The Rape of Justice

Rape seems to pervade our politics these days: IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi—all have been accused of rape. Justice Minister Kenneth Clark was recently pilloried for politically incorrect statements about rape. The Daily Telegraph says Britain’s rape law is a ‘disgrace’ but does not say why. It is not just the great and powerful who are committing faux pas over rape. The words of a humble policeman were ‘insensitive’ enough to send the women (or at least the feminists) of Toronto and other cities into the streets in a series of ‘slut walks.’

One woman wore a sexy outfit with the words “rape me” written on herself. Clearly someone must be punished for all this rape, even if no one has actually been convicted of anything. Conspicuously absent from all these accusations is any presumption of innocence or recognition that in a free society crime is supposed to be adjudicated case-by-case according to due process of law, with protection for the rights of the accused and weighing of evidence by a jury. Instead, we see mob justice at its most incendiary, driven by political ideologues demanding arrests and convictions regardless of evidence. The National Organization for Women called for Strauss-Kahn’s head on the presumption of his guilt. ‘NOW will closely monitor how law enforcement, the courts, and the media handle the Strauss-Kahn case,’ the feminists warned.

‘What harm can it do?’ we all asked back in the 1960’s when the sexual revolution began and we declared that recreational sex between ‘consenting adults’ was nobody’s business. Well, we are now seeing precisely what harm it can do. Ideologues and the wielders of state power have turned our fun into a crime and are using our license to destroy our freedom, with hardly a word of opposition.

As usual, the cost will be paid not by the high and mighty but by those ordinary people not protected by the glare of media publicity or by Strauss-Kahn’s French Socialist Party, who loudly reminded the world of the ‘presumption of innocence’ but whose feminist cadres grant no similar presumption to lesser men hauled up on fabricated rape charges. If there is justice in this humiliation of the powerful, it is not that of the criminal justice system, which has been seriously corrupted by Stalinist feminism, but of a God who ensures that ‘the postman always rings twice’.

The presumption of guilt against those who cannot afford Strauss-Kahn’s seven-figure defence is apparent in the attack on Clarke, who dared to hint at the unmentionable truth that rape charges today are a massive miscarriage of justice. It is manifest in the ‘slut walks,’ where sexual display becomes nose-thumbing at men spending decades in prison on trumped-up charges.

Dressed in sexually provocative clothing and with signs proclaiming ‘Slut Pride’ and ‘Proud Slut,’ marchers revealingly proclaim their intent to ‘take back the word “slut”.’ ‘Sluts and Allies, Unite!’ declared a speaker. These unseemly displays of sexual anger were ostensibly set off by a policeman’s incautious but hardly inflammatory remarks to a handful of women that enticing clothing may be unwise. ‘While we are proud of our sexuality,’ one speaker declared oddly, ‘it is by no means an invitation to violence.’

Of course no one ever said that it is. The policeman’s words (at a safety forum) were no more than what a father might advise his daughter. Would he be ‘blaming the victim’ and deserving of feminist invective or concerned about her safety? Indeed, any father of a daughter will recognize the adolescent sartorial rebellion on display in Toronto and elsewhere.

The harmless words became the occasion for a huge tantrum of undress in at least four countries. Far from suggesting that all this alleged rape might be reason to encourage some sexual restraint, we see women marching in their underwear, defiantly proclaiming their right to ‘be sexual,’ and celebrating sex as a virtue to be indulged for its own sake with no consequences.

As with ‘Gay Pride’ demonstrations, this public exhibitionism is far out of proportion to any political point such as protecting women, who in industrial countries are the safest people in history. What we are seeing is the unleashing of deeper passions coupled with the ancient and uniquely feminine power to use sex for political manipulation. People who instinctively understand that this saturation of the public discourse with sex cannot possibly be healthy, have trouble articulating precisely why. The reasons are very concrete. What is going on here is the blending of sexual and political radicalism in a dangerously authoritarian mix. The rationalization behind this sexual-political anger is that encouraging modesty is ‘blaming the victim’ for ill-defined but allegedly widespread and tolerated sexual ‘violence’. But no evidence supports this hysteria. It is not a defensive measure to prevent ‘violence against women’; it is an aggressive grab for, as the feminists say, ‘power and control’.

Here too the presumption of innocence is simply ignored and instead we see mob justice fuelled by sexual energy. What chance will a man accused of rape have for a fair trial in Toronto or any other city that has witnessed an angry mob of screaming, half-naked women—especially with officials subject to politically doctrinaire ‘sensitivity training’ that the Toronto Police Department say they have implemented? That training includes the feminist insistence that rape is ‘political’ and therefore the accused are always guilty.

The feminist principle that ‘women never lie’ about rape is unchallengeable in the media, academia, and the criminal justice system itself. ‘Although it may not be “politically correct” to question the veracity of a woman’s complaint of rape, failing to consider whether the accuser may be intentionally lying effectively eradicates the presumption of innocence,’ writes forensic examiner Bruce Gross. ‘This constitutional right is especially significant when dealing with allegations of rape, as in most jurisdictions sex offences are the only crimes that do not require corroborating evidence for conviction.’

The few scholars brave enough to research rape objectively have demonstrated that the epidemic of false rape charges is now out of control and that innocent men are routinely railroaded into prison. ‘Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,’ says Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41 per cent of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false’ during a 9-year period, ‘that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false’. Unrecanted accusations certainly put the actual percentage much higher.

Yet innocence is no excuse. ‘Now people can be charged with virtually no evidence,’ says Boston sex crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. ‘If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else—and I mean nothing else, no investigation—the police will go out and arrest someone.’ Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA tests prove they were wrongly convicted. And they are the fortunate ones. While DNA testing has righted some wrongs, the corruption of the rape industry is so systemic that, as demonstrated in the 2006 accusations against Duke University lacrosse players, clear evidence of innocence is no barrier to prosecution and conviction. ‘A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence—most obviously Reade Seligmann in the lacrosse case—can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,’ write Stuart Taylor and K C Johnson in their book on that case.

High profile cases are the exceptions that prove the rule. Even with intensive media coverage, prosecutors charge men they know to be innocent, such as the Duke lacrosse players, and feminist prosecutors pursue cases, like Julian Assange, where everyone knows that no rape took place. Most cases are ignored altogether. “Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are,’ write Taylor and Johnson. ‘Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line.’ Almost all the cases investigated by various projects involve rape. To the rape industry convicting people of crimes is a virtue for its own sake. ‘The real scandal, when it comes to rape, is that only 6 per cent of rapes reported to the police end in a conviction,’ writes Christina Patterson in The Independent. Regardless of the evidence? Perhaps it is because so many of the reports are fabrications to begin with. Why have trials and juries and due process of law, when Ms Patterson knows they are guilty?

Perhaps it is only when we stand in the dock ourselves, faced with trumped-up charges and Ms. Patterson’s demand that our verdict be used to create politically acceptable statistics, that we begin to see through the optical illusion concocted by ideologues. In The Prison and the Gallows, feminist Marie Gottschalk attributes our rapidly expanding ‘prison state’ not to law-and-order conservatives but to rape and domestic violence campaigns. Gottschalk demonstrates how feminists have long been our most authoritarian pressure group, ‘uncritically pushing for more enhanced policing powers’.

So the moralists’ cliché that sexual license undermines civilization turns out to be true. Sexual indulgence has debilitated our willingness to defend freedom and left us all—left, centre, and right—acquiescing in an authoritarian ideology with an insatiable thirst for incarceration. We thump our chests in triumph over Osama bin Laden but cower in impotence before women in high heels. The licentiousness of every radical regime from the Bolsheviks to the Nazis shows where this leads, but we are the first to elevate sexual decadence to the top of the political agenda.

Stephen BaskervilleStephen Baskerville is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Political Science and Human Rights. He is Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and Research Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society and at the Independent Institute.

This article was originally published in the Autumn 2011 issue of the Salisbury Review..

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

This is a post with post format of type Link

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus.

The Conservative Elites Are Unwittingly Aiding the Far Left in Destroying America and Putting the Final Nail in Our Coffin.

This article, published nationally under the title “History and the Judiciary” in many venues as one of the late Paul Weyrich’s syndicated columns, including, WorldNetDaily, NewsWithViews, Orthodoxy Today, and RenewAmerica, then widely reposted and distributed on other websites and republished in WND’s Whistleblower magazine, was ghost-written by John Haskins at Weyrich’s request near the end of his long career as a major architect of the “Reagan revolution” and the modern conservative movement.  (The first paragraph and several edits later in the text are Weyrich’s.)

Paul M. Weyrich
August 2,  2008

I am neither an attorney nor an expert in Constitutional law. Others have been good enough to say I am a good strategist. If so, then I would like to share my perspective of the current state of the judiciary. I have listened as a debate is occurring over the proper powers of the courts and the tendency of some Americans to cede to the advocates of unrestrained judicial power victories to which they are not entitled.

I am occasionally referred to as a “founder of the modern conservative movement.” Such an honor places upon me and others to whom such a description applies a special duty to warn our fellow citizens. Americans today are witnesses to the realization of the great fear of our Founding Fathers: the passing away of government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” as President Abraham Lincoln stated, in the United States of America. With respect to the courts, we need a revival of the rule of law based upon the constitutional principles laid down by those who founded this nation.

Our forefathers gave their lives to liberate us from the rule of a British Parliament unelected by the American colonists:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…. (Emphasis added.)

The grand formalities of American election rituals hide a glaring fact: Americans can no longer claim that we are our own rulers in every circumstance in which we are empowered to be. Regardless of our votes, the defining judgments in our collective and personal destinies often are made by persons whom the American people have not elected to rule.

We gave judges their robes and gavels so that they might resolve specific disputes between specific plaintiffs and defendants. We never gave them authority to issue commands to our elected lawmakers, forcing us down roads which we have not chosen to travel. Judges have no constitutional authority to make laws or to amend our national and state constitutions. They have no authority to redefine words and concepts in our laws to mean what they and their ideological partisans wish for them to mean.

To Americans of previous generations this was obvious and fundamental. But for many in America today, this is meaningless, a mere technicality: judges are supreme because, well, because they just are.

When several judges opined that there ought to be no more prayer in American schools, lawyers, politicians and journalists told us that after three centuries of prayer in our schools, judges had suddenly “outlawed” it. Court opinions interpreting law and social custom magically became the law itself.

After three centuries of Americans exercising their right to control their communities as citizens and to keep pornography out of public view, several judges opined that the Founding Fathers had given pornographers a right to pollute us and our children, a right that does not exist in the United States Constitution. They put us on a course that has almost obliterated the ideal of fidelity of body, mind, imagination and the heart, upon which marriage, family and child-rearing are built.

Nevertheless, lawyers, journalists and politicians announced that this opinion was to be the new law though it had no basis in the Constitution or in any law authorized by the American people via their chosen lawmakers.

Likewise, judges — acting on behalf of a tiny, anti-constitutional, self-styled cultural “elite” dedicated to turning America into an ideological utopia — opined that the American people may neither protect children from violent murder in their mother’s womb, nor outlaw sodomy, nor restrict their civic blessing upon marriage to nature’s definition of it, nor ensure that parentless children are placed with parents as nature defines them: one father and one mother.

Nor should I forget to mention judicial disregard for centuries of customary, legal and constitutional protection of private property in order to provide legal sanction for powerful, corrupt politicians lusting after other men’s land or buildings. “Take what you please,” they said, in essence. And this was now “the law.” One hand washes the other.

Many of us received in shock and sadness the Goodridge v. the Department of Public Health of Massachusetts opinion on homosexual marriage. But why do self-styled “conservatives,” lawyers, politician and pundits among them, spread the assertion that judges have powers that the American people have never given them?

The truth is that the ruthlessly enforced illusion of judicial supremacy did not merely empower judges and disenfranchise the American people.  It made journalists, lawyers and clever politicians more influential culturally.  Most, after all, are of the same ideological bent as many judges. And those who were not, the “conservatives,” played within the new rules: judges’ opinions are “the law” in the United States of America.

If Americans paid attention, understood what is at stake and agreed upon the solution, their long-term strategy would require:

  • a string of primary victories by candidates who fully grasp the fact that judges have no authority to change our laws and who aggressively will oppose all claims to the contrary;
  • an unbroken series of triumphs by such constitutionalist candidates in general elections, year after year;
  • an unbroken series of nominations of judges who will interpret the law and will reject the noxious and absurd myth that previous court opinions are “the law of the land”; (Presidents Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush gave us activists such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter!);
  • an unbroken series of Senate confirmations of originalist judges;
  • unwavering constitutionalism by originalist judges in their years on the bench, withstanding daily assault by infuriated cultural “elites” who grew accustomed to using legally void and impotent court opinions as bulldozers to deceive and enslave Americans via a-moral, anti-constitutional and increasingly tyrannical judicial delusions.


Not a single signer of the Constitution (or of the Declaration of Independence) would have taken seriously the purportedly “conservative” view today that to restrain judges we need to replace them through attrition over decades.

That view, in my opinion, guarantees a victory of the far left because it implies that the judicial branch is the final authority on the law.

In his book and British Broadcasting Corporation series Civilization, historian Sir Kenneth Clarke noted that after the dissolution of the Roman Empire, scattered pockets of normalcy continued for a surprisingly long time. How will we know, living in such “pockets of normalcy,” when our republic has collapsed? Has it already? Are we prisoners who still think themselves free?

For the sake of this republic I urge my friends, fellow leaders and Americans emphatically to repudiate the devastating myth that judges have the power to make and redefine our laws. We should do so rapidly and forcefully before our republic is replaced by the irresistible tyranny of men and women who believe that nihilist elites should make the rules and pass them to judges for formal announcement when the time is ripe for the latest step into the post-rule of law, post-moral abyss. Otherwise our “conservatism” will continue to be merely the rearguard for subtle left-wing revolution.

The tragedy of how we have reached this point: in our desire for social acceptance and respectability among the anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-Christian, anti-family nihilist left, “conservative” elites have abandoned the core principles of our Constitution. We have flouted the warnings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. …The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Alexander Hamilton was perhaps the strongest advocate of “judicial review” — the right of judges to opine on our Constitution. But an opinion on the meaning of the Constitution is merely an advisory opinion to the legislative and executive branches of government. Not even Hamilton imagined that the right to opine is a power to rule. Courts, he pointed out, intentionally have been given no means of enforcing their opinions, noting that the executive and legislative branches are not compelled to obey false or dubious opinions. Therefore, he wrote:

“The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary …has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will….

Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and “entitled to very high respect and consideration…by all other departments of the government.” But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the myth that judges’ opinions are the law of the land:

“If the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

In the last century cultural elites created an illusion of judicial power that would be unrecognizable to earlier Americans, lawyers and laymen. After the American Revolution, the framers of the Constitution rejected any judicial authority over the other branches of government.

I fear the conservative elites are putting the final nail in our coffin. I know these men. They mean well. They are not pursuing their view out of malice. They believe what they are doing is right. Nor do I associate myself with some of their critics who often are accusatory, judgmental and angry. I look at results, and it seems to me that proponents of the status quo are allowing the legal profession and the courts to impose moral and civil codes which cannot pass federal and state legislatures. They foolishly are handing absolute power to anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-family ideologues.

This is where the trajectory of the post-constitutional pragmatism undergirding the “conservative revolution” has taken us. The story is not yet complete, but if we continue on this trajectory we may reach the point of tyranny and persecution. History reveals this to be true.

Many of those with whom I have worked for years unwittingly are aiding the far left in the destruction of America. It is time for our presidents, governors, legislatures and prominent citizens to call the bluff of impotent judges as Jefferson did and to ask them, as President Andrew Jackson did, how they will enforce their impotent opinions. The myth of judicial supremacy cannot justify governors violating state and federal constitutions, their oaths of office and the sovereignty of the American people. Look at the way so-called gay marriage has been imposed by judicial fiat, running ruthlessly over elected legislatures and the will of the people.

The Massachusetts Constitution contains the quintessential statement of the American form of government:

“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature….” (Part the First, Article XX.)

“[T]he people…are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” (Part the First, Article X.)

“The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” (Part the First, Article XXX.)

“All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved …shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature ….” (Part the Second, Article VI.)

Americans must debunk the Orwellian lie that has obliterated self-government in the United States and acknowledge Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg in 1863:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure…. It is for us the living…to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

18John Haskins is IAI’s Senior Fellow for the Public Understanding of the Law, Propaganda, and Cultural Revolution.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

This is a standard post format with preview Picture

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi.

Read more

The Battle for Russia

The year 2012 is going to be an exciting one. There will be a presidential election in the United States. There may be a military clash in the Strait of Hormuz. But the most important changes may occur in Russia, where the Russian people are preparing to challenge the government of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.  During the street protests in Moscow and other cities last month, a new feeling swept the country. This feeling has its roots in the development of an authentic Russian middle class. It is not a wealthy middle class by Western standards, but it nonetheless bears the mark of self-sufficiency and decency. Either this decency will prevail, or it will be checked. Either Putin will be swept from power or the Russian middle class will be smashed.

On one side of the struggle is the surviving machinery of old Soviet state: the secret police, the Interior Ministry, the large corporations, and Putin’s controlled media.  On the other side we see millions of people who are fed up with arbitrary government power, gangster methods, and who want to see the rule of law. Each side has its own rhetoric, its own philosophy.

Exemplifying the rhetoric of the Russian state, consider a recent opinion piece titled Nuclear War on the horizon. Here is a view sometimes expressed by operatives of the Kremlin. In fact, something akin to this view was put forward by Vladimir Putin when he spoke to the Russian nation following the Beslan massacre of September 2004. At that time he blamed America for conspiring to murder Russian children, claiming that “someone” wanted to break up Russia and finish off what remained of the Soviet state because Moscow still had nuclear weapons.

In the column, America is depicted as threatening the entire world with nuclear annihilation. The United States is accused of leading a bloody “genocidal campaign against Libya” and of threatening the same against Iran. No credit is given to U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for publicly speaking out against a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In fact, the United States is embarking upon a program of spontaneous disarmament. As Congress has been unable to pass the necessary deficit reduction package, the U.S. Defense Department will face what Panetta says are “devastating, automatic, across-the-board cuts that will tear a seam in the nation’s defense.”

The real policy of the United States and the real objectives of the U.S. military are never acknowledged by Putin’s spokesmen. In the column we read: “The forces of demonic evil now have come nose to nose with the forces of reason.” This was a reference to the Russian fleet stationed near Syria, and the potential for a confrontation with NATO warships. Here the old rhetoric of the Soviet Union appears once more. The war drums are thundering, and the “imperialist aggressor” is called to account. But we cannot take it seriously. For something else has appeared on the horizon, which Putin says was inspired by the CIA: a popular opposition movement against his KGB regime.

Exemplifying this opposition we find Danila Galperovich’s interview with Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, translated for [2] by Yelena Glazova. Here we find a frank discussion of Moscow’s police state methods. Here we learn that the KGB has “lost much of their qualitative acumen and sharpness in the last twenty years.” And why wouldn’t they? According to KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, the post-Soviet regime of pretended democracy was not supposed to last twenty years. It was designed to overpower the West in ten years. So the plan didn’t work. So Russia’s hidden totalitarian structures have begun to decay. They have remained under fake bourgeois auspices too long; and besides, there is no Stalin to lead them. In this matter we should remember what Stalin said to his henchmen during his last days: “You are like blind kittens; what will happen without me? The country will perish because you do not know how to recognize enemies.”

What Bukovsky goes on to describe is the fate of these blind kittens, caught up in the crisis of Russia’s false democracy. One might say it is the crisis of a deception gone too long, carried too far by structures that can no longer bear the load. A world war might have once saved the current Russian regime, granting it renewed legitimacy in the midst of crisis. But now it is too late. According to Bukovsky, the incompetence of the regime is such that if Stalin were alive today he would have them all shot. “They cannot even blow up the buildings in their capital city without exposing themselves and leaving traces,” Bukovsky added, referring to the 1999 apartment bombings that were used to justify the KGB’s return to power. “Nothing [in the KGB/FSB] works as it should,” says Bukovsky.

So how will this Kremlin, with its third generation blind kittens, survive the growing groundswell of popular opposition? Bukovsky says that the KGB understands how to manipulate mass movements with its network of double agents. But in the end, this method will not work. “The social atmosphere in due course becomes ever more politicized, radicalized,” Bukovsky explained. In the end, the KGB cannot join the protests against itself without damaging its own position. And so, Russia faces a serious political crisis in March or April. This crisis will likely grow, and spiral out of control.

Such is the hopeful, optimistic language of Putin’s opposition – represented by Vladimir Bukovsky. It does not entail fear-mongering or anti-Western propaganda. It simply describes a regime that has lost touch with its people. Such a regime may accuse the United States of fostering a revolution in Russia, or threatening the whole world with nuclear destruction; but the game of deflecting criticism in the wake of fraudulent elections does not appear to be working.

The year 2012 should prove decisive for Russia. Will the anti-Americanism take Russia by the throat? Or will the KGB regime lose its grip? One year from today we should know the answer.

Jeffrey Nyquist is the President of the Strategic Crisis Center and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Political Science at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought.

This article was originally published on Financial Sense on January 9, 2012. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Kinsey’s Kooky Shrinks

Has the clergy sex-abuse and cover-up scandal made you angry? Better save up some indignation for a more far-reaching scandal in other professions: Psychiatrists and professors are lobbying to normalize and decriminalize pedophilia (child rape and molestation).

You heard right. The movement to legitimize pedophiles has been gathering steam for some time. In the late 1980s, for example, during the two years I spent as principal investigator for a U.S. Department of Justice study on “Images of Children, Crime and Violence” in mainstream pornography, my research team encountered a stable of paid pornography agents we dubbed “Academic Pedophile Apologists.”

Like carnival hawkers, these Academic Pedophile Apologists – college professors, psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals – have served as advisers, writers and “expert” witnesses, telling medical, academic, public school, court and government authorities that the barbaric pedophile crimes of child sexual abuse are harmless and, some said, beneficial.

Now, things have gone so far downhill that this May, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was walking the Academic Pedophile Apologist tightrope, actually publicly debating a proposal for “Lifting [The] Pedophilia Taboo.”

Several APA presenters “proposed removing … pedophilia, exhibitionism … voyeurism … from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).” The DSM – the bible of the mental-health field – tells psychiatrists, judges, juries and the rest of the world what is or is not abnormal human behavior, and what to criminally “punish” versus what to therapeutically “treat.”

Meanwhile, these sexperts on “treatment” are meeting at the University of Indiana’s Kinsey Institute (long seen as a circus side-show) July 11-19 for two big sex confabs. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development is lavishing $26,000 on a Kinsey “conference on sexual arousal” to develop “guidelines for … measurement of sexual response.” The NICHHD seems unconcerned that “measurement of sexual response” was Alfred Kinsey’s exact excuse for unleashing a gang of his favorite pedophiles to “measure” orgasms on “hysterically weeping,” convulsing and fainting children – who Kinsey argued, “enjoyed” the “experience.”

July 16, after the arousal sexperts wrap up, the International Academy of Sex Research (IASR) will gather, also emceed by Kinsey Institute director Dr. John Bancroft. Bancroft’s credentials include a British accent, employed to suavely bury the horrifying truth about the rapes and sexual torture of 317 to possibly 2,035 infants and children by Institute founder Alfred Kinsey’s sex “researchers” in the late 1940s.

Joining Bancroft on the podium will be Theo Sandfort, the IASR president and Scientific Program Committee chairman. Sandfort’s qualifications include having been a well-known member of the editorial board of Paidika, the Journal of Paedophila. Sandfort shares this dubious editorial honor with Kinsey Institute conference keynoter Verne Bullough, as well as Bill Andriette, the editor of The NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) Bulletin. The journal editors wrote in 1987, “The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles.”

Paidika pledged to advance “paedophile … consciousness” as “a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.” Paidika’s regular graphic ads for NAMBLA clearly illustrate the sexual component of what they euphemistically call “man-boy-love.”

Again, in his 1991 book “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” IASR President Sandfort maintained that neither he nor the other book authors view “man-boy relationships as necessarily pathological.” Now, just as sex guru Dr. Kinsey turns out to be a certifiable sexual psychopath, anyone who believes that sex professors are just objective, high-minded intellectuals has never attended a sex conference.

I recall the sex orgy reports among “sexperts” during the formal sex conferences I attended (after their “critiquing” of hours of pornographic films). At one sex conference in Wales, all of the attendees signed a letter of protest when our Welsh cleaning staff refused to work if child molesters were allowed to academically pontificate on “pedophile rights” and studies. If “sex arousal” research is funded by NICHHD, a federal child welfare agency, how many pedophiles at this Kinsey Institute sex bash will quietly imitate their founder and initiate similar studies of child “sexual response measurements”?

Every American parent and grandparent had best beware the sinister plans of leaders in the American Psychiatric Association, the Kinsey Institute and their many clones. This class of “sexperts” is transforming sexual fictions into crippling sexual “facts.” An international caravan of Academic Pedophile Apologists are on the march – and your children are their targets.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on July 7, 2003. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Human Consciousness At Risk

Iwould like to invite the reader, once again, to accompany me on a brief philosophical investigation. The subject matter of this inquiry—the foundations (or lack thereof) of human consciousness—seems to be far removed from current political affairs; however, if one is patient enough to read through this article, one will see this is not actually the case. Never as today – when an elite of enlightened bureaucrats fiddles at will with the very pillars of civilization, like a band of escapees from a mental institution playing the scientists in an atomic laboratory – has it been so vital for every inhabitant of the planet to acquire a clear view of the constants which define the human condition, before the very image of humanness disappears from their memories under the impact of deforming experiments enforced on a global scale. And one of those constants is precisely that every human constant only shows through, as if in filigree, beneath the unceasing flow of historical mutation. Only a knowledge of the comparative history of civilizations and cultures can show, underneath that almost deranging diversity of forms, the endurance of the general structure of the human spirit. And since that which is at risk of immediate loss due to that vortex of forced transformations is primarily the very unity of each and every individual’s self-consciousness—for the fragmentation of culture results in the shattering of souls—, never has it been so important to know the historical mutations of the image of the “self” throughout the times, so as to distinguish, in that image, what is accidental and transitory from what is essential, permanent, and indispensable to the ultimate defense of human dignity.

One of the richest repositories of materials for such study is found in autobiographies. The historical development of that literary genre, in parallel with the changes that occurred in people’s experience of time, memory, and the act of narrating itself, evinces in a most clear manner the transformations suffered by individual self-consciousness over the ages.

Among the various works that have been recently published on the subject, Louisiana State University English Professor James Olney’s Memory and Narrative: The Weave of Life-Writing (The University of Chicago Press, 1998) is one of the most useful, because, focusing on the history of the autobiographical genre in the period going from Augustine’s Confessions (397) to Samuel Beckett’s scenic monologue Company (1979), it manages to outline very clearly—over the passage from one extreme to the other—the gradual loss of the sense of the unity of self-consciousness, a unity without which the very intention of narrating one’s own life becomes absurd.

For both Augustine and Beckett, the structural model of the narrative is the same. Augustine illustrates it by the example of prayer. When he recites one of the psalms, he already knows it—completely and beforehand—by heart. As he recites the psalm, the words that follow one another are gradually actualized within time against the static backdrop of the whole text that is stored in his memory. When the recitation is over, the psalm has become complete within time and is thus returned to his memory, ready to be recited again and again and again. All autobiographical writings bear such a structure to some extent. The life to be told is complete in one’s memory, but it continues during its recollection and still after the narration is over, and is thus returned to one’s memory so it can be told again, or perhaps read or heard. What is the “substance” of this narrative? It is time; but which time? Is it the past, which no longer exists? The present, that infinitesimal atomistic instant which dissolves as soon as it appears? The future, which has a merely hypothetical existence? This riddle is more or less the same both in the Confessions and in Company.

Although joined in their shared concern with time, memory, and the self, these two books could not be more antagonistic in their views about such matters.

Augustine’s memoirs are the formal confession of a soul that, by fully assuming the authorship, the responsibility, and the consequences for each and every one of its acts, thoughts, and inner states, even the most obscure and remote in time, attends its own trial as if exhibiting an integral identity, whose various conflicting internal forces cannot but emphasize the tensional unity of the whole. Augustine is able to do so because he composes his narrative before an omniscient audience—God Himself. “To walk before God” means precisely to act and think in constant confrontation with the symbol of “omniscience”—that unreachable and insurmountable source of all consciousness, the only guarantee of the sincerity of thoughts, acts, and recollection. Although that expression is present in the Bible, Augustine was the first to verbalize the meaning of the experience that is condensed therein. He who walks before God governs and conceives himself at every moment, as if before the Last Judgment, in the complete form of his individual being that is consciously responsible for the act of choosing its own eternal fate. The complete life of the future is thus the measure for the recollection of the past, which the narrator undertakes in the present.

It is from this realization that Augustine extracts the solution to the problem of the unsubstantiality of time. God is not only omniscient: He is eternal. Boethius would later define eternity as the “the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unbounded life,” but this concept was already implicit in Augustine. If life’s various moments have no common unity, they cannot but crumble into utter nothingness. Only their total and simultaneous unity is real, and such unity is eternity itself, and nothing else. Time, merely in itself, really does not have any substantiality whatsoever. It is but a mirage, a “moving image of eternity.” If Augustine is able to master his past intellectually, that is because he exhibits it before the eyes of omniscience. If he is able to intuit the continuity of his own existence, this is because he regards it as a temporal reflection of eternity. The structure of moral self-awareness is the same structure of time—past, present, and future—in the axis of eternity.

This idea of the individual – as a complex and dramatic unity that is formed and assumed at the crossroads of the past, present and future—has been so incorporated into the Western tradition that it came to be the inspiration for the whole modern psychology of personality. Sixteen centuries after Augustine, Maurice Pradines, in his Traité de Psychologie Générale (1948), would define consciousness as “the memory of the past prepared for the tasks of the future.” Even in Freud, to whom much of the guilt (or the merit) for the dissolution of the unity of the self is wrongly ascribed, the personality is the resultant of an arbitration that is increasingly imposed upon the antagonistic impulses of the Id and the Superego by conscience. Nothing celebrates the final victory of unity more clearly than the famed prophecy by the father of psychoanalysis: “Where there is Id, there shall be Ego.”

In Company, there is a completely different perspective. Here a paralytic old man, on the stage, listens to episodes of his life—the life of Samuel Beckett himself—being narrated and commented on, in monologue, by a faceless voice. Could it be the “voice of conscience?” Yes and no. The voice tells the old man about himself, now in the second person, now in the third. He who in the present recalls the past no longer knows if that past is his own, of a third party, or of an imagined character. And the voice sets forth a frightful challenge to the old man’s sense of identity: if you cannot recall your own birth, how can you be sure that the life you remember is the same as that of the person whose birth you think to be your own?

Just like Augustine, Beckett’s character—which is indistinguishable from the author himself—draws his memories from the foil that is provided to him by an invisible interlocutor who transcends the narrator and has over him the authority of a formative entity. The result is thus different according to the identity of the interlocutor. God’s eternity and omniscience confer upon Augustine’s autobiographical image the unity of a story undertaken as responsible personal creation. But Beckett’s interlocutor is not omniscient; he is merely more cunning than the character in the play. He is the critical reason, that corrosive potion which dissolves the sense of the temporal unity of the self by means of epistemological demands which the self cannot meet. The paralytic old man does not even have the power to say “I” with awareness of the foundations of his self, but perhaps for that same reason he cannot be imputed with guilt for his sins or merit for his achievements. The crumbled I is incapable of telling his own story; he is a victim of his own existence and therefore has no responsibility over it whatsoever. Augustine’s narrative rises from the obscure bottom of the heart to the divine light which allows him, in response, to participate in its own unity and clarity. Beckett’s narrative, on the other hand, comes from an external gloom that obscures what little light the ego believed itself to have.

From one extreme to the other, Olney records some stages of the “crisis of narrative memory” which, as a common thread, pervades the whole history of the modern Western mentality. He traces the beginning of the “crisis” to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions (1782), but he is mistaken. That “crisis” was already fully established in René Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), which presents itself as an inner autobiography, as the narrative of a cognitive experiment (cf. and The hideous confusion that the philosopher produces there between the concrete existential self and the abstract concept of the self as absolute self-consciousness (cogito ergo sum), going from the former to the latter without noticing the leap from the temporal to the deductive realm, is one of the most prodigious mutilations ever imposed upon the autobiographical awareness of Western man. Beckett’s problem was already there. As Jean Onimus (Beckett, un Écrivain devant Dieu, Desclée de Brouwer, 1967) well noted: “Place yourselves at the Cartesian cogito at its starting point,… and you shall see Beckett’s man in the full extent of his misfortune.”

The Cartesian self cannot tell its story because it is merely an abstract form isolated in space and cut off from temporal experience. However, if Descartes presents it in a narrative form, it is because he literally does not realize what he is doing. Cartesianism is not the inaugural chapter in the dissolution of narrative self-consciousness (in an unpublished text from my Philosophy Seminar I have ascribed the questionable honor to Niccolò Machiavelli’s autobiographical fragments), but it is indeed an important episode in that process. Descartes’s inconsistency would be greatly amplified by Immanuel Kant’s idea of the “transcendental I.” This hideous creature of German philosophy possesses the authority to determine the boundaries of all experience that is accessible to the wretched existential I, without ever being limited itself by such borders; but it does not allow the existential I, in spite of that fact, even the smallest and narrowest crevice through which to see what lies beyond those boundaries. That creature is called “transcendental” precisely because it shuts off all doors that lead to what is “transcendent.” Settled at the medial heights of the transcendental I, which lies but slightly above the existential I, Kant does not permit anyone to rise above himself. The perverse satisfaction with which he believes himself to be determining the “boundaries of human knowledge” shows that he believed himself to be like what a “guardian of the gate” is in the initiatory ladders, a metaphysical Pasionaria, screaming to the seekers of eternity: “They shall not pass! They shall not pass!” I have not a shadow of a doubt that Beckett’s interlocutor is the Kantian transcendental I. Kant, on one hand, believed that human knowledge was limited to the experience of the senses, of space and time; on the other, he used to say that the data of experience are chaotic crumbs, upon which consciousness imposes its own unity. Left to itself, however, and devoid of the backdrop of eternity, consciousness itself crumbles. Beckett’s isolated and desperate man, even more than in Descartes, is present and manifested in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781). By denying consciousness access to eternity, the transcendental I makes consciousness itself inaccessible and evanescent.

Thence derives the apparently logical and profoundly absurd demand which comes from the darkness: the idea that only the self which remembered its own birth clearly would have the authority to assert that its story was indeed its own story is entirely based on a Kantian prank, which, in turn, has a colossal ineptitude as its premise—it amounts to assuming that the only legitimate self-consciousness would be that of a being which could consciously observe its own birth. In order to do that, however, such a being would have to exist in time before entering temporal existence. In real experience, each and every beginning, each and every pregnancy, takes in place in obscurity: luminosity is attained progressively. To tell the story of one’s own life without having witnessed one’s own birth is not undue pretentiousness: it is simply a real condition of human experience. Because it intends to critique experience, the transcendental I establishes premises which deny the possibility of all experience, and therefore of its own critique.

Beckett is aware of the humorous trait of his own speculations. But Kantian humor is pathetically involuntary. Olney’s study has the merit of developing the fundamental concept of the “crisis of narrative memory;” however, it is rather incomplete when trying to illustrate the concept. Descartes is but mentioned in passing, and Kant’s name is not even present. And both the neglect of Proust, who spent his life trying to solve the Augustinian problem of time, and of Arthur Koestler, who recorded in his Darkness at Noon (1940) the dwindling of self-consciousness as a “grammatical fiction” under the pressure of modern totalitarianism, are unpardonable. The author also does not seem to make the connection between the “crisis of memory” and a parallel and inseparable process: the epidemic of autobiographical and biographical narratives consciously falsified for purposes of political propaganda, a phenomenon which was observed in France at least a century before the not-so-conscious liar that was Rousseau.

It would indeed be impossible for the dissolution of self-consciousness not to be accompanied by a progressive loss of sense of intellectual responsibility and by a formidable expansion of amorality, manipulative cynicism, and sadistic cruelty. The destruction of the civilizational basis of human existence does not begin on the battlefields nor in the stock market: it starts in the quiet studies, where seemingly harmless men—whether philosophers or UN bureaucrats—attempt to be wiser than God. It makes no sense to dissociate the crisis of self-consciousness from the progressive modern rejection of the sense of eternity, and it is not possible to accept the dissolution of self-consciousness while simultaneously trying to preserve high moral standards of conduct. In our time, which marks the end of an age, the historical consequences of intellectual decisions made three, four, or five centuries ago take on the form of totalitarianism, widespread violence, genocide, and above all the universal reign of falsehood. Those who seek a remedy for such evils in political action will have to understand, sooner or later, that their root lies in the ethereal realms of abstract thought. And those who, due to personal preferences, devote themselves to abstract thought should examine with all sincerity of conscience the devastating effects of the seemingly innocuous abstractions which were created by the philosophers of the last few centuries. In this sense, philosophy is politics, and politics is philosophy.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the Brazilian newspaper Diário do Comércio on March 13, 2006, and translated from the Portuguese by Pedro Cava and revised by Alessandro Cota and Benjamin Mann.

A Warning to the “Conservative Elites” about Mitt Romney

An open letter from leaders of the conservative grassroots

January 2, 2008

Through their silence, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our children and grandchildren

We write the following because we must oppose the deception of the American people by powerful and influential conservatives. Many in the conservative grassroots no longer trust the “conservative” media, lawyers and leaders, whom they see as serving the GOP establishment regardless of the will of the conservative base, regardless of the truth.

Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate. But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney’s role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty. Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale. As Romney twice explained to the homosexual “Log Cabin” Republicans, it would take a Republican to enact their agenda. (See article in homosexual newspaper Bay Windows.)

Attorneys, journalists and pundits must be fearless and selfless watchdogs of politicians and guardians of democracy. This is a sacred trust that is being defiled. Silence about ugly truths, such as the points enumerated below, is a betrayal of the lofty status we claim in a constitutional republic. Pay the price of courage. Tell America the truth.

Phony Pro-Life “Conversion”

Issue # 1. Mitt Romney established abortion as a “healthcare benefit” in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion — after his supposed “pro-life conversion.” He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board.

Issue #2. Romney’s well-timed “pro-life” conversion for the Republican primary pulled a “states’ rights” committment out of nowhere to hedge his political bets. His claim that states’ rights trump the unalienable right to life is inconsistent and unprincipled: he simultaneously opposes an amendment to protect human life, but claims to support one to preserve marriage! What happened to Romney’s committment to “states’ rights?”

Issue #3. Unforced by anyone, Romney overruled his own Commissioner of Public Health and lied about state law in order to compel Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacient pills — in violation of their freedom of religion enshrined in the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Using exactly the crafty political theatre he employed to cover his actions on same-sex “marriage” and homosexual adoption, Romney posed as defender of the very thing he was destroying, gallantly “asking” the legislature to create a special “religious exemption” for Catholic institutions. Even Democrat former governor Mike Dukakis publicly agreed with Romney’s commissioner of public health that state law already grants a “religious exemption.”

“Gay Marriage,” Gay Adoption and Pro-Homosexuality Propaganda In Schools

Issue #1. In another flagrant lie about the law, Romney told Catholic Charities’ adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home. Again, he deployed his standard smokescreen, gallantly proposing a “special exemption,” with a wink of his eye to the militantly pro-homosexuality legislature. Again, he got caught. Former governor Dukakis pointed out that the “state law” that Romney was citing as requiring gay adoption was non-existent. It was merely an executive regulation that a governor can rescind with a few strokes of his pen. Romney was apparently fulfilling secret 2002 campaign promises to Republican homosexual power brokers whose endorsement he coveted and received. He had sought no backing from social conservatives.

Issue #2. Romney says the Boy Scouts should accept homosexual scoutmasters and that homosexuals have “a legitimate interest” in adopting or producing and raising children.

Issue #3. Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual “marriage,” he did the opposite. In 2002 he opposed a marriage amendment that would have prevented homosexual “marriage.” 120,000 citizens, including his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed the amendment petition. Romney’s militant pro-homosexuality Republican predecessor, Governor Jane Swift, and Democrat legislators openly violated the constitution to deny the citizens their right to vote on the amendment. Even the ultra-liberal Massachusetts court ruled that they were violating their oaths and the Constitution. Romney failed to oppose their subversion of the law or to defend the people’s right to amend their own Constitution.

Issue #4. Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to “gay marriage,” Romney has methodically lied about the judges’ legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution. As professor of jurisprudence Hadley Arkes pointed out, under the state Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction over marriage law. An opinion issued without jurisdiction is legally void and cannot be “enforced.” Romney also knew that the same judges had recently admitted they have no power over the legislature or governor.

The Legislature never “obeyed” the judges by changing the marriage statute to legalize “gay marriage.” Under the state constitution that was the end of the line. The court neither ordered nor even suggested any intervention by the governor. Many lawyers and law professors (including Hugh Hewitt: ) told Romney to ignore the unconstitutional Goodridge opinion and embarrass the judges. Mysteriously, Romney rejected their advice. Why? The New York Times finally revealed four years later that, to win a coveted endorsement, Romney secretly promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 that he would not defend the constitution against an illegal attempt by the judges to sneak same-sex “marriage” past the voters. (See New York Rimes article here).

When the Legislature did not legalize homosexual “marriage,” to fulfill his secret promise, Romney claimed that the judges had. This is a blatant lie plainly refuted by the state constitution Romney swore to uphold! He quickly found willing “conservative” lawyers, pundits and “pro-family leaders” to back him up. Rather than challenge the motives, integrity and “expertise” of their own friends and colleagues, most of the conservative establishment suddenly went silent. Ignoring his oath to faithfully enforce the statutes, Romney ordered officials to violate the marriage statutes and perform homosexual “marriages.” His Department of Public Health illegally bypassed the legislature by changing the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “Party A” and “Party B.”

Romney gave orders that illegally usurped the exclusive constitutional authority of the Legislature, as proven in this devastating “Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.” ( He violated multiple Articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including one of the most vital principles of American government, which John Adams stated more forcefully than anywhere else in American law:

“In the government of this commonwealth…the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, …the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, …to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. – Article XXX, Part The First

We deplore the glaring refusal of the “conservative” establishment to face the implications of a devastating article by a leading constitutional scholar, illuminating why pro-establishment attorneys have covered up Romney’s unconstitutional actions:

“The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage…it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step… [I]t became clear that even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate, and accept, the premises that gave to the courts a position of supremacy in our constitutional schemes.” — Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College ( The Missing Governor, National Review Online May 17, 2004 )

We equally deplore the refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth in highly respected conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly’s assessment:

“Massachusetts public officials … are groveling before the four judges… (Romney) said: ‘We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the [Court] and … decide ‘what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law.’

But what ‘law’? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages.” — Phyllis Schlafly ( It’s Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy (, Dec. 3, 2003) )

Schlafly was right, as any honest and competent lawyer knows. The Massachusetts Constitution powerfully refutes Romney’s entire story that the judges changed marriage law and forced him to give unconstitutional orders:

“[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” Article X, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature…” Article XX, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

Mitt Romney created homosexual “marriage.” His “conservative” legal experts are aggressively covering up both his role and the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Issue #5. Though Romney admitted the Goodridge opinion was not based on the Constitution and that the judges had exceeded their power, he opposed a citizen’s drive to remove the four rogue judges who violated their oaths. ( )

Issue #6. Though Romney says same-sex “marriage” will damage religious freedom and harm children, who need both a mother and a father, he personally issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual “marriages” to be performed by legally unqualified persons. He claims he was “just applying the marriage statutes evenly.” But As Phyllis Schlafly reminded America, and as even the outlaw Goodridge judges admitted, the statutes do not allow homosexual “marriages,” despite Romney’s false claim that the court “legalized” homosexual “marriage. Moreover, a governor is not obliged to issue any special marriage certificates to anyone. Since Romney says same-sex “marriage” will harm children and erode religious freedom, why did he violate the marriage statutes and issue hundreds of special permits? ( )

Issue #7. As governor, to please Massachusetts’ militant homosexual groups, Romney aggressively BOOSTED government funding for pro-homosexuality indoctrination, starting in kindergarten. He refused to defend schoolchildren and parents’ rights against this indoctrination. He refused to order his education officials to obey the law guaranteeing that parents’ can protect their children from sexual brainwashing. ( ) This is a continuation of his views since 1994 when he opposed congressional efforts to protect children by banning federal funding to public schools that encourage “homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” His deference to militant homosexual groups’ “right” to indoctrinate other people’s children was jaw-dropping:

“I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed…” ( See article.)

With their silence about the illegal actions and toxic legacy of Mitt Romney, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our future. If anyone has convinced themselves that so-called “same sex marriage” is a fringe issue and not a grave threat to the rule of law and to children they should read Maggie Gallagher’s stunning article “Banned in Boston.” They should also investigate the pro-homosexuality indoctrination of Massachusetts children (“It’s 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay” ) which had been covert, but in the aftermath of Romney’s illegal orders imposing homosexual marriage, is swallowing up parents’ most fundamental right to protect their children and control their moral education. To remain silent about the re-engineering of the human family and child psychology, and the active and dishonest role Romney has played, is a dereliction of our highest duties.

We are among those who believe that same-sex “marriage,” homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren hasten the decline of Western Civilization in its most crucial aspects, whether the elites face that and comprehend it or not. Yet many who have the greatest obligation are cowering in the shadows or even aiding the deception. Our silence is a fatal abdication of duty to our children and future generations, a breech of faith. It is a betrayal of the honor of young soldiers dying overseas for principles that we decided in our hearts long ago require no profound sacrifice from the elites.

The truth is this: Mitt Romney’s fictional defense of natural marriage, childhood innocence, life in the womb and constitutional governance is sustained only by our silence in the face of overwhelming propaganda. Edmund Burke famously said “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Dante went further: “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”

It is telling of today’s “conservatism” — an endless regression of sophist ironies and nuances, dissolving, in the end, into absolutely nothing at all — that dire warnings from ancient voices seem like faint, distant echoes bouncing absurdly against rock walls far below our feet, beneath a precipice that we scaled long ago in the conceits of our modern conservative minds.

To continue in silence or in support of the craftiness and ruthless ambition of Willard Mitt Romney betrays generations past, present and future, including our own children and grandchildren.

Pay the price of courage, friends. Tell America the truth.



Judge Ned Kirby (ret.), former Assistant Minority Leader, Massachusetts Senate
Atty. Edgar Kelley, former Assistant United States Attorney, Massachusetts District
Ray Neary, Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts (former President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life)
John O’Gorman, Member of the Board of Directors, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
John Haskins, The Parents’ Rights Coalition
Gregg Jackson, Co-host, “Pundit Review,” author: “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,” contributor,,
William Cotter, President, Operation Rescue: Boston*
Brian Camenker, President, MassResistance
Mark Charalambous, Spokesman, CPF-Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Amy Contrada, MassResistance blog

Across America:

Dr. William Greene, President,
Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan*
Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action
Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic League of Maine *
Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth*
Dianne Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Nedd Kareiva, President, Stop the ACLU Coalition
Phillip Magnan, President, Biblical Family Advocates
Rev. Earle Fox, D. Phil, (Oxford), President, Road to Emmaus, School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics
Janet Folger, author, columnist, President, Faith2Action
Michael W. Calsetta, Former President, Conservative Democratic Alliance
Allyson Smith, Director, Americans for Truth – California

Atty. “Robert Paine,” author: The Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America

* For identification purposes only. All persons are signing as concerned private citizens. This information is solely for educational purposes and not in support of any candidate.

The irrefutable proof that Romney’s “conservative” lawyers are lying to America:
“Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.”
“Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America,” by Robert Paine, Esq.
The most thorough documentation of Mitt Romney’s record anywhere is at:

18John Haskins is IAI’s Senior Fellow for the Public Understanding of Law, Propaganda and Cultural Revolution

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.