Monthly Archives: August 2016

The Gay Agenda

“Some on the same-sex marriage side have shifted their attention and money to fight against religious liberty.” Susan Olasky

“The Gill, Overbrook, Ford, and Arcus foundations are now funding groups like the ACLU and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) to develop the most potent anti-religious-liberty messages.” Ibid

“Matthew Vines’ Reformation Project received $100,000 from the Gill Foundation in 2014 to weaken Christian resolve at its theological roots.” Ibid

‘Love,’ not rights

MARRIAGE | Winning recognition for gay marriage in America was all about spinning the right message

by Susan Olasky,  World magazineVol. 31, No. 17 – August 20, 2016

In 2012, President Barack Obama said in an ABC interview, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” A White House statement added detail: “It’s no secret the President has gone through some soul-searching on this issue. … He’s sat around his kitchen table with Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. … ‘And frankly,’ [Obama said,] ‘that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change of perspective.’”

Evan Wolfson, founder of national gay rights organization Freedom to Marry, lauded the statement. He had helped the White House craft it using research-tested elements: “We were thrilled that President Obama came out in support of marriage for same-sex couples using the love and commitment and journey framework that was proving so effective elsewhere.” Not talk about rights. Focus-group-tested talk about love. Love sells.

It’s hard to remember now, a year after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision declared a right to marry in all 50 states, how unlikely that result seemed just a decade ago. Gay marriage proponents had suffered one defeat after another at the ballot box. But activist groups and foundations turned things around with a strategic plan, a state-by-state strategy, and money—$153 million, they claim. Here’s the story of how that happened and what’s likely to happen next.

THE SUCCESS STORY BEGINS 16 YEARS AGO when the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, established with the Levi Strauss fortune and eager to push for LGBT acceptance, approached Lambda Legal attorney Evan Wolfson for advice on where the foundation should concentrate its giving.

For Wolfson the answer was simple: marriage. The gay, Yale-educated, Harvard-trained attorney had been on the forefront of gay rights legal battles ever since he wrote his 1983 Harvard Law thesis—for which he earned a B—on the right to marriage. In that year the idea of gay marriage was radical, even among allies on the left. Feminists were tearing down marriage. Gay activists channeled their energy to fighting AIDS and employment discrimination.

The 5-foot-6-inch Wolfson, a former Peace Corps volunteer in Togo, Africa, thought differently. He believed “fighting for, let alone winning, the freedom to marry would propel equality and inclusion for gay people in ways nothing else could.” He had grown up with Democratic Jewish parents in Pittsburgh. He had so much self-confidence that he had invited President Richard Nixon to his bar mitzvah, despite his parents’ disapproval. (Nixon didn’t come, but he did send a note.) Wolfson was a practicing homosexual in Togo. If there’s a movie made of the marriage fight, an actor like Danny DeVito should play him.

After law school Wolfson moonlighted on gay rights cases and eventually worked full time with Lambda Legal. He acted as co-counsel in a challenge to Hawaii’s marriage law, defended a dismissed gay Boy Scouts leader, and challenged Vermont’s marriage law. By the time the Haas, Jr. Fund came calling, Wolfson had experienced both victories and defeats—and he convinced the foundation to give him $2.5 million to start a new organization, Freedom to Marry. By most accounts, Wolfson and Freedom to Marry led the fight that resulted in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. Continue reading

War on Men

Princeton-University-small-1.jpg“The Princeton University HR department has largely wiped the word ‘man’ from its vocabulary.” Arnold Cusmarfu

“Instead of using ‘man,’ employees are told to use words such as human beings, individuals or people.” Ibid


PRINCEton itself has male overtones; Princesston sound better?

Thank you, Princeton, for this progress!

We’re so grateful, blessed and proud!

Thank you for such ‘forward thinking’

You have heard us clear and loud!


We’re so glad we have a ‘safe place’

To pretend we’ve been set free!

It was high time for these changes…

Dudes, you’re AWESOME…(Honestly)


We are wymyn on a mission!

Angry dudettes makin’ waves!

Breaking chains of our oppression…

Proving nonsense REALLY saves!


We’ve escaped ‘the Patriarchists’!

Gender-neutral, We’ve been fixed!

We’ve been played, and spayed and neutered

Common sense?..At last we’ve nixed!

– Tom Graffagnino

Princeton University goes off the Gender Studies deep end

By Arnold Cusmariu,  American Thinker, August 20, 2016

Anticipating the election of Hillary Clinton and the establishment of a federal Department of Permissible Expression (DoPE), one of our nation’s most prestigious universities has decided to get ready.  The College Fix reports:

The Princeton University HR department has largely wiped the word “man” from its vocabulary.

The relatively new policy in effect at the Ivy League institution spells out the directive in a four-page memo that aims to make the department more gender inclusive.

Instead of using “man,” employees are told to use words such as human beings, individuals or people.

Other guidelines? Instead of “man and wife” use spouses or partners. Switch out “man made” with artificial, handmade or manufactured. Don’t use the verb “to man,” as in to work something, instead use to operate or to staff. Throw out workmanlike and replace it with skillful.

The memo goes on to list a variety of occupations that typically include the word “man” in them and offers replacements: business person instead of businessman, firefighter instead of fireman, ancestors instead of forefathers, and so on.

“Consistent with style guidelines issued by Princeton’s Office of Human Resources and Office of Communications, and as endorsed by the Institutional Equity Planning Group as a preferred University practice, HR has developed these gender inclusive style guidelines, to be utilized by all HR staff members in HR communications, policies, job descriptions, and job postings,” the memo states.

In a statement to The College Fix, John Cramer, Princeton’s director of media relations, said the guidelines “reflect the university’s initiative of fostering an inclusive environment.”

While Princeton’s language policy [is] for its Offices of Communications and Human Resources, Princeton’s LGBT Center also offers a guide on various gender pronouns for those who identify as “transgender, genderqueer, and other gender-variant,” suggesting “ze, zie and hir,” “they and theirs,” and “Ey, em, eir and emself.”


Cramer clarified Princeton’s policy [however], saying “these are guidelines issued by HR, developed in cooperation with Institutional Equity Planning Group for communication and job postings. Students are not mandated to follow this policy.”

Yeah, right.

In their eagerness to come up with gender-neutral terminology, the dim bulbs who concocted this foolishness overlooked the obvious.  To carry out a scrub that would be acceptable to eagle-eyed Clintonian overseers of political correctness, the word “man” would have to be replaced with something more suitable also in words where it occurs such as “manager,” “maneuver,” “mangrove,” “manifold,” “manipulate,” “manor,” “mantra,” “manure,” and so on.  Have at it, Princeton/H.R.!

Why stop there?  Presumably proper names containing “man” might also be potentially offensive to the tender ears of some Princeton students.  What should we do about Manassas, site of two Civil War battles?  How about foreign names like Manila Bay, Mannheim, Manchuria, and Manitoba?  Should art history books edit the names of painters Andrea Mantegna and Edouard Manet?  Women named Amanda will probably have to use the initial if they want to be hired by a future Clinton administration – unless they’re applying to work for Bill at the “Foundation.”

If you think this is all too silly for words, think again.  Unless Americans elect Donald Trump in November, we will witness divisiveness in this country to a degree that will make Barack Obama seem positively amateurish.  The damage that two or three radical feminists on the Supreme Court would do to our Constitution should convince NeverTrumpers that the time for foolish games must – absolutely, positively – come to an end.

Working to keep control of Congress will not be enough.  After all, Lindsey Graham voted for the “wise Latina.”

Read more:

Funding the Jihadist

“The New York Times reported that half its budget came from the Saudi government.” Rowan Scarborough