Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













Wednesday, October 11, 2000
Homosexual convention targets grade-school kids

Curriculum to make kindergarteners comfortable with 'gay and lesbian
[sodomites] families'
by Allyson Smith

CHICAGO -- Members of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network,
GLSEN, discussed plans to campaign against the Boy Scouts and to introduce
positive discussions about homosexuality into elementary school
classrooms -- including kindergarten -- during their annual conference Oct.
6-8 in the Chicago suburb of Arlington Heights.

This year's conference theme, "Ending the Hate Beginning in School,"
highlights GLSEN's contention that teaching pro-homosexual lessons to young
schoolchildren is an appropriate way to combat "homophobia" and "hatred"
directed at homosexuals. But critics like Peter LaBarbera of the Americans
for Truth Project, who led a pro-family coalition protesting the conference,
said GLSEN's elementary school agenda "manipulates the minds of
impressionable children."

GLSEN chose the Windy City for its conference to celebrate the opening of
its third regional office here (the organization is based in New York City).
Organizers said around 800 people, including teenage students, some of whom
received financial scholarships, attended the event.

Scouts out, homosexual clubs in
GLSEN announced plans to pressure schools to lobby school districts to stop
sponsoring the Boy Scouts due to its ban on homosexual scoutmasters.

"The Boy Scouts can present in someone's homeroom, they can get the school
lists of students, they can have posters in the halls. ... It's a very
unique, special access that most other clubs do not enjoy, and at the same
time they are a discriminatory club," said GLSEN public policy director M.K.

LaBarbera countered that homosexual student clubs advocated by GLSEN
nationwide -- called Gay-Straight Alliances -- often receive much the same
access. Recently, Newton North High School in the Boston suburb of Newton,
Mass. (Rep. Barney Frank's hometown), celebrated "Bisexual Awareness Day." A
large banner with the slogan "Celebrate Bisexual Awareness Day" was hanging
over the main entrance of the school until parents got wind of it and
complained to school authorities.

Brian Camenker, president of the Parents Rights Coalition, and whose
daughter attends Newton North, obtained posters detailing alleged "myths"
and "truths" about bisexuality that were posted in the school's halls to
promote "Bisexual Awareness." One of the stated "myths" was: "Bisexual
people are promiscuous." A "truth" was that "Bisexual people may or may not
be attracted to both sexes equally."

At the anti-GLSEN rally Friday, LaBarbera said: "If you asked parents whose
agenda -- GLSEN's or the Boy Scouts -- presents the real threat to
schoolchildren, I think most would say that GLSEN does more harm than the
Boy Scouts ever could."

Gay elementary social studies
At a workshop at the GLSEN conference titled "Appreciating a Broader Canvas:
How Teachers Understand Gay and Lesbian Content Integration in Elementary
Social Studies," participants were instructed on ways to incorporate pro-gay
content into family studies for grades K-3 and into U.S. immigration history
for grades 4-6.

The K-3 lesson plan advised educators to help students "recognize diverse
family constellations" by encouraging discussion of individual family
differences and similarities and by showing photographs from a book entitled
"Celebrating Families," which includes "lesbian mothers/adopted daughters."

The lesson plan for grades 4-6 told teachers to integrate
homosexual-affirming curricula into U.S. immigration studies by
interspersing stories of homosexual migration from small towns to large
cities amongst traditional immigration studies of other groups who came to
America to escape persecution, such as the Pilgrims and Chinese and Hispanic

In another session, the film "That's a Family!" was shown. The movie is the
second by lesbian activists Debra Chasnoff and Helen Cohen, creators of the
controversial film "It's Elementary," which showed instructors giving
pro-homosexual classroom lessons to young children. According to a
promotional flyer, "That's a Family!" is a highly entertaining half hour
documentary for elementary school children, featuring kids from a wide
variety of family structures. Family portraits include multi-racial
families, grandparent-headed families, gay and lesbian families,
single-parent families, and others."

In addition to segments depicting male and female homosexual families, the
movie also includes a vignette of a family consisting of a mother and her
live-in boyfriend. Traditional, mother-and-father two-parent families are
not shown -- except in cases where the parents have widely divergent ethnic
or religious backgrounds. GLSEN and other homosexual groups are lobbying to
get "That's a Family!" shown in classrooms across the country.

Gay geometry
At a GLSEN workshop entitled "LGBT Inclusion -- Not the Usual Suspects,"
attendees received a handout telling of ways to include pro-homosexual
content in geometry classes by using "known political symbols (a pink
triangle, a yellow star of David, a political flag, the purple teletubbie)
to study shapes. While the geometry lesson is the goal, the history and
political information surrounding the shape is also introduced."

Although conference presenters talked about the importance of disseminating
only "age-appropriate" material, all participants, including dozens of high
school-aged kids, had the opportunity to receive a "Visitor's Companion"
that advertised Chicago's homosexual "leather" bars, a sex club and a
homosexual bathhouse called "Steamworks," which was advertised as a "24-hour
men's gym/sauna."

LaBarbera questioned why GLSEN's organizers -- already bruising over the
recent arrest of a Chicago GLSEN leader for soliciting sex with an underage
boy (GLSEN expelled the man) -- did not take the "simple step of keeping
these gay sex club ads from reaching the teenagers in their care."

"For years, GLSEN has claimed to protect 'at-risk' kids. But they are now
helping put young teenage boys at risk by uncritically passing out a gay
guide that hawks anonymous sex clubs and 'leather' bars in Chicago," he
said. "This fits into a pattern of GLSEN failing to shield its young
followers from a homosexual male sexual culture that not only tolerates, but
often celebrates promiscuity." (At last year's GLSEN conference in Atlanta,
a similar sexually-laden booklet was passed out to attendees.)

Coming out in the classroom
During an all-day seminar Friday called "LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender] Educators Empowerment," high school teacher Patricia Nicolari
of GLSEN /Connecticut described ways in which educators can "come out" to
students based on a five-stage continuum ranging from "In [the closet]" to
"Out [of the closet]." She described actions teachers might take during
Stage 3, "Gradual Risks," as follows:

"You wear the jewelry, maybe a little triangle or a little rainbow,
something very subtle. You start with a little sticker on your car or maybe
a few little subtle changes in your classroom that only you think that you
know ... maybe talking about your roommate and the things that you've done
together, trips that you may have taken. You may bring up gay news ...
testing the waters, so to speak. When you test the waters, you're trying to
gauge the climate in your school. You could do that in the faculty room.
When you bring up gay news, how do the other teachers react?"

During Stage 4, "Increased Risk-Taking," Nicolari advised "taking your
partner to school events," "addressing gay jokes," and getting the [school]
administration and parents "into place."

Co-moderator Michael Fiorello discussed the importance of enlisting
"straight allies" such as members of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays and religious leaders who defend homosexual teachers. He added, "I'm
not trying to stifle minority religious views ... but they should not be the
controlling element of curriculum [or of] hiring policy, firing policy, [or]
coaching. ..."

Quoting a 1977 textbook she uses in her junior-senior "Family Life" class,
Nicolari said, "In this book, dating will refer to one male and one female
spending time together. So I said [to my class], 'I feel I need to point
this out. There can be exceptions to that. It can be two females dating, or
two males dating.'"

Unisex bathrooms
Much of the GLSEN conference dealt with assisting high school and middle
school students in launching and improving "Gay-Straight Alliance" or GSA
clubs. These in-school clubs promote the acceptance of "gay," bisexual and
"transgender" students, and have been the subject of intense controversy all
across the nation. Among the workshops offered at the GLSEN conference was
one entitled, "How to Run a Killer GSA."

The high level of commitment among GLSEN activists to the "trans" cause was
illustrated by the numerous seminars devoted to "transgender" issues.

GLSEN held two all-day seminars for youth activists only on Friday. Among
the fliers available outside the seminars was one entitled "Transgender
Issues and Resources." This publication listed "tips and suggested
activities that can be used to help your GSA become more gender-inclusive,
begin talking about gender and transgender issues, and make your school more
safe for transgender or gender-questioning students." One suggested activity
was for GSAs to "watch and discuss movies with gender nonconformist
characters," including "Joan of Arc," a film about a Catholic saint. Another
suggestion urged GSA members to "campaign to create a unisex bathroom at
your school."

Combating the 'right wing'
Another of the all-day seminars was one on "Responding to the Right Wing."
It was co-hosted by Barbara Miner, managing editor of an 'urban educational
journal" called "Rethinking Schools." During the session, Miner said that
the strategy of the "right wing" is "to engender distrust of public
education [and] to batter down the separation of church and state." "Right
wingers," she said, are "anti-immigrant" and "very virulent in their
anti-government rhetoric."

Miner expressed fear of school voucher initiatives, saying, "Vouchers and
private schools will do an end-run around 20 to 30 years of rights gains."
She said the "right's" use of the term "high standards" is a "code for
edging out diverse values" and cited the banning of a book containing
information about breast cancer an "example of the obsessiveness of the
religious right."

Conference presenters and attendees repeatedly stressed the idea that
"respect for others" must supersede private religious beliefs and that
name-calling must be stopped. However, the prohibition on name-calling
excluded such labels as "radical right," "religious right" and "right wing"
which were frequently used as pejorative labels for those who oppose
homosexual activism in schools.

NEA stands with GLSEN
National Education Association President Robert F. Chase gave the keynote
address at the GLSEN conference on Saturday morning. Chase's remarks were
preceded by introductions from GLSEN director of public policy M.K. Cullen
and GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings, who said there are now over 700
GSAs "in high schools and middle schools today."

Cullen criticized a ballot measure in Oregon called the Student Protection
Act that would ban the promotion of homosexuality in schools. She derided
the ballot initiative, led by Lon Mabon of the Oregon Citizens Alliance, as
"anti-gay." At the mention of Mabon's name, several audience members hissed.

Jennings reminisced about the birth of the first GSA in 1989 and lauded
Chase as "the voice in American education today." Referring to a campaign
launched earlier that week by the Family Research Council, urging members to
write Chase to discourage him from attending the conference, Jennings said,
"Bob Chase laughed and said, 'I am happy they are coming after me.'" He
added that Chase had approached GLSEN to be invited to speak and quoted him
as saying, "I have a platform and I am going to send an unequivocal

Chase began his speech by referring to the Family Research Council campaign
and read several e-mails he had received from NEA members. He said the
letters represent "the attitudes, fears and misconceptions that some of our
members have." Chase insisted, "I am here today precisely out of concern for
the children our members teach. The NEA does not have what the right wing
has branded a quote 'radical pro-homosexual agenda.' Rather, we have a
radical civil rights agenda ... a pro-human agenda.

"This is not some special interest or radical agenda I'm talking about," he
said. "It's not about promoting unsafe and abhorrent lifestyles, but
protecting [against] abhorrent behaviors. It's not a matter of recruiting
gay or lesbian teachers, but of retaining them. It's simply a matter of
protecting all children and all school employees."

Chase concluded, "It is an education issue, no matter what the e-mails say,
or no matter what the Family Research Council says."

Archibald Bard
Pro Libertate - For Freedom
ICQ 83834746




horizontal rule

                  Landmark Legal vs. NEA
                  Geoff Metcalf interviews Constitution defender
                  Mark Levin on pending battle

                  For many years, numerous critics have complained
                  about the apparently close relationship between the
                  National Education Association - America's
                  enormous teachers' union - and the Democratic
                  National Committee. Until recently, there was not
                  much anyone could do other than complain.
                  Recently, however, on Geoff Metcalf's streaming
                  Internet talk show, Landmark Legal Foundation
                  President Mark R. Levin discussed documents his
                  organization compiled showing that the NEA used
                  tax-exempt general revenue to influence the election
                  of candidates seeking public office - for which it has
                  neither paid income taxes nor reported to the IRS as
                  required by the Internal Revenue Code.
                  As a direct result of the documents Landmark
                  uncovered, it has now filed formal complaints against
                  the NEA with the IRS, the FEC and the Inspector
                  General of the Treasury Department detailing its
                  extensive findings.
                  Today, Metcalf's interview with Levin details not only
                  Landmark's case against the NEA, but also the
                  players - the people and organizations - involved in
                  this matter.
                  Metcalf's live daily program can be heard on
                  WorldNetDaily's streaming page - TalkNetDaily -
                  from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Pacific time (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
                  By Geoff Metcalf
                  � 2001
                  Question: This discovery of yours could be considered
                  payback personified.
                  Answer: Yup.
                  Q: Please explain for our readers what Landmark Legal
                  Foundation discovered in these revealing documents you
                  got your hands on?
                  A: All right. First of all there are a whole bunch of
                  documents that the federal Election Commission got
                  during a four-year investigation of the AFL-CIO and the
                  Democratic National Committee. Somebody - I believe
                  the Republican National Committee - filed a complaint
                  saying basically, "Hey look: This is a violation of the
                  campaign laws that this union and the Democratic Party
                  are coordinating campaign activities - and that is not
                  permitted under our campaign laws."
                  Well, a federal judge decided that it was permitted. So
                  whatever we think about the campaign laws wasn't
                  exactly a fruitful area to pursue.
                  Q: So what did you do next?
                  A: When that ruling came out in July of last year, we
                  contacted the FEC and we told them, "We want you to
                  release all the information that you collected through
                  subpoenas from whatever parties you subpoenaed and
                  make it public as you normally do."
                  Q: How did the FEC respond?
                  A: Well, they said, "We have a microfiche problem.
                  There are so many documents and so forth." So we
                  pressured them and pressured them. Then, we threatened
                  them with a lawsuit. Then, on May 2nd of this year, all of
                  a sudden, they released over 6,000 of them and when we
                  contacted them on May 2nd they said, "They are open.
                  You can come and make some copies." So we went in
                  on May 2nd and May 3rd and .
                  Q: . and then you had an early Christmas!
                  A: (laughing) Yeah. That's right. Our main focus in this
                  area is on the NEA. We went in and we copied all
                  documents relating to the National Education
                  Association. Understand, they were not investigating the
                  National Education Association. They were investigating
                  this coordinated activity between the AFL-CIO and the
                  DNC. But the NEA is the most powerful, the largest and
                  the wealthiest union in America - it's got 2.6 million
                  members - and the AFL-CIO is a combination, sort of
                  an overarching group of several unions, like the
                  Teamsters and so forth. The NEA is the most powerful,
                  so their name pops up all over the place. So we copied
                  those materials and we took them. Then, four days later,
                  the Federal Election Commission put them back under
                  seal under pressure from the NEA and the AFL-CIO.
                  Q: OK, so you got your hands on the documents before
                  the judge resealed them. What did you find?
                  A: When we went through them, we said, "Good Lord!"
                  It is Christmas time in May - as you said.
                  Q: I was blown away when I found out that the NEA
                  wasn't only a participant in a lot of the party-platform
                  things, and so forth, but actually had veto power.
                  A: That's the point! This is the structure. They sent up a
                  national coordinating committee - steering committee -
                  this is where the wealthiest, most powerful, most
                  influential members sat. They were from the Democratic
                  National Committee in 1996 these documents talk about.
                  They were from the Democratic Senatorial Committee,
                  the Democratic Congressional Committee (meaning the
                  House races), the 1996 Clinton-Gore Committee, the
                  AFL-CIO, Emily's List and, of course, our friends at the
                  NEA. They sat on this national coordinating committee
                  steering committee and they decided what the issues
                  would be, how much money would be spent and what
                  the strategy would be.
                  Q: What is so amazing and appalling was they actually
                  withheld their financial commitment until they had input
                  into the policy.
                  A: Into the policy at the state level. They set up 50 of
                  these same kinds of steering committees in every state
                  where, typically, the state Democratic party and the
                  affiliates of these national unions - like in
                  the Pennsylvania State Education Association and so
                  forth - would sit on these state committees. Candidates
                  would contribute to these committees and these
                  committees would help decide what the strategy would
                  be in congressional races, in gubernatorial races,
                  senatorial races - they would pull the strategy together
                  and then they would send it up the ladder to this national
                  committee, we were talking about and this national
                  committee could approve it, modify it, or reject it.
                  Q: Mark, what is so astonishing is allegedly these people
                  are smart enough to execute this scam and to get the
                  control over the process - and the essence of it is the
                  process - but they could still be stupid enough, myopic
                  enough or arrogant enough to not report any of that? Did
                  they report any of this stuff to the IRS?
                  A: Well that's a good question. Under the Internal
                  Revenue Code, if you are not a tax-exempt organization
                  - and many people do not know this: Unions are tax
                  exempt, they don't pay taxes - but if they spend one plug
                  nickel on political activity intended to influence races
                  the national, state or local level, outside their own
                  they have to report that on their income-tax forms and
                  pay a corporate income-tax rate on those expenditures.
                  Now their tax forms are public. So we went back and
                  got all the tax forms for the National Education
                  Association, from 1994 up until the most recent one that
                  they filed in June. And on every one of those federal tax
                  returns they said that they spent zero money on political
                  Q: Hold on here. It is easily documented that they spent
                  millions and millions of dollars .
                  A: They spent millions for sure.
                  Q: I remember reading about some $35-million in union
                  money directed at the DNC .
                  A: The AFL-CIO - see it's not clear where that money
                  is coming from. They've got a big shell game going on. If
                  you say where is "that money," they say, "Well it's in a
                  PAC." Of course, political action committees can spend
                  Q: Yeah, but what happens if you follow the chain of
                  custody of that money? Where did it come from? Did it
                  come from union dues?
                  A: That's the point. Here's what I'm saying: If you look
                  the NEA budgets (which we have) and strategic plans
                  (which we have), they are using their membership dues -
                  which is the general operating money, the tax exempt
                  money - and funneling it into political activity. That's
                  their own documents say.
                  They say, $300,000 and some odd dollars to coordinate
                  with local democratic candidates. They're the ones who
                  say in 1996 they spent $9.6-million for a wide array of
                  political activity. And they spend tens of millions of
                  dollars every year - and this is important and it wasn't
                  covered in the news articles - they spend tens of millions
                  on what are called "uniservers."
                  A uniserver is an NEA employee, way down at the
                  school district level, in every school district.
                  they are supposed to be helping with contract
                  negotiations and grievances and so forth - but the other
                  part of their job is they are the biggest army of precinct
                  workers in America. These people help organize political
                  activity for the NEA right there at the school district
                  They don't report any of those salaries on their federal
                  tax returns either. All that information has now been
                  compiled and filed with the Internal Revenue Service and
                  we are asking them to conduct an audit and to force
                  these people to do right by the law.
                  Q: Before we get into the heavy nitty gritty, you filed
                  complaints - one with the IRS and one with the FEC -
                  A: Well, last summer we filed two complaints, as you
                  said. One with the IRS and one with the FEC after going
                  through a bunch of the NEA budgets and strategic plans
                  and handbooks. We also filed against several state
                  affiliates. This year, we have used the information we
                  gleaned from the Federal Election Commission search
                  that is under seal now - as well as some new information
                  relating to the NEA's spending and the spending in a half
                  dozen or so states such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
                  Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska - and we've taken that
                  information and filed it against those state affiliates of
                  NEA as well.
                  Q: What, if any, reaction or comments have you had
                  back from the IRS? I read news stories in which IRS
                  types say, yeah under normal circumstances they are
                  compelled to report this kind of spending. What,
                  officially, have you heard from either the IRS or the
                  A: Two things: First, with respect to the IRS, they are
                  not allowed to tell us anything really. There is a section
                  the Internal Revenue Code, 6103, that prohibits them
                  from acknowledging any audit of any kind. Hopefully
                  what we are doing is prodding the media to continually
                  contact the NEA and ask them if they are being audited.
                  In the past they have said, "Oh, of course not!" So, if we
                  now get a "No comment!" from them, we know they
                  have some problems.
                  But the best news you just touched on was in the
                  Associated Press article in which the current head of that
                  part of the IRS that oversees non-profit organizations,
                  like the unions, basically said, "Look - based on the
                  public record some of this stuff looks like it goes over
                  line." And another long-term IRS official who writes
                  manuals for tax-exempt groups on how to comply with
                  the law said he wouldn't be surprised at all if they were
                  Q: I've been involved in some political activity stuff and
                  we have always avoided 501 (c) (3)s specifically
                  because they don't give sufficient protections - and it's
                  frankly easier to go with a for-profit corporation and
                  spend everything.
                  A: Right.
                  Q: But with a 501 (c) (3), when they transfer their own
                  funds to some separate segregated something like a PAC
                  A: . they have to report it.
                  Q: You betcha! And since 1994, the union hasn't. Now
                  that brings up the next question - prior to 1994, did the
                  NEA report political activity and spending?
                  A: Have no idea. We haven't gone back that far. You
                  have to understand: We've got two offices full of NEA
                  stuff. We're just not in a position to go any further
                  There is also some question whether the IRS is in any
                  position to go any further back than six years. My
                  understanding is if they do audit the NEA, they only have
                  50 or 60 auditors for non-profit groups, or in that
                  ballpark, we've been told. They'd have to take around 10
                  percent of them to look at the NEA.
                  Q: Hey, the potential return on the investment of the
                  resources would be well worth it.
                  A: I told them when you're done auditing all those
                  conservative groups, maybe you can spend a little time
                  on the NEA. You're exactly right. For example, what
                  happened with the Heritage Foundation about four years
                  ago was that a former Democratic congressman, David
                  Skaggs, from the Boulder Colorado area, read an article
                  in the Miami Herald that bothered him. He cut it out,
                  attached his letter to it, sent it to the IRS whining
                  the Heritage Foundation and 30-days later they launched
                  what turned out to be a four-year audit of the Heritage
                  Foundation - based on a newspaper article.
                  Q: Hey, my boss - Joseph Farah and the Western
                  Journalism Center - got audited. And when he asked
                  why they were asking the kind of questions that were not
                  financial in focus, the dumb auditor reportedly told him,
                  "This is a political thing."
                  A: First of all, your boss Joseph Farah is one of the
                  rebels on this cause and I definitely appreciate it. He's
                  very courageous guy and a good friend, he and his wife.
                  So the IRS, I think, is going to have a problem not doing
                  something now when their own boss, in the newspaper,
                  speaks to it - which is really quite unusual. We sent him
                  the equivalent of two Manhattan phone books full of
                  indisputable evidence - copies of original documents .
                  Q: . and arguably doing half their auditors' work for
                  A: Wouldn't that be nice if we could get paid for that?
                  But that's exactly right - and you raise another good
                  point. Who is looking at this? Who is in control of the
                  whole process in the United States? We have filed it with
                  the IRS. The FEC is toothless. Where is Congress?
                  You've got John McCain running around yelling about
                  campaign finance reform - nothing that he proposes
                  does anything about what the NEA is doing - or what the
                  AFL-CIO for that matter ...
                  Q: Mark, come on - be real. Congress doesn't have the
                  stones for this. They'll talk the talk, but they don't
want to
                  get anywhere near the essence of something that would
                  eviscerate their checkbooks.
                  A: I can understand that the Democratic Party, as is clear
                  from our documents, has essentially become a
                  wholly-owned subsidiary of the NEA and the AFL-CIO.
                  Q: What I don't understand is why the Republicans don't
                  seize this as a target of opportunity to rub their nose in
                  A: They might - some of them might. What concerns me
                  is this has been going on for year after year after year -
                  and you would think, for self defense purposes, they
                  would want to know something about this. The problem
                  is the NEA funds the campaigns of some of the more
                  liberal Republicans and assists them - like Arlen Specter,
                  and maybe a few in New England and so forth, so they're
                  not as likely to want to look into this.
                  But this is really not a Republican or Democratic issue in
                  the sense of wanting to make sure that the membership
                  dues are spent honestly. Look, the NEA has 2.6 million
                  members. Also, non-members have to pay fees in certain
                  states to the NEA. The question for all these members,
                  Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative and
                  everything in between is, "Aren't you paying your dues
                  because you want your union to represent you?"
                  Q: I can't tell you how many complaints I get from union
                  members that are upset because they might embrace
                  conservative principles and yet they are compelled in
                  many cases to actually take time off without pay to
                  participate in some kind of political activity they were
                  instructed/ordered to do. The Beck Amendment was
                  supposed to mitigate some of that.
                  A: I agree. But I would think even liberal Democrat
                  members would want their money used to help get advice
                  on contract negotiations and things of that sort - not
                  money funneled from the NEA to a state for political
                  activity in some local race. These are serious matters -
                  and if I was a NEA member, spending as much as I
                  would on dues - in some states you can go over a
                  thousand dollars, I wouldn't want them wasting my
                  money on politicians and political activity.
                  Q: Unfortunately, it is the union leadership that has that
                  symbiotic connection. I was amazed and absolutely
                  blown away to read recently that the union honchos
                  actually sat on committees and had veto power.
                  A: Yup.
                  Q: We used to think the tail was wagging the dog - hell,
                  they are the dog!
                  A: Yeah. The Democratic National Committee has these
                  newspaper articles in which we read, the Republican
                  Party has raised this amount, the Democratic Party has
                  raised that amount - that doesn't tell the whole story. In
                  that recent Associated Press story, they mention that the
                  United States Chamber of Commerce also spent $14
                  million on political activity .
                  Q: But they reported it .
                  A: They reported it and paid taxes on it. The National
                  Association of Manufacturers was another one that spent
                  between five to six million dollars, they reported it, and
                  paid taxes on it. But all this under the radar stuff is -
                  well, you can understand why they want to keep it under
                  seal. They don't want anyone to know, not their
                  members, not the IRS, not anybody.
                  Q: Who sealed these documents after you initially got
                  your hands on them?
                  A: First the FEC - and then they were prepared to
                  release thousands more but the AFL-CIO and the DNC
                  went into federal court and got a Clinton judge, who
                  actually has a Labor Union background, and she put in
                  place a grant of their motion for a preliminary injunction
                  which simply means she forced the government to keep
                  these documents under seal. Not just the FEC - if Justice
                  had them , all these groups - and she has scheduled a
                  hearing for sometime in October.
                  Q: Mark, has the FEC responded to your complaint yet
                  with a hearing date or anything like that?
                  A: No. The FEC is notoriously slow. We got a letter
                  from them last year saying they had received our
                  complaint - and that's par for the course.
                  Q: And the IRS isn't supposed to tell you anything?
                  A: The IRS isn't supposed to tell us - I'm not a fool
                  when it comes to the IRS - but I suspect they are going
                  to have to do something and they are going to have to do
                  it relatively soon.
                  Q: Several people have suggested/recommended that
                  you make sure to copy and back up all these documents
                  you have in some secure cyber/digital/lock box and that
                  you maintain real good fire insurance.
                  A: Well, we've got 400 of them, so they are going to
                  have to track them all down in a nice bound copy from
                  one end of the country to the other.
                  Q: It has also been suggested that if or when the
                  Republicans speak out on this scam, their
                  co-conspirators in the mainstream press from the New
                  York Times to Dan Rather will respond with the spin
                  "GOP Attacks Teachers." And the NEA will lean on their
                  members to put pressure on elected officials because if or
                  when they are compelled to pay interest and penalties,
                  the union will be forced to come back to the members to
                  get more money to pay the potential fines.
                  A: My only problem with that analysis is the Republicans
                  aren't getting a heck of a lot out of this now, are they?
                  What's to lose really? We don't coordinate with them -
                  unlike the unions - we don't take our lead from them or,
                  if we did, we would have gone out of business a long
                  time ago.
                  Q: How can people find you if they want to either help
                  you or get more information?
                  A: The best way is always online. You can find us and
                  you can find this complaint and the additional casework
                  we are involved in. Our phone number is (703)
                  689-2370. We don't harass folks for money. We
                  generally send out a newsletter four or five times a year.

                  Q: This has been percolating for a while. The FEC -
                  well, they're the FEC - we don't really expect much from
                  them. But the IRS will probably be compelled to do
                  "something." I also would think that somewhere along the
                  line - just based on my personal interaction with union
                  members upset with unions spending money on stuff that
                  is the antithesis of what certain members embrace - that
                  there could potentially be a class-action suit somewhere?
                  A: Well, I guess there could be some kind of fraud
                  theory. But we already have the template laid out in the
                  Beck decision. They already have a constitutional right to
                  demand their money back - and to demand an
                  accounting for it.
                  It would seem to me you would want to go through that
                  process first and, if you come up empty, you would
                  consider some kind of civil action based on fraud.
                  Because if they are going to go back to all these teacher
                  union members and say, "Sorry, we don't spend any
                  money on politics," well, we have exhibits that say they
                  And, by the way, it's too expensive to reproduce them
                  and send them all out, but we're happy to send a few of
                  them out to some people. Like I said, we've sent out 400
                  of them at considerable expense. But we wanted to make
                  sure that they got to different parts of the country for
                  people to examine.
                  Q: One of the NEA lawyers was very, very confident
                  that they had complied with the law. Well, I've read the
                  law, and I know lawyers can argue anything - that's what
                  they get paid for - but it seems that dog ain't gonna hunt
                  if you ever get this stuff before a judge.
                  A: I've never met an opponent who wasn't confident
                  going into the fight - and in nine cases out of ten, they
                  sulk away with their tails between their legs. The NEA is
                  an extremely powerful force with enormous resources.
                  They are very cocky. And I'm glad they're confident
                  because, if I were them, I'd be a little less so.
                  Our position is simple. We're not the IRS. We're not the
                  U.S. Attorney. We're not a federal judge. We can't make
                  the final decision about the NEA. But we can bring this
                  information to the public, to the NEA membership and to
                  the Internal Revenue Service and demand that they treat
                  the NEA at least the way that they treated Joseph
                  Farah, the National Rifle Association, the Christian
                  Coalition and scores of other non-profit and for-profit
                  Q: This original investigation that these damning
                  documents resulted from was looking at the AFL-CIO. I
                  know you are focused on the NEA, but the obvious
                  question is: "Does the AFL-CIO file these IRS form
                  A: Yeah. Every union files one. Every non-profit .
                  Q: . except the NEA?
                  A: No, the NEA files one but on that line - line 81 -
                  where they are required to report the amount of money
                  they spent on political activity, they put zero. The
                  Associated Press went back and checked the AFL-CIO
                  tax returns for the same period in which all this money
                  was being spent and all this coordinated activity was
                  going on - and the AFL-CIO reported zero also.
                  And they are not only supposed to report the amount of
                  money on that form, but then, typical of the IRS, there's
                  another form, in which if it's anything more than zero,
                  you're supposed to give a detailed explanation of your
                  expenditures and where the money is coming from and so
                  Q: OK, if the AFL-CIO is guilty of the same oversight as
                  is the NEA, how come you haven't filed an IRS
                  complaint or a FEC complaint against them?
                  A: We just learned about this. And there is another
                  group that is taking a very close look at that piece of
                  equation because there are a number of groups and none
                  of us are that big. The National Legal and Policy Center
                  which has been eyeballing the AFL-CIO for something
                  like a decade and a half.
                  Q: The AFL-CIO's skirts may be dirty. But it was just a
                  few weeks ago that everyone was shocked and amazed
                  when President Bush was struggling to get approval for
                  the energy development in that little section of the park
                  up in Alaska, it was (and correct me if I'm wrong) the
                  AFL-CIO that stepped up and supported the drilling.
                  A: I understood that union, the grandmother and
                  grandfather of all unions, sat on the sidelines but it was
                  the Teamsters who stepped in. I could be wrong, but
                  that's my understanding. Of course, that's a great
                  opportunity with respect to the environmental groups and
                  the hardworking blue collar out there .
                  Q: Over the years I have gotten very, very cynical about
                  this kind of stuff. I don't believe anything happens in
                  politics by coincidence. Traditionally, all those unions
                  have been in virtual lock step with the Democratic party
                  and if they say the sun will rise in the northwest
                  morning, that's the party line.
                  A: Yeah, well, you might be right. But the Teamsters are
                  a little different though. The Teamsters endorsed Reagan.
                  I remember that because I worked on that campaign in
                  1980. Generally speaking, I think you are right. And I
                  think what you're saying is the fix is in - nothing is
                  to happen.
                  Q: That's the feeling I have. When it comes to campaign
                  finance, these guys in the 87 square miles surrounded by
                  reality will talk the talk, but they don't want to mess
                  the system. It's the mother's milk of their existence.
                  A: If that's true - and no amount of evidence of potential
                  fraud or improper conduct is going to persuade even the
                  Internal Revenue Service, which has a penchant for
                  investigating even innocent people, to do its job - then
                  pretty much all is lost.
                  Q: And the republic is finished?
                  A: I'd say so. Let me say this. We are not done. We are
                  going to continue to collect information. If another batch
                  of this information is released, we're going to go through
                  it - and I just want to make it clear if any of these NEA
                  types are listening - we want them to know we are not
                  done. We are going to stay on top of this. We don't care
                  what the leadership says or what the leadership wants.
                  They don't get to make all these decisions about whether
                  they are complying with the law or not. We hope the
                  membership agrees with us because it's an awful lot of
                  money that's going unaccounted for. And the idea that the
                  word politics doesn't mean politics - I'm sick of that
                  of stuff too, the idea that their own documents are lying
                  and the idea that they didn't sit on this coordinating
                  committee - or as the official of sat on it for the NEA
                  said, "I was just there gathering information."
                  for what?
                  Q: And he had veto power over that information. OK,
                  you've got the IRS complaint and the FEC complaint - is
                  there any prospect or any discussion or any interest from
                  anyone - even one of the gadflies in Congress - a Ron
                  Paul, Bob Barr, Jim Traficant - anybody who might join
                  you in calling for some kind of congressional hearings?
                  Now we know it isn't going to go anywhere - but is there
                  any kind of congressional traction on this story at all?
                  A: So far - I'm not going to get into who - but there
                  have actually been two pretty powerful committees that
                  have asked for a copy of our information.
                  Q: I suspect the conventional wisdom would be they are
                  scared spitless to ever take on the unions .
                  A: I would normally agree with that. Except what the
                  documents show is that the NEA is the Democratic
                  Party. Normally, where these Republicans would cower
                  - and they often do - now, it's a question of
                  I'm really trying to keep this out of the partisan arena
                  because I really think what is being done here is a
                  violation of law regardless of who is involved. But I will
                  tell you that two very powerful committees have
                  contacted us - we have provided them with the
                  information and they are now investigating. But we don't
                  rely on Congress to get the job done.

                  Geoff Metcalf is a talk-show host for TalkNetDaily.



jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party