jail for repeated offenses. In 1940, Himmler reiterated that only “multiple offenders” (largely engaged in sex in a public forum) might be jailed. However, wrote Himmler, “artists and actors” might escape any penalty, despite how often they were found in compromising situations.

During the Hitler era, of roughly 70 million Germans , “less than 1%” “hardly one hundredth of all the country’s inhabitants” were Jewish, said Hitler. Morris Ernst, in his book on Kinsey, discussed Hirschfeld’s findings:

Germany….with a population of 62,000,000, there were nearly a million and a half men and women [said Hirschfeld] “whose constitutional predisposition is largely or completely homosexual” Just how big a proportion of his estimated million and a half German homosexuals found their way into Nazi uniforms is not known, of course. But a good many of them were attracted by the Nazi principles and the society of their fellows in a bond which excluded all women (p. 169-170).

Historical records suggest Germany had perhaps 700,000 Jews versus 2-3 million “registered” homosexuals, according to Himmler. Whether there were 1 and a half million (Hirschfeld) or 2 to 3 million (Himmler), at most 10,000 German homosexuals were sent to work camps, 6,000 died and 4,000 were released. The 6,000 homosexual deaths are a minimum of Germans who would have been “fems,” despised by the homosexual powered elite as well as collections of homosexuals who were also Jewish, Italian, Asian, Black, Communist, Marxist and the like. This still leaves estimates of 20,000 male prostitutes unaccounted for with the under 1% of homosexuals largely interned in “work camps,” not, the authors note, the “death” camps for Jews and other outcasts. Lively and Abrams point to the nearly 100% extermination effort by the Nazis toward all captured Jews of all nationalities, gassed or interned in death camps. The especial concern of Hitler that all good Germans reproduce in order to create an Aryan nation must not be forgotten. Aryan Germans were expected to breed and it is well known that German breeding farms were established for that purpose. Non-German homosexuals appear to have been of no interest to the Nazis, for there is no record of any attempts to hunt, arrest or harm foreign homosexuals, for any reason.

The evidence strongly suggests these selected German homosexuals were killed for political reasons, versus 566,000 of roughly 700,000 German Jews (85%), 23.5% of all gypsies, 10% of Poles, 12% of Ukrainians, 13.5% of Belorussians. The German military plot to kill Hitler resulted in the murder of the few men responsible, as well as 7,000 of their family members. The authors raise some interesting questions, such as where is the record of retaliation for those who hid, hired, nursed and fed persecuted homosexuals? The author’s discussions of the “butch” versus “fems” battle raging between German homosexuals and the effect of this internal war on alleged “book burning: and the like, answer many critical questions.

In the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirer said Hitler welcomed “Murderers, pimps homosexual perverts, drug addicts or just plain rowdies.” In fact, even Shirer sidestepped the brazenly homosexual nature of Nazi party pioneers–a critical body of knowledge for any society contending for a civil existence. The authors cite several million “Butch” type Rohm homosexual Nazis who worked as guards and directors of women’s and men’s death camps and work camps. Elie Weisel, the world famous Holocaust survivor, reported witnessing homosexual guards and administrators who “kept” and raped young Jewish boys at will, “there was a considerable traffic in children among homosexuals here, I learned later.”

Lively and Abrams report that basic mathematics refute the idea that homosexuals were killed for being homosexual. For were homosexuals treated like Jews, 2-3 million out of 2-3 million German homosexuals should have lost their businesses, their jobs, their property, their possessions and most should have lost their lives. Homosexuals would have been forced to wear pink triangles on their clothing in the streets, they would have had their passports stamped with an “H,” barred from travel, work, shopping, public appearances without their armbands, and we would have thousands of pictures of pink triangle graffiti saying “kill the faggots,” and the like. If German homosexuals were not Nazis, these 2-3 million men would have been homeless, walled into ghettos, worked as a mass labor pool, then gassed and their abuse recorded in graphic detail, as were millions of Jews. And, if Germany’s several million “gays” were not Nazi victims, they were Nazi soldiers, collaborators or murderers.

Interviewing SS General Jurgen Stroop and a German policeman, Moczarski, Kazimiers reports on the continued presence of homosexuals in the Nazi hierarchy.

A policeman well acquainted “with Germany’s homosexual element [spoke up and said they] kept files on all known and potential pederasts. He remarked that very few homosexuals in the NSDAP were as “indelicately” treated as was Rohm…”So maybe a few of the fags in the party did get knocked off. There were plenty of others who made out just fine. They remained active party members…..got promotions…..[and were] protected by the top NSDAP brass.”

The Storm Troopers and the Gestapo were schooled in what the authors call the “Hellenistic” Greek ideal of man-youth-pedagogy. Concerned about the man-boy aspect of homosexuality, The Pink Swastika connects-the-dots for readers from the homosexual power structure in Germany to the current social debate in the United States. The naked, copulatory San Francisco “gay rights” parades, the violent homosexual burning of buildings when Governor Pete Wilson originally refused gay minority rights, the bullying attacks on Cardinal O’Conner and former HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan and scores of others, note the authors, are a replay of the homoerotic Nazis.

Our own research on Heterosexual v. Homosexual Partner Solicitation Language (The Advocate v. The Washingtonian), as noted earlier, regularly finds men and boys pictured in naked Fascist chic, strutting the black Luftwaffe cap, boots, whips and black leather–Fascist sadism. While Lively and Abrams cite at least 160 ex-gay organizations nationwide which identify sex abuse, neglect and authoritarian trauma as triggering homosexual conduct, on the evidence, a post-World War II Fascist model is afoot in American schools under the protective cover of “AIDS Prevention” and “gay youth” protection, controlled largely by adult homosexual activists.

Parallel with these subversive activities is the effort to divorce children from their parents, by painting the fatal and lonely life of homosexuality with a patina of heroism and martyrdom, via mass media, institutional education and law (the privilege of marriage being a recent assault) undermining America’s survival as the international standard barer of a Judeo-Christian moral order. Lively and Abrams are concerned, and I would conceded properly so, that idealistic “gay youth” groups are being formed and staffed in classrooms nationwide by recruiters too similar to those who formed the original “Hitler youth”. The Pink Swastika authors draw our attention to the need to forcefully reverse the flood of “gay rights” legislation or face a massive increase in children dedicated to the exploitive and heartbreaking “gay life” with all that implies for the child and society.

The Pink Swastika finds that serious “Judeo-Christians” are the likely targets of this resurgent homosexual movement. In 1934, all German school children were receiving textual, verbal and cinematic classroom indoctrination into Fascism. By 1936, sexuality advocate, Wilheim Reich warned that the wide availability and juvenile use of pornography was creating heterophobic German children–boys and girls who feared and distrusted the opposite sex. The homosexual fight for Nazi victim status comes directly on the heels of our exposé of forty years of corrupt and cynical manipulation of the fraudulent “10%” of homosexuality data established by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Co. (Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Reisman and Eichel). Recently, Newsweek challenged the fraudulent Kinsey data, asking, “How Many Gays Are There?” while the Wall Street Journal faced up to “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy.”

Recent admissions by Dr. John Bancroft, the new Kinsey Institute Director of Kinsey’s reliance and use of a homosexual pederast[s] to obtain Kinsey’s child sex data raises the specter that a homosexual/pederast biased male research base has become the foundation of current sexual attitudes, education, conduct, law and public policy. As no other sex researcher has ever reported his or her laboratory experiments on children to determine their sexual capacity, Kinsey remains the citation for all such scientific claims. To that end, H.R. 2749, “The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995” was introduced by Congressman Steve Stockman, December 1995, to begin to investigate that possibility. The price we now are paying for decades of Kinsey’s claims of infant and child sexuality and his 10% homosexuality data, can never be calculated.

Now the homosexual press regularly reports that scores of “closet” lesbians and homosexuals are in place to resurrect homosexuality, reshaping the nation’s ideals of child, marriage, justice, research, law, health, sexuality, crime and public policy from the old bi/homosexual sensibility. If it is true that institutional Judaism capitulated to homosexual pressure in Holocaust museums worldwide, awarding Nazi victim status to the macho male ideology which launched the Holocaust, what does growing homosexual power mean to their memory, and to the way homosexual power will exert itself in the future?

The Pink Swastika is both an excellent course in Nazi history, and an excellent warning for the future of our nation. Historical research like this should be pouring out from our institutions of higher learning. That universities are captured by “politically correct” homosexual/feminism only proves how dangerous fraud in science has been and continues to be for our nation. Lively and Abrams have done a yeoman’s job in bringing this controversial and important information to the public forum. The book should be purchased in quantity and distributed as widely as possible, for woe unto our nation should we ignore the warning of James Madison in 1832: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both.” The Pink Swastika is critically needed popular information in the current Culture War, lest America become a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both.

ENDNOTES
Wilhelm Reich (1970), The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Penguin: New York, pp. 123, 127.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1992) Houghton Mifflin.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. (1991), Columbia University Press.
Robert Elson (1976), Prelude to War. Time-Life Books, New York, pp. 70-83.
Havelock Ellis (1934), Psychology of Sex, Ray Long & Richard R. Smith, Inc., New York, p. 221-222, Ellis cites Magnus Hirschfeld’s research on boy prostitution.
Christopher Isherwood (1953), Christopher And His Kind, Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, pp. 4-5.
The Washington Blade, August 11, 1985, p. 47 (a homosexual press).
Carroll Quigley (1966) Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan Company, New York, p. 437.
Ibid.
Andrew Mollo, A Pictorial History of the SS, 1923-1945. Stein and Day, New York, p. 19.
John Toland (1976) Adolf Hitler, New York. Ballantine books, p.131.
See: Eldon R. James, Ed., “The Statutory Criminal Law of Germany,” Washington, The Library of Congress, 1947, pp. 114-115, and Timothy Kearley “Charles Szladits’ Guide to Foreign Legal Materials: German,” published by the Baker School of Foreign and Comparative Law, Columbia University, 1990.
Morris Ernst, American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report, The Greystone Press, NY, NY, 1948.
Mein Kampf translated by Ralph Manheim, Boston: Sentry Edition: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Also see Ingo Muller, Hitler’s Justice: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass: The Courts of the Third Reich, 1991, where Muller writes “Accounts of the power and invluence wielded by Jews in the Weimar Republic have usually been grossly misleading. In actual fact the percentage of Jews in the population of Germany declined steadily from the late nineteenth century onward, shrinking from 1.2 percent in 1871 to 0.76 percent in 1930….0.16 percent of all government employees. p. 59.
The People’s Chronology, Henry Holt and Company, Inc. 1992.
Katz, Steven. (1989). “Genocide in the 20th Century”: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol 4, No 2. Great Britain: Pergamnom Press, pp. 127-148.
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, New York,
Elie Wisel (1982) Night, New York, Bantam Books, p. 46.
Moczarski, Kazimiers (1977). Conversations With An Executioner. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 38-
Reich, supra, pp. 123, 127.
The Washington Post, December 8, 1995, p. B1, and December 28, 1995 Letter to the Editor.
John Toland (1976) Adolf Hitler, New York. Ballantine books, p.131.
Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1832), reprinted in The Complete Madison, S. Padower, ed. 1953, p. 337.

Please note: The citations aren’t perfect, but I’m getting ready to go on a trip and I DO THINK they’re all there.

posted by Fred Martinez @ 10:58 PM 1 comments

Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party
“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
- Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education

[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html]
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party
by Scott Lively

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995). The Pink Swastika is not available through Leadership U., but is available by calling Jeremiah Films at 1-800-828-2290.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots. This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find repugnant.

When homosexuals display the pink triangle, they are equating all opposition to homosexuality with Nazism and themselves with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. As pro-homosexual Rabbi Bernard Mehlman puts it, "Homophobia and Anti-Semitism are part of the same disease." This quote appeared in an advertisement in a homosexual newspaper. It announced the dedication ceremony of the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston last year. An accompanying article reported that New England homosexuals had pledged $1 million to help build the memorial, including $50,000 for an initial monument consisting of six steel and glass towers. Alongside the monument is an inscription honoring homosexual victims of the Nazis. Another Holocaust memorial being prepared in New York City is expected to similarly honor homosexuals. Washington, D.C. is home to the official U.S. Holocaust Museum which not only maintains a pro-homosexual display, but also employs noted homosexual activist Klaus Mueller as a staff researcher. Other Holocaust related projects, such as the Anne Frank Exhibit now touring the United States, incorporate a similar message in their programs.

While some homosexuals were interned in Nazi work camps, the role of homosexuals in Nazi history cannot be accurately represented solely by a pink triangle. Our review of more than 200 history texts written since the 1930s suggests that a pink swastika is equally representative, if not more so. For, ironically, while many homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazi party, there is no doubt that the Nazi party itself had many homosexuals within its own ranks, even among its highest leadership.


The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party
The "gay rights" movement often portrays itself as an American phenomenon which arose from the civil rights movement of the 1950s. It is not uncommon to hear homosexualists (those both "gay" and "straight" who promote the legitimization of homosexuality) characterize "gay rights" as the natural third wave of civil rights activism (following blacks and women). In reality, however, Germany was the birthplace of "gay rights," and its legacy in that nation is truly alarming.
The "grandfather of gay rights" was a homosexual German lawyer named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Ulrichs had been molested at age 14 by his male riding instructor. Instead of attributing his adult homosexuality to the molestation, however, Ulrich devised in the 1860s what became known as the "third sex" theory of homosexuality. Ulrichs' model holds that male homosexuals are actually female souls trapped within male bodies. The reverse phenomenon supposedly explains lesbianism. Since homosexuality was an innate condition, reasoned Ulrichs, homosexual behavior should be decriminalized. An early follower of Ulrichs coined the term "homosexual" in an open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869.

By the time Ulrichs died in 1895, the "gay rights" movement in Germany had gained considerable strength. Frederich Engels noted this in a letter to Karl Marx regarding Ulrich's efforts: "The pederasts start counting their numbers and discover they are a powerful group in our state. The only thing missing is an organization, but it seems to exist already, but it is hidden." After Ulrichs' death, the movement split into two separate and opposed factions. One faction followed Ulrichs' successor, Magnus Hirschfeld, who formed the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in 1897 and later opened the Institute for Sex Research in Berlin. The other faction was organized by Adolf Brand, publisher of the first homosexual magazine, Der Eigene (The Special). Brand, Benedict Friedlander and Wilhelm Janzen formed the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (The Community of the Special) in 1902. What divided these groups was their concepts of masculinity. Ulrichs' theory embraced a feminine identity. His, and later Hirschfeld's, followers literally believed they were women trapped in men's bodies.

The followers of Brand, however, were deeply insulted by Ulrichs' theory. They perceived themselves not merely as masculine, but as a breed of men superior in masculine qualities even to heterosexuals. The Community of the Special (CS) asserted that male homosexuality was the foundation of all nation-states and that male homosexuals represented an elite strata of human society. The CS fashioned itself as a modern incarnation of the warrior cults of ancient Greece. Modeling themselves after the military heroes of Sparta, Thebes and Crete, the members of the CS were ultra-masculine, male-supremacist and pederastic (devoted to man/boy sex). Brand said in Der Eigene that he wanted men who "thirst for a revival of Greek times and Hellenic standards of beauty after centuries of Christian barbarism."

One of the keys to understanding both the rise of Nazism and the later persecution of some homosexuals by the Nazis is found in this early history of the German "gay rights" movement. For it was the CS which created and shaped what would become the Nazi persona, and it was the loathing which these "Butches" held for effeminate homosexuals ("Femmes") which led to the internment of some of the latter in slave labor camps in the Third Reich.


From Boy Scouts to Brownshirts
The "Butch" homosexuals of the CS transformed Germany. Their primary vehicle was the German youth movement, known as the Wandervogel (Rovers or Wandering Youth). "In Central Europe," writes homosexual historian Parker Rossman, "there was another effort to revive the Greek ideal of pedagogic pederasty in the movement of 'Wandering Youth'... Ultimately, Hitler used and transformed the movement...expanding and building upon its romanticism as a basis for the Nazi Party" (Rossman:103).
Rising spontaneously in the 1890s as an informal hiking and camping society, the Wandervogel became an official organization at the turn of the century, similar to the Boy Scouts. From early on, however, the Wandervogel was dominated and controlled by the pederasts of the CS. CS co-founder Wilhelm Janzen was its chief benefactor, and its leadership was rife with homosexuality. In 1912, CS theorist Hans Blueher wrote The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon which told how the organization was used to recruit young boys into homosexuality.

Wandervogel youths were indoctrinated with Greek paganism and taught to reject the Christian values of their parents (mostly Catholics and Lutherans). The CS belief in a homosexual elite took shape within the Wandervogel in the concept of "der Fuehrer" (The Leader). E.Y. Hartshorne, in German Youth and the Nazi Dream of Victory, records the recollections of a former Wandervogel member in this regard: "We little suspected then what power we had in our hands. We played with the fire that had set a world in flames, and it made our hearts hot...It was in our ranks that the word Fuehrer originated, with its meaning of blind obedience and devotion...And I shall never forget how in those early days we pronounced the word Gemeinschaft ["community"] with a trembling throaty note of excitement, as though it hid a deep secret" (Hartshorne:12). Louis Snyder notes in the Encyclopedia of the Third Reich that, "The Fuehrer Principle became identical with the elite principle. The Fuehrer elite were regarded as independent of the will of the masses" (Snyder:104). Snyder was not writing about the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen or of the Wandervogel, but of the upper ranks of the Nazi party some thirty years later. Another Nazi custom from the Wandervogel was the "Seig Heil" salute, which was an early form of greeting popular among the wandering youth. During World War I, the greatest hero of the German youth movement was Gerhard Rossbach. Described by historian Robert G. L. Waite as a "sadist, murderer and homosexual," Rossbach was "the most important single contributor of the pre-Hitler youth movement" (Waite,1969:210). More importantly, Rossbach was the bridge between the Wandervogel and the Nazi Party.

In the turbulent days following Germany's defeat in World War I, Gerhard Rossbach was one of many former army officers placed in command of Freikorps (Free Corps) units. These unofficial auxilary military units were designed to circumvent limitations imposed on German troop strength by the Allies. Rossbach organized a Freikorps called Rossbach's Sturmabteilung (Rossbach's Storm Troopers). Rossbach also built the largest post-war youth organization in Germany, named the Schilljugend (Schill Youth) in honor of a famous Prussian soldier. In The Black Corps, historian Robert Lewis Koehl notes that both Rossbach's Storm Troopers and the Schilljugend "were notorious for wearing brown shirts which had been prepared for German colonial troops, acquired from the old Imperial army stores" (Koehl:19). These Storm Troopers would soon become known as Nazi Brownshirts. Konrad Heiden, a contemporary of Hitler and a leading authority on Nazi history, wrote that the Freikorps "were breeding places of perversion" and that "Rossbach's troop...was especially proud" of being homosexual (Heiden:295). Rossbach's adjutant was Edmund Heines, noted for his ability to procure boys for sexual orgies. Ernst Roehm, recruited by Rossbach into homosexuality, later commanded the Storm Troopers for the Nazis, where they were more commonly known as the SA (an acronym for Sturmabteilung).


The Power Behind the Throne
While Adolf Hitler is today recognized as the central figure of Nazism, he was a less important player when the Nazi machine was first assembled. Its first leader was Ernst Roehm. Homosexual historian Frank Rector writes that "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Roehm's protegé" (Rector:80). Roehm had been a captain in the German army. Hitler had been a mere corporal. After World War I, Roehm was highly placed in the underground nationalist movement that plotted to overthrow the Weimar government and worked to subvert it through assassinations and terrorism. In The Order of the Death's Head, author Heinz Hohne writes that Roehm met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and "saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army" (Hohne:20). Roehm, who had joined the German Worker's Party before Hitler, worked with him to take over the fledgling organization. With Roehm's backing, Hitler became the first president of the party in 1921 (ibid.:21) and changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Soon after, Rossbach's Storm Troopers, the SA, became its military arm. In his classic Nazi history, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, author William Shirer describes Roehm as "a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar- faced professional soldier...[and] like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual" (Shirer:64). Rector writes:

Was not the most outstanding, most notorious, of all homosexuals the celebrated Nazi leader Ernst Ro[e]hm, the virile and manly chief of the SA, the du buddy of Adolf Hitler from the beginning of his political career? Hitler's rise had in fact depended upon Ro[e]hm and everyone knew it. Ro[e]hm's gay fun and games were certainly no secret; his amorous forays to gay bars and gay Turkish baths were riotous. Whatever anti-homosexual sentiments may have been expressed by straight Nazis were more than offset by the reality of highly visible, spectacular, gay-loving Ro[e]hm. If there were occasional ominous rumblings and grumblings about "all those queers" in the SA and Movement, and some anti-gay flare-ups, homosexual Nazis felt more-or-less secure in the lap of the Party. After all, the National Socialist Party member who wielded the greatest power aside from Hitler was Ro[e]hm (Rector:50f).
Betraying his roots in the "Butch" faction of the German "gay rights" movement, Roehm viewed homosexuality as the basis for a new society. Louis Snyder writes that Roehm "projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behavior pattern of high repute...he flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted that his cronies do the same. What was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals" (Snyder:55). "The principle function of this army-like organization," writes historian Thomas Fuchs, "was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals" (Fuchs:48f).
The favorite meeting place of the SA was a "gay" bar in Munich called the Bratwurstglockl where Roehm kept a reserved table (Hohne:82). This was the same tavern where some of the earliest formative meetings of the Nazi Party had been held (Rector:69). At the Bratwurstglockl, Roehm and associates-Edmund Heines, Karl Ernst, Ernst's partner Captain Rohrbein, Captain Petersdorf, Count Ernst Helldorf and the rest-would meet to plan and strategize. These were the men who orchestrated the Nazi campaign of intimidation and terror. All of them were homosexual (Heiden:371).

Indeed, homosexuality was all that qualified many of these men for their positions in the SA. Heinrich Himmler would later complain of this: "Does it not constitute a danger to the Nazi movement if it can be said that Nazi leaders are chosen for sexual reasons?" (Gallo:57). Himmler was not so much opposed to homosexuality itself as to the fact that non- qualified people were given high rank based on their homosexual relations with Roehm and others. For example, SA Obergruppenfuhrer (Lieutenant General) Karl Ernst, a militant homosexual, had been a hotel doorman and a waiter before joining the SA. "Karl Ernst is not yet 35," writes Gallo, "he commands 250,000 men...he is simply a sadist, a common thug, transformed into a responsible official" (ibid.:50f).

This strange brand of nepotism was a hallmark of the SA. By 1933 the SA had grown far larger than the German army, yet the Vikingkorps (Officers' Corps) remained almost exclusively homosexual. "Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops," writes historian H.R. Knickerbocker, "had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs, men of rank of Gruppenfuhrer or Obergruppenfuhrer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual he had no chance of advancement" (Knickerbocker:55).

In the SA, the Community of the Special's Hellenic ideal of masculine homosexual supremacy and militarism was fully realized. "Theirs was a very masculine brand of homosexuality," writes homosexualist historian Alfred Rowse, "they lived in a male world, without women, a world of camps and marching, rallies and sports. They had their own relaxations, and the Munich SA became notorious on account of them" (Rowse:214). The similarity of the SA to Freidlander and Brand's dream of Hellenic revival is not coincidental. In Gay American History, Jonathan Katz writes that Roehm was a prominent member of the Society for Human Rights (SHR), an offshoot of the CS (J.Katz:632).

The "relaxations" to which Rowse refers were, of course, the homosexual activities (many of them pederastic) for which the SA and the CS were both famous. Hohne writes that Roehm "used the SA for ends other than the purely political...Peter Granninger, who had been one of Roehm's partners...and was now given cover in the SA Intelligence Section. For a monthly salary of 200 marks he kept Roehm supplied with new friends, his main hunting ground being Geisela High School Munich; from this school he recruited no fewer than eleven boys, whom he first tried out and then took to Roehm" (Hohne:82).


Hitler's "Gay" Roots
In 1945 a Jewish historian by the name of Samuel Igra published Germany's National Vice, which called homosexuality the "poisoned stream" that ran through the heart of Nazism. (In the 1920s and 30s, homosexuality was known as "the German vice" across Europe because of the debaucheries of the Weimar period.) Igra, who escaped Germany in 1939, claims that Hitler "had been a male prostitute in Vienna at the time of his sojourn there, from 1907 to 1912, and that he practiced the same calling in Munich from 1912 to 1914" (Igra:67). Desmond Seward, in Napoleon and Hitler, says Hitler is listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records (Seward:299). Lending credence to this is the fact, noted by Walter Langer, that during several of those years Hitler "chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many homosexuals" (Langer:192). Rector writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called "der Schoen Adolf" (the handsome Adolf) and that later his looks "were also to some extent helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Ro[e]hm's circle of wealthy gay friends" (Rector:52).
Langer, a psychiatrist, was commissioned by the Allies in 1943 to prepare a thorough psychological study of Hitler. His report, kept under wraps for 29 years, was published in book form in 1972 as The Mind of Adolf Hitler. Langer writes that Hitler was certainly a coprophile (a person who is sexually aroused by human excrement) and may have practiced homosexuality as an adult. He cites the testimony of Hermann Rauschning, a former Hitler confidante who "reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitler's homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning," adds Langer, "would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitler's impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go, without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is probably true that Hitler calls Foerster 'Bubi,' which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual" (Langer:178). However, writes Langer, "Even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at men's bodies and associating with homosexuals" (Langer:179). Too, Hitler's greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual (Garde:44).

Like Langer, Waite also hesitates to label Hitler a homosexual but cites substantial circumstantial evidence that he was.


It is true that Hitler was closely associated with Ernst Ro[e]hm and Rudolf Hess, two homosexuals who were among the very few people with whom he used the familiar du. But one cannot conclude that he therefore shared his friend's sexual tastes. Still, during the months he was with Hess in Landsberg, their relationship must have become very close. When Hitler left the prison he fretted about his friend who languished there, and spoke of him tenderly, using Austrian diminutives: 'Ach mein Rudy, mein Hesserl, isn't it appalling to think that he's still there.' One of Hitler's valets, Schneider, made no explicit statement about the relationship, but he did find it strange that whenever Hitler got a present he liked or drew an architectural sketch that particularly pleased him, he would run to Hess- who was known in homosexual circles as "Fraulein Anna"-as a little boy would run to his mother to show his prize to her...Finally there is the nonconclusive but interesting fact that one of Hitler's prized possessions was a handwritten love letter which King Ludwig II had written to a manservant" (Waite, 1977:283f).
Hitler, if homosexual, was certainly not exclusively so. There are at least four women, including his own niece, with whom Hitler had sexual relationships, although these relationships were not normal. Both Waite and Langer suggest that his sexual encounters with women included expressions of his coprophilic perversion as well as other extremely degrading forms of masochism. It is interesting to note that all four women attempted suicide after becoming sexually involved with Hitler. Two succeeded (Langer:175f).

The Homoerotic Brotherhood
Whether or not Hitler was personally involved in homosexual relationships, the evidence is clear that he knowingly and intentionally surrounded himself with practicing homosexuals from his youth. Like Roehm, Hitler seemed to prefer homosexual companions and co-workers. In addition to Roehm and Hess, two of his closest friends, Hitler filled key positions with known or suspected homosexuals. Rector, himself a "gay Holocaust" revisionist, attempts to dismiss sources that attribute homosexuality to leading Nazis, but nevertheless writes that...

Reportedly, Hitler Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach was bisexual; Hitler's private attorney, Reich Legal Director, Minister of Justice, butcher Governor- General of Poland, and public gay-hater Hans Frank was said to be a homosexual; Hitler's adjutant Wilhelm Bruckner was said to be bisexual;...Walter Funk, Reich Minister of Economics [and Hitler's personal financial advisor] has frequently been called a "notorious" homosexual ...or as a jealous predecessor in Funk's post, Hjalmar Schacht, contemptuously claimed, Funk was a "harmless homosexual and alcoholic;" ...[Hitler's second in command] Hermann Goering liked to dress up in drag and wear campy make-up; and so on and so forth (Rector:57).
Igra, who confidently asserts that the above men were homosexuals, cites still other Hitler aides and close friends who were known homosexuals as well. He states that Hitler's chauffeur and one-time personal secretary, Emile Maurice, for example, was homosexual, as well as the pornographer Julius Streicher, who "was originally a school teacher, but was dismissed by the Nuremberg School Authorities, following numerous charges of pederasty brought against him" (Igra:72f). SS Chief Heinrich Himmler's "pederastic proclivities [were] captured on film" by Nazi filmmaker Walter Frenz (Washington City Paper, April 4, 1995). Reinhard Heydrich, mastermind of the first pogrom, Kristallnacht, and of the death camps, was homosexual (Calic:64). In The Twelve Year Reich, Richard Grunberger tells of a party given by Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, which degenerated into a homosexual orgy (Grunberger:70). A recent biography of Albert Speer by Gitta Sereny speaks of a "homo-erotic (not sexual) relationship" between Speer and Hitler (Newsweek, Oct. 30, 1995). Langer notes that Hitler's personal bodyguards were "almost always 100 percent homosexuals" (Langer:179). Hitler's later public pronouncements against homosexuality never quite fit with the lifelong intimacy-sexual or otherwise-which he maintained with men he knew and accepted as homosexuals.
In light of the above it is not surprising that many of those whose ideas influenced Hitler were also homo-sexual. Chief among those were occultists Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels and Guido von List. In 1958, Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim published Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab ("The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas") in which he called Lanz the true "father" of National Socialism. Lanz was a former Cistercian monk who had been excommunicated for homosexuality (Sklar:19). After being expelled from the monastery, Lanz formed an occultic order called the Ordo Novi Templi or The Order of the New Temple (ONT). The ONT was an offshoot of the Ordo Templi Orientis which practiced tantric sex rituals (Howard:91).

On Christmas day, 1907, many years before it would become the symbol of the Third Reich, Lanz and other members of the ONT raised the swastika flag over the castle which Lanz had purchased to house the order (Goodrick-Clarke:109). Lanz chose the swastika, he said, because it was the ancient pagan symbol of Wotan, the god of storms (Cavendish:1983). (Wotan, the inspiration for "Storm Troopers," was the Teutonic equivalent of Baal in the Old Testament and Zeus in Greek culture). Waite notes that it was through Lanz that Hitler would learn that most of his heroes of history were also "practicing homosexuals" (Waite, 1977:94f).


Refuting "Gay Holocaust" Revisionism
"Gay Holocaust" revisionists assert that Hitler's ascension to the Chancellorship marked the beginning of a homosexual Holocaust in Germany. For example, in The Pink Triangle, Richard Plant writes, "After years of frustration...Hitler's storm troopers now had the opportunity to smash their enemies: the lame, the mute, the feebleminded, the epileptic, the homosexual, the Jew, the Gypsy, the communist. These were the scapegoats singled out for persecution. These were the 'contragenics' who were to be ruthlessly eliminated to ensure the purity of the 'Aryan race.'" (Plant:51). Rector, another revisionist, makes a similar statement: "Hitler's homophobia did not surface until 1933-1934, when gays had come to affect adversely his New Order designs-out of which grew the simple solution of murdering them en masse" (Rector:24). The fact is that homosexuals were never murdered "en masse" or "ruthlessly eliminated" by the Nazis. Yet many homosexuals were persecuted and some did die in Nazi work camps. What is the truth about Nazi persecution of homosexuals? There are several incidents in Nazi history which are most often cited as evidence of a "gay Holocaust." This list includes a series of increasingly harsh public pronouncements and policies against homosexuality by Hitler and Himmler, the sacking of the Sex Research Institute of Berlin, "the Roehm Purge" (also known as "the Night of the Long Knives"), and the internment of homosexuals in work camps.
The law against homosexual conduct had existed in Germany for many years prior to the Nazi regime as Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, to wit: "A male who indulges in criminally indecent activity with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment" (Burleigh and Wipperman:188). When Hitler came to power he used this law as a means of tracking down and punishing those homosexuals who, in the words of one victim, "had defended the Weimar Republic, and who had tried to forestall the Nazi threat" (ibid.:183). Later he expanded the law and used it as a convenient tool to detain other enemies of the regime.

In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, ho-mosexual bars and bath-houses, and groups which promoted "gay rights" (Plant:50). Ostensibly, this decree was a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity in Germany, but in practice it served as just another means to find and destroy anti-Nazi groups and individuals. "Hitler," admit Oosterhuis and Kennedy, "employed the charge of homosexuality primarily as a means to eliminate political opponents, both inside his party and out" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy: 248).

The masculine homosexuals in the Nazi leadership selectively enforced this policy only against their enemies and not against all homosexuals. Even Rector lends credence to this perspective, citing the fact that the decree "was not enforced in all cases" (Rector:66). Another indication is that the pro-Nazi Society for Human Rights (SHR) continued to participate in German society for several years after the decree. In The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann remind us that Roehm was a leading member of the SHR; and we know from Anthony Read and David Fisher that the SHR was still active in Germany as late as 1940 (Read and Fisher:245). Furthermore, Oosterhuis and Kennedy write that "although he was well known as a gay-activist, [Adolf] Brand was not arrested by the Nazis" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:7). Some of Brand's files were confiscated by the Nazis in their attempt to gather all potentially self-incriminating evidence.

In 1935, Paragraph 175 was amended with Paragraph 175a which criminalized any type of behavior that could be construed as indicating a homosexual inclination or desire (Burleigh and Wipperman: 190). (Interestingly, the new criminal code addressing homosexuality deleted the word "unnatural" from the definition-Reisman, 1994:3.) This new law provided the Nazis with an especially potent legal weapon against their enemies. It will never be known how many non-homosexuals were charged under this law, but it is indisputable that the Nazis used false accusations of homosexuality to justify the detainment and imprisonment of many of their opponents. "The law was so loosely formulated," writes Steakley, "that it could be, and was, applied against heterosexuals that the Nazis wanted to eliminate...the law was also used repeatedly against Catholic clergymen" (Steakley:111). Kogon writes that "The Gestapo readily had recourse to the charge of homosexuality if it was unable to find any pretext for proceeding against Catholic priests or irksome critics" (Kogon:44).

The charge of homosexuality was convenient for the Nazis to use against their political enemies because it was so difficult to defend against and so easy to justify to the populace. Since long before the Nazis, homosexuals had generally lived clandestine lives, so it was not unusual for revelations of their conduct to come as a surprise to their communities when it became a police matter. This is not to say that actual homosexuals were not prosecuted under the law. Many were. But the law was used selectively against the "Femmes." And even when they were threatened, many effeminate homosexuals, especially those in the arts community, were given protection by certain Nazi leaders (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:248). Plant writes:


The most famous example is that of the actor Gustaf Grundgens...Despite the fact that his homosexual affairs were as notorious as those of Roehm's, Goering appointed him director of the State Theater...[And] On October 29, 1937 ...Himmler advised that actors and other artists could be arrested for offenses against paragraph 175 only with his personal consent, unless the police caught them in flagrante (Plant:116).
There is one additional reason why the Nazis arrested homosexuals and raided even the homes of their supporters. They were looking for incriminating evidence against themselves (the Nazi leaders). Blackmail of homosexuals by estranged partners and prostitutes was a simple fact of life in Germany. "[H]omosexuals were particularly vulnerable to blackmailers, known as Chanteure on the homosexual scene," write Burleigh and Wippermann. "Blackmail, and the threat of public exposure, resulted in frequent suicides or suicide attempts" (Burleigh and Wipperman:184). The Nazi leaders were quite familiar with this phenomenon. Igra reports that Heinrich Hoffman, the official Nazi photographer, gained his position by using information about Hitler's perverse abuse of his (Hoffman's) daughter to blackmail the future Fuehrer (Igra:74). Heiden relates another story in which Hitler bought an entire collection of rare political writings to regain possession of a letter to his niece in which he openly revealed his "masochistic- coprophil inclinations" (Heiden:385). Once he was in power he had other ways to solve these kinds of problems.

Targeting "Femmes"
The Nazis' hunt for incriminating evidence, as well as the selectivity of the Nazi violence, was obvious in the attack on Magnus Hirschfeld's Sex Research Institute, May 6th, 1933. As noted previously, the Sex Research Institute of Berlin had been founded by Hirschfeld (in 1919) as a center for "study" of homosexuality and other sexual dysfunctions. For all intents and purposes, it served as the headquarters for the effeminate branch of the German "gay-rights" movement. For this reason alone, the "Butch" homosexuals of the Nazi Party might have destroyed the Institute. Indeed, throughout the preceding years the Nazis had increasingly harassed Hirschfeld personally. Victor Robinson, Hirschfeld's biographer, wrote in 1936:

Although the Nazis themselves derived great profit from Hirschfeld's theories (and called on him personally for help), they continued his persecution relentlessly; they terrorized his meetings and closed his lecture halls, so that for the safety of his audiences and himself, Hirschfeld was no longer able to make public appearances (Haeberle:368).
Homosexualist James Steakley acknowledges the "Butch/Femme" aspect of the incident, saying that some German homosexuals "could conceivably have approved of the measure, particularly if they were Nazi sympathizers or male supremacists" (Steakley:105).
However, the attack against the Institute was not motivated solely by the Nazi enmity against effeminate homosexuals. It was an attempt to cover up the truth about rampant homosexuality and other perversions in the Nazi Party. Sklar writes that, "Hitler attempted to bury all his earlier influences and his origins, and he spent a great deal of energy hiding them...[In this campaign to erase his past] Hitler ordered the murder of Reinhold Hanish, a friend who had shared his down-and-out days in Vienna" (where Hitler is suspected of having been a homosexual prostitute) (Sklar:21). Hitler also knew that Hirschfeld's facility had extensive records that could be damaging to himself and his inner circle. This was the reason for the raid, according to Ludwig L. Lenz, the assistant director of the Sex Research Institute, who was in charge on the day of the raid. A part of the following quote was cited earlier:


...our Institute was used by all classes of the population and members of every political party...We thus had a great many Nazis under treatment at the Institute. Why was it then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? The answer to this is simple...We knew too much. It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions [but]...not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal...Many of these personages were known to us directly through consultations; we heard about others from their comrades in the party...and of others we saw the tragic results....Our knowledge of such intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and other documentary material-we possessed about forty thousand confessions and biographical letters-was the cause of the complete and utter destruction of the Institute of Sexology (Haberle:369).
Burleigh and Wipperman report that the ransackers had "lists" of materials they were looking for (Burleigh and Wipperman:189) and that they carted away two truckloads of books and files. The materials taken from the Institute were burned in a public ceremony, captured on film, on May 10th. The spectacular and oft replayed newsreel footage of this event has caused the burning of books to become synonymous with Nazism. What information went up in smoke on that day will never be known, but we can infer that the pile of burning paper contained many Nazi secrets. According to homosexual sources at the time, the Nazis destroyed twelve thousand books and thirty-five thousand photographs. The building itself was confiscated from the SHC and turned over to the Nazi Association of Jurists and Lawyers (Steakley:105).

The Roehm Purge
The event in history most frequently cited as evidence of Nazi persecution of homosexuals is known variously as the Blood Purge, the Night of the Long Knives, and the Roehm Purge. Steakley writes that "the indisputable beginning of Nazi terror against homosexuals was marked by the murder of Ernst Ro[e]hm on June 28, 1934, 'The Night of the Long Knives'" (Steakley:108). It was on that night (actually over an entire weekend) that Adolf Hitler's closest aides orchestrated the assassinations of hundreds of his political enemies in one bloody sweep. Among the victims of this purge were Roehm and several of the top officers of the SA.
We have emphasized that the leadership of the SA was mostly, if not entirely, homosexual. The fact that SA leaders were the primary targets in the massacre could therefore be construed as a sort of "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, which, in fact, Hitler claimed it was. But Hitler lied. The Roehm Purge was driven by political, not moral concerns. Hitler feigned disgust and outrage about the homosexuality of the murdered SA leaders to justify himself to the German people; it was a tactic he had used previously to allay public suspicions about the sexual deviancy of his inner circle. The importance of this fact is asserted in many leading works by both mainstream and homosexualist historians. The following are excerpts from four different historians who have examined the issue:


Hitler eliminated his closest friend Roehm and certain SA leaders as potential rivals. The strictly political motivation of this ruthless power play was initially too obvious to be entirely denied, but later it was conveniently obscured by charges of homosexual depravity (Haberle:369f).
The formal accusations against Roehm and those arrested with him centered on their homosexual activities, which Hitler had of course known about for fifteen years and shrugged off, it being alleged that these activities disgraced the party. For those victims without any homosexual background, "the Great Blood Purge" continued all over Germany, as Nazi leaders got rid of all their most hated enemies, as well as the inevitable "mistakes" (Garde:726f).
Ernst Roehm wasn't shot because the Nazi Party felt outraged by the abrupt discovery that he was "having" his storm troopers-that had been known for ages; but because his sway over the SA had become a menace to Hitler. In the Hitler Youth the "dear love of comrades" was evilly turned into a political end. And if the Nazi hierarchy was well larded with homosexuals, so was Wilhelm II's court and so was the Weimar Republic (Davidson:152).
Hitler himself, of course, had been well aware of Roehm's sexual orientation from the earliest days of their long association....So strong was Roehm that the Wehrmacht [German Army High Command] was concerned that he might seize control of the army. In 1934, Hitler became fearful that the Wehrmacht was plotting a coup against him to prevent such a takeover. To forestall this danger, Hitler had Roehm and about one thousand other men murdered one weekend in June 1934, the famous "Night of the Long Knives" (Crompton:79f).
Igra provides us with a long and detailed account of the power struggle which led to the purge, beginning with a refutation of the idea that it represented a policy of extermination of homosexuals by Hitler:

We shall find that, far from eliminating the sex perverts from his party, Hitler retained most of them, and that he moved against those whom he did eliminate only with the greatest reluctance and after he had been relentlessly pushed by outside forces and circumstances. On June 14 and 15 Hitler was in Venice to see Mussolini. It soon became common knowledge that the German Dictator and his entourage had made an unfavorable impression upon the Italians... Mussolini was never a stickler for puritan morality, to say the least, but there was one vice which the Italians particularly loathe; they call it il visio tedesco, the German vice. The conduct of some members in Hitler's entourage at Venice disgusted the Italians. Mussolini protested against the moral character and political unreliability of the leading personnel in the Nazi Storm Troops and warned Hitler that he would have to sacrifice his favorite colleagues if he wished to save his own personal prestige and that of his regime. Among those colleagues, Roehm, Heines and Karl Ernst were mentioned (Igra:77f).
The Roehm Purge, then, was not a "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, but a re-alignment of power behind the German government which was primarily forced upon Hitler by powerful political elements whose support he needed to maintain control. Igra goes on to point out that not only did the majority of the SA homosexuals survive the purge, but that the massacre was largely implemented by homosexuals. He cites Strasser's statement that "the Chief Killers of Munich [were] Wagner, Esser, Maurice, Weber and Buch." These men "were all known to be sex perverts or sexual maniacs of one type or another," concludes Igra (ibid.:80). Plant records that the larger campaign of assassinations across Germany was orchestrated by Reinhard Heydrich, also a well-known homosexual (Plant:56). Igra addresses Hitler's justification for the purge:

In his defense before the Reichstag a week later Hitler talked of "traitors." That was his alibi...In his speech to the Reichstag he admitted that one of the motives for ordering the massacre was to get rid of the moral perverts in his party and that they were traitors because they practiced homosexualism. But under the dictatorship it was not possible for anyone to put Hitler at question. Nobody asked him to explain how it was that, if his purpose was to get rid of homosexuals, he really didn't rid himself of them but used them as the instruments of his own murder lust and still retained most of them as members of his personal entourage, as well as in key positions of the party organization and the government. Otto Strasser, in his book, The German St. Bartholemew's Night (which has not been published in English), mentions sixteen of these highly placed homosexualist officials who survived the massacres of June 30 and retained their posts (Igra:82).
In the Camps
Although homosexuals were never targeted for extermination, some were interned in Nazi work camps. The actual number of pink-triangle prisoners, estimated at 5,000-15,000 by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum (Rose:40), was a tiny fraction of the total camp population. Of these, an undetermined percentage were heterosexuals falsely labeled as homosexuals. Homosexuals who died in the camps (mostly of disease and starvation) were "a small fraction of less than 1 percent" of homosexuals in Germany (S. Katz:146), compared to more than 85 percent of European Jewry exterminated in the gas chambers. More significantly, many of the guards and administrators responsible for the infamous concentration camp atrocities were homosexuals themselves, which negates the proposition that homosexuals in general were being persecuted and interned.
While any prisoner could be chosen as a Kapo (a slave overseer), none of the other interned groups except homosexuals had counterparts among the Nazi guards and administrators. Examples of the homosexuality of the concentration camp guards can be found in many of the personal accounts of Holocaust survivors. Elie Wiesel, sent to the Buna factory camp in the Auschwitz complex, for example, acknowledges this in his book Night:


The head of our tent was a German. An assassin's face, fleshy lips, hands like wolf's paws. He was so fat he could hardly move. Like the leader of the camp he loved children...(Actually this was not a disinterested affection: there was a considerable traffic in young children among homosexuals here, I learned later) (Wiesel:59).
In Treblinka, the narrative account of the Treblinka uprising, Steiner records the story of another Nazi administrator, taken from interviews with survivors:

Max Bielas had a harem of little Jewish boys. He liked them young, no older than seventeen. He had a kind of parody of the shepherds of Arcadia, their role was to take care of the camp flock of geese. They were dressed like little princes...Bielas had a little barracks built for them that looked like a doll's house...Bielas sought in Treblinka only the satisfaction of his homosexual instincts (Steiner:117f).
The enduring "Butch/Femme" conflict among German homosexuals clearly had a substantial bearing on the treatment of pink-triangle prisoners. Plant writes of one survivor who reported that "the guards lashed out with special fury against those who showed 'effeminate traits'" (Plant:172). And Rector records an interview with a former Pink Triangle named Wolf (a pseudonym) in which the issue of effeminacy was raised. "The ones who were soft, shall I say, were the ones who suffered terribly," said Wolf. Rudolf Hoess, the infamous commandant of Auschwitz, who may himself have been a "Butch" homosexual, defined "genuine homosexuals... [by their] soft and girlish affectations and fastidiousness, their sickly sweet manner of speech, and their altogether too affectionate deportment toward their fellows" (Hoess in Rector:137f). These "genuine homosexuals" were considered incorrigible and held in special barracks, while many non-effeminate homosexuals were released (ibid.:137). Hoess, incidentally, had at one time been a close friend of Edmund Heines (Snyder:301), the procurer of boys for Roehm's pederastic orgies.
Toward the end of World War II, many homosexuals were released from the concentration camps and drafted into the German army (Shaul:688). Steven Katz cites records that "indicate that 13 percent of all homosexual camp inmates were reprieved and released" (S. Katz:146). This was happening at the same time as the Nazis' frantic push to increase their "production" in the death camps, in an effort to exterminate every last Jew in Europe before the Allies could liberate the camps.


The American Connection
While the Nazi Party was crushed as a political force in 1945, remnants of Nazism survive around the world. As in Germany, many of these fascist groups are dominated by male homosexuals.
The most famous incident in the history of the American Nazi Party resulted from its 1977 demand to stage a march through the largely Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago suburb and the home of many Holocaust survivors. This plan was devised by Frank Collin, who often appeared with his followers "in full Nazi regalia: brown shirts, black boots, and armbands..." Civil authorities effectively blocked the march at first, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) rose to Collin's aid and forced the City of Chicago to allow it. The subsequent event drew international media attention. Homosexualists Johansson and Percy in Outing: Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence have finally revealed, more than 15 years later, that Collin was a homosexual pederast. In 1979 Collin was arrested "for taking indecent liberties with boys between ages 10 and 14" and was sentenced to seven years in prison (Johansson and Percy, 1994:130).

Meanwhile, back in Germany, the alarming increase of neo-Nazi skinheads is also linked to homosexuality. Elmay Kraushaar, a journalist for Der Spiegel, Germany's equivalent to TIME, is quoted in The Advocate:


There is a gay skinhead movement in Berlin. They go to cruising areas with leaflets that say, "We don't want foreigners." A major leader of the neo-Nazis in Germany, Michael Kuhnen was an openly gay man who died of AIDS two years ago. He wrote a paper on the links between homosexuality and fascism, saying fascism is based on the love of comrades, that having sex with your comrades strengthens this bond (Anderson:54).
Learning from History
Sadly, the homosexual dimension of Nazi history is overlooked by many historians. As Duberman, Vicinus and Chauncey have stated with the title to their "gay studies" text, the role of homosexuals and pederasts has been Hidden from History. They, of course, imagine the influence of homosexuality to be positive. From the Judeo-Christian cultural context, however, the rise of homosexuality necessarily represents the diminution of Biblical morality as a restraint on human passions. Consequently, where Judeo-Christian ideals decrease, violence and depravity increase.
It was the pederasts of the Community of the Special who sponsored the revival of Hellenic pagan ideals in German society. These men were viciously anti-Jew and anti-Christian because of the injunctions against homosexuality inherent in the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. Homosexualist Warren Johansson notes that Hans Blueher, one of the leading theoreticians of the Community of the Special, "maintained that Judaism had suppressed the homosexual aspect of its culture, with concomitant hypertrophy [enlargement] of the family" (Johansson:816). Benedict Friedlander, in an essay for Der Eigene titled "Seven Propositions," chose as his first proposition an attack on Christianity. "The white race is becoming ever sicker under the curse of Christianity, which is foreign to it and mostly harmful," writes Friedlander. "That is the genuinely bad 'Jewish influence,' an opinion that has proven true, especially through the conditions in North America" (Friedlander in Oosterhuis and Kennedy:219). For his part, Adolf Brand called Christianity "barbarism" and "expressed his desire to fight 'beyond good and evil,' not for the sake of the masses, since the happiness of 'the weak' would result in a 'slave mentality,' but for the human being who proclaimed himself a god and was not to be subdued by human laws and ethics" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:183). We should not forget Nietzsche, who called Christianity "the lie of millennia" (Macintyre: 188).

Much has been made of the reported silence, and in some cases complicity, of the supposed Christian churches during the Third Reich. But few have noted the long period of "Biblical deconstruction" that preceded the rise of Nazism, and fewer still have chronicled the diabolical perversion of German religious culture by the Nazis themselves. While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.

The schools were heavily targeted in order to de-Christianize the young. Mandatory prayer in schools was stopped in 1935, and from 1941 onward, religious instruction was completely eliminated for all students over 14 years old (ibid.:494f). The Nazi Teachers Association actively discouraged its members from taking religious instruction, while at the same time many teachers of religious studies (who were all required to be licensed by the state) "inculcated neo-paganism into their pupils during periods of religious instruction." Later, teachers were outright prohibited from attending voluntary religion classes organized by the Catholic church (ibid.:495).

From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."

The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300).

There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. As we have noted, the ideas for disposing of the Jews originated with Lanz von Leibenfels. The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA. The first concentration camp, as well as the system for training its brutal guards, was the work of Ernst Roehm. The first pogrom, Kristallnacht, was orchestrated in 1938 by the homosexual Reinhard Heydrich. And it was the transvestite Goering who started the "evolution of the Final Solution...[with an] order to Heydrich (Jan. 24, 1939) concerning the solution of the Jewish question by 'emigration' and 'evacuation'" (Robinson:25). Still, despite their disproportionate role, homosexuals did not cause the Holocaust. They, along with so many others who had lost their moral bearings, were merely instruments in its enactment. The Holocaust must be blamed on the one whom the Bible compares to "a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (NKJ:I Peter 5:8).

Yet, while we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism. To the myth of the "pink triangle"-the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted-we must respond with the reality of the "pink swastika."

[This article, excerpts from The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams (Founders Publishing Company, 1995), first appeared in Culture Wars (April 1996), edited by Dr. E. Michael Jones. The excerpt was prepared for Culture Wars by Scott Lively. Culture Wars, 206 Marquette Avenue, South Bend, IN 46617, phone (219) 289-9786.]


Bibliography
Agonito, Rosemary. History of Ideas on Women: A Source Book. New York, G.P. Putnam & Sons, 1977.
Alyson Almanac. Boston, Alyson Publications Inc., 1990.

Anderson, Shelly. "Youth." The Advocate. January 26, 1993.

Bleuel, Hans Peter. Sex and Society in Nazi Germany. New York, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1973.

Burleigh, Michael, and Wipperman, Wolfgang. The Racial State:Germany 1933-1945. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Calic, Edouard. Reinhard Heydrich: The Chilling Story of the Man Who Masterminded the Nazi Death Camps. Military Heritage Press, William Morrow and Company, 1982.

Cavendish, Richard. Man, Myth & Magic: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural. New York, Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 1970.

Costello, John. Mask of Treachery: Spies, Lies, Buggery and Betrayal. New York, William Morrow and Company, 1988.

Crompton, Louis. "Gay Genocide: from Leviticus to Hitler." The Gay Academic. Palm Springs, California, ETC Publications, 1978.

Davidson, Michael. The World, the Flesh, and Myself. London, Arthur Baker Ltd., 1962.

Dynes, Wayne. The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. New York, Garland Publishing, 1990.

Fest, Joachim C. Hitler. New York, Vintage Books, 1975.

Friedlander, Benedict. "Memoirs for the Friends and Contributors of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in the Name of the Succession of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee." Journal of Homosexuality, January-February 1991.

Fuchs, Thomas. The Hitler Fact Book. New York, Fountain Books, 1990.

Gallo, Max. The Night of the Long Knives. New York, Warner Books, 1973.

Garde, Noel I. Jonathan to Gide: The Homosexual in History. New York, Vantage Press, 1969.

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology. New York, New York University Press, 1992.

Graber, G.S. The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine. New York, Charter Books, 1978.

Greenburg, David F. The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Grunberger, Richard. The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany 1933-1945. New York, Ballantine Books, 1971.

Haeberle, Irwin J. "Swastika, Pink Triangle, and Yellow Star: The Destruction of Sexology and the Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany." Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay andLesbian Past. Duberman, Martin, Vicinus, Martha, and Chauncey, George Jr. (Eds.). United States, Meridian, 1989.

Hartshorne, E.Y. German Youth and the Nazi Dream of Victory. New York, Farrar and Reinhart, Inc, 1941.

Heiden, Konrad. Der Fuehrer: Hitler's Rise to Power. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1944.

Heritage and S.W. Jewish Press, September 16, 1983

Hohne, Heinz. The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS. New York, Ballantine Books, 1971.

Howard, Michael. The Occult Conspiracy. Rochester, Vermont, Destiny Books, 1989.

Igra, Samuel. Germany's National Vice. London, Quality Press Ltd., 1945.

Johansson, Warren, "Pink Triangles." In Dynes, Wayne (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.

Johansson, Warren, and Percy, William A.. "Homosexuals in Nazi Germany." In Henry Friedlander (Ed.). Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual: Volume 7. New York, Allied Books, Ltd., 1990.

Johansson, Warren, and Percy, William A. Outing: Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence. New York, Harrington Park Press, 1994.

Jones, J. Sydney. Hitler in Vienna 1907-1913. New York, Stein and Day, 1983.

Jones, Nigel H. Hitler's Heralds: The Story of the Freikorps 1918- 1923. London, John Murray, 1987.

Katz, Jonathan. Gay American History. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976.

Katz, Steven T. "Quantity and Interpretation-Issues in the Comparative Historical Analysis of the Holocaust." In Holocaust and Genocide Studies: Volume 4, Number 2, 1989. New York, Pergamon Press, 1989.

Kennedy, Hubert. "Man/Boy Love in the Writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs." In Pascal, Mark (Ed.). Varieties of Man/Boy Love. New York, Wallace Hamilton Press, 1992.

Knickerbocker, H.R. Is Tomorrow Hitler's? New York, Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941.

Koehl, Robert Lewis. The Black Corps: The Structure and Power Struggles of the Nazi SS. Madison Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

Kogon, Eugen. The Theory and Practice of Hell. New York, Berkley Publishing Company, 1950.

Langer, Walter C. The Mind of Adolf Hitler. New York, Signet Books, 1972.

Lauritsen, John, and Thorstad, David. The Early Homosexual Rights Movement:1864-1935. New York, Times Change Press, 1974.

Levi, Primo. Survival in Auschwitz. New York, Macmillan Publishing Coompany, 1961.

Linsert, Richard. Kabale und Liebe: Uber Politik und Geschlechtsleben. Berlin, Man, 1931.

Lombardi, Michael A.. "Research on Homosexuality in Nineteenth Century Germany" (Parts I and II). Los Angeles, Urania Manuscripts, 1977.

MacDonald, Callum. The Killing of SS Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich. New York, The Free Press, 1989.

Macintyre, Ben. Forgotten Fatherland: The Search for Elisabeth Nietzsche. New York, Farrar Straus Giroux, 1992.

Miles, David H. "Stefan, George." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1992.

Miller, Neil. Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New York, Vintage Books, 1995.

Mills, Richard. "The German Youth Movement." In Leyland, Winston (Ed.). Gay Roots: Twenty Yearsof Gay Sunshine: An Anthology of Gay History, Sex, Politics, and Culture. San Francisco, Gay Sunshine Press, 1989.

Mosse, George L. Nationalism and Sexuality: Respectability and Abnormal Sexuality in Modern Europe. New York, Howard Fertig, 1985.

Nethercot, Arthur H. The First Five Lives of Annie Besant. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Newton, Michael. Raising Hell: An Encyclopedia of Devil Worship and Satanic Crime. New York, Avon, 1993.

Newton, Michael, and Newton, Judy Ann. The Ku Klux Klan: An Encyclopedia. New York, Garland Publishing, 1991.

Oosterhuis, Harry, and Kennedy, Hubert (Eds.). Homosexuality and Male Bonding in Pre-Nazi Germany: the youth movement, the gay movement and male bonding before Hitler's rise: original transcripts from Der Eigene, the first gay journal in the world. New York, Harrington Park Press, 1991.

Pawelczynska, Anna. Values and Violence in Auschwitz. Berkley, California, University of California Press, 1979.

Peters, H.F. Zarathustra's Sister: The Case of Elisabeth and Frederich Nietzsche. Crown Publishers, New York, 1977.

Plant, Richard. The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals. New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1986.

Poliakov, Leon. Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe. New York, Walden Press, 1979.

Read, Anthony, and Fisher, David. Kristallnacht: The Nazi Night of Terror. New York, Times Books,1989.

Rector, Frank. The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals. New York, Stein and Day, 1981.

Reisman, Dr. Judith A. "A Content Analysis of Two Decades of The Advocate, the Gay and Lesbian National News Magazine." Work in Progress.

Reisman, Dr. Judith A., and Eichel, Edward W. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana, Huntington House, 1990.

Reiter, Joseph A. "Death in Venice." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1992.

Robinson, Jacob. "The History of the Holocaust." Holocaust. Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House, 1974.

Rose, Rick. "Museum of Pain." The Advocate, October 19, 1993.

Rossman, Parker. Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys. New York, Association Press, 1976.

Rowse, A.L. Homosexuals in History: Ambivalence in Society, Literature and the Arts. New York,Macmillan Publishing Company, 1977.

Schwarzwaller, Wulf. The Unknown Hitler: His Private Life and Fortune. National Press, Inc., and Star Agency, 1989.

Seward, Desmond. Napolean and Hitler: A Comparative Biography. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Shaul, Elisheva. "Homosexuality in the Third Reich." In Gutman, Israel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Tel Aviv, Sifria Poalim Publishing House, 198?.

Shirer, William. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York, Fawcett Crest, 1960.

Sklar, D. The Nazis and the Occult. New York, Dorset Press, 1989.

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Communist. Salt Lake City, Utah, Ensign Publishing Co., 1958.

Snyder, Dr. Louis L. Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. New York, Paragon House, 1989.

Steakley, James D. The Homosexual Emancipation Movement in Germany. New York, Arno Press, 1975.

Steiner, Jean-Francois. Treblinka. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1979.

Strasser, Otto. Hitler and I. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940.

Strasser, Otto, and Stern, Michael. Flight From Terror. New York, Robert M. McBride & Company, 1943.

Taylor, Fred. The Goebbels Diaries: 1939-1941. New York, G.P. Putmans' Sons, 1983.

Ulrichs, Karl Heinrich. Forschugen uner das Ratsel der Mannmanlichen Liebe. Leipzig, Max Spohr Verlag, 1989.

Waite, Robert G.L. Vanguard of Nazism: The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923. New York, W.W. Norton and Company, 1969.

Waite, Robert G.L. The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler. New York, Signet Books, 1977.

Wiesel, Elie. Night. New York, Avon Books, 1969.

Wistrich, Robert. Who's Who in Nazi Germany. New York: Bonanza Books, 1984.


[ Table of Contents | ]

Email this to a friend

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
copyright © 1995-2007 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 13 July 2002

[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html]