Ben Johnson

Howard Phillips, “a good man who devoted his life to fighting the good fight,” dead at 72

Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

VIENNA, VA, April 24, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Howard Phillips, whose pro-life activism in the 1970s led to the formation of the modern Christian conservative movement, passed away at his home Saturday at the age of 72. He died of Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) and Alzheimers Disease, according to family.

In addition to running for president three times, Phillips founded a new brand of conservatism that motivated values voters to put social issues – especially abortion – first in their voting patterns.

He helped create numerous pro-life and pro-family organizations, headed a major federal agency during the Nixon administration, and testified against two Republican Supreme Court nominees that he accurately predicted would favor abortion-on-demand.

“The overarching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion,” he told then-Senator Joe Biden during the confirmation hearings of David Souter.

“Howard Phillips, a friend of half a century, was a conviction politician,” Pat Buchanan told LifeSiteNews.com. “He stood up for his beliefs, he stood by those beliefs, and he did not hesitate to go down to defeat if necessary for those beliefs. High among them was his unshakable belief in the inviolate right to life of the unborn.”

“Howard was a good man who devoted his life to fighting the good fight,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Phillips campaigned for Ronald Reagan but testified before the U.S. Senate against his first Supreme Court nominee, Sandra Day O'Connor. Her record in the Arizona state senate and as a judge proved she would favor abortion, he said.

A few years later, Phillips showed remarkable prescience as the only witness to testify against David Souter from a pro-life perspective. He was troubled by Souter's law school thesis, and by the fact that two New Hampshire hospitals opted to perform abortion-on-demand while Souter was a trustee. Phillips said, “One must conclude that either Mr. Souter accepts the view that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the convenience and profit of those who collaborate in the killing of that child, or that...he lacked the moral courage or discernment to help prevent the destruction of so many innocent human lives.” (You can watch the video here.) 

Both Souter and O'Connor would affirm Roe in the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision.

In a 2005 interview with LifeSiteNews, Howard Phillips analyzed that Chief Justice John Roberts “knows what the Constitution stipulates, but I think that for the sake of his career he will often set it aside in favor of what he believes is a more pragmatic course of action.” Conservatives accused Roberts of seeking mainstream approval in switching his decision on ObamaCare.

Phillips participated in the founding of Young Americans for Freedom, Concerned Women for America (CWA), the American Life League (ALL), and the influential Council for National Policy (CNP). In 1979, he and a group of conservative activists met with a dynamic preacher in Lynchburg, Virginia, and encourged him to bring evangelicals into the political arena. The United States, he told Jerry Falwell, still had a “moral majority.” With his impetus, the face of the Republican Party changed.

Phillips' insight came from years of study.

“Howie,” as friends called him, was born on February 3, 1941, in Boston. The grandson of Jewish immigrants attended Boston Latin School and Harvard College. He became a top youth volunteer for Richard Nixon in 1960 and then the leader of Boston's Republican Party as he devoted his life to doggedly climbing the political ladder.

In 1968, he was campaign manager of the successful U.S. Senate race of Richard Schweicker, a liberal Republican with whom he differed profoundly. GOP aides asked him to run a hopeless race for Congress in Massachusetts against Democrat Michael Harrington as a political favor. (He lost 59 percent to 37 percent.) That put him on the radar of the Nixon administration.

The president named him director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) in January 1973 with a promise to close the agency. Phillips called his time at OEO “the most important experience of my life...I really surrendered conventional ambition.”

He discovered the agency gave taxpayer dollars to anti-American radical organizations. Attending one such demonstration, he watched in shock as a black militant grant recipient led a crowd in chanting “F--- America!”

The administration, Phillips said, hoped the funding would convince left-wing groups to vote Republican.

“What I saw seemed to me to be so evil that it didn't matter what happened to me personally,” he said. “I was so outraged at what I saw that I just had to fight it, and basically give up any hope of conventional political success.”

He had heavyweight opposition and received insufficient help from his sometime-patrons, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

“He had a real kind of intellectual conversion of sorts during his service in the Nixon administration,” his youngest son, Sam Phillips, told LifeSiteNews.com. “He saw that Republicans were really just interested in maintaining power and not really advancing and sticking to principles. He left that.”

He went through another conversion, as well. He converted to Christianity.

Tied down by the exploding Watergate scandal, President Nixon reneged on his promise to close the agency. Phillips resigned.

In 1974, he founded The Conservative Caucus (TCC). Within six years, he had more than 300,000 members and had held rallies in all 435 Congressional districts.

Phillips became a founding father of The New Right along with such likeminded activists as Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Ed Feulner, and Morton Blackwell. Unwilling to back pro-choice Republican Gerald Ford, he briefly helped Viguerie seek the presidential nomination of the American Independent Party (AIP), the vehicle created by George Wallace. (They deserted the party when its nomination instead went to Lester Maddox.)

In 1978, Howard sought the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in his native Massachusetts, aiming to topple two-term liberal Republican Edward Brooke. He crossed party lines, because he believed only a Democrat stood a chance at winning statewide election. He came in fourth behind eventual winner Paul Tsongas. Both would seek the presidency in 1992.

One of TCC's organizers proved to have better luck the same year. Gordon Humphrey won his U.S. Senate race in neighboring New Hampshire, holding the seat until 1990.

It was in promoting moral values and founding pro-family groups that Howard would find his greatest success. With Phyllis Schlafly, he created the grassroots movement that stopped the surging Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). He drove U.S. opposition to the Panama Canal treaty, a position held by future president Ronald Reagan.

Phillips was one of a select group of leaders present when Reagan announced he had chosen George H. W. Bush as his vice presidential running mate in 1980. Phillips had lobbied for the more conservative Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada. It would not be the first battle he lost against his friend.

TCC had blocked the adoption of the SALT II Treaty signed by Jimmy Carter. Reagan campaigned against it – but abided by its terms as president. Phillips sued to force Reagan to stop observing the treaty, losing in court. Another treaty would prove his undoing with many of his colleagues.

His moment of combustion came during 1987's signing of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) arms reduction treaty. During a press conference, he called President Reagan “a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda.” The term, coined by Lenin, was perceived as a personal insult. Howard dug in his heels and was largely left in the cold by the Republican Party.

“He certainly had great respect for Reagan, but there's a problem when we begin to treat our poltiical associations as if they are our religious affiliation,” Sam Phillips said. “He would side with whomever he believed was right on an issue.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The abandonment seemed to hurt Sam more than his father. “Dad wouldn't be frustrated, but he would just kind of shrug it off,” he said. “He always had a spirit of gratitude, and he was very thankful. That was from his Christian faith.”

In time, the Soviet Union he so long opposed would collapse. “Two decades ago, in the final hours of the USSR, a small group of us under Howard's leadership traveled through Poland and the Baltic republics in one of the unforgettable trips of my life,” Buchanan told LifeSiteNews.

As Eastern Europe moved to the Right, Phillips saw the GOP under Bush-41 moving to the Left. He founded the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1992; in 1999 it was renamed the Constitution Party. He offered its nomination three times to Buchanan, who declined. Ron Paul, then between Congressional stints, addressed its founding convention.

Over the years former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham, Senator Bob Smith, and Ambassador Alan Keyes would express interest in the nomination. But Howard served as the party's standard bearer in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

He believed the GOP would fall apart over its refusal to oppose abortion and homosexuality, and he wanted his party to be positioned to take its place. In 2010, it did precisely that on a state level, as former Congressman Tom Tancredo became its candidate for governor of Colorado, earning three-times as many votes as the Republican nominee.

He also maintained a close affiliation with Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony, a firm believer in a theocratic government, calling him “my wise counselor.”

When asked by one of Rushdoony's disciples to name the best decision he ever made, Phillips replied, “That's easy – choosing my wife and the mother of my children.”

Phillips retired from TCC in late 2011 when his affliction became apparent. Family members say his sharp wit allowed the symptoms to go unnoticed for a long period of time.

Howard Phillips died at his home in Vienna, Virginia, on Saturday. Family members call his repose “peaceful.”

The New York Times' obituary called him a “stalwart conservative.” Texas Congressman Steve Stockman remembered fondly, “Over the years, Howard stood firm to conservative principles when it was often easier to compromise with establishment RINOs.” Feulner, who founded the Heritage Foundation, said some of Howard's principles “were a bit quirky, but Howie always believed and always led.”

“All who love freedom under God’s laws are deeply in your debt,” Richard Viguerie wrote in a touching tribute. “Rest in Peace, my friend.” Media Research Center founder L. Brent Bozell III wrote, “Most conservatives wouldn't be here but for men like Howard Phillips. They are his legacy.”

But his son Sam respectfully disagrees. “His children were his legacy,” he said.

Howard is survived by his wife Margaret (“Peggy” née Blanchard), six children, 18 grandchildren, and his sister, Susan Phillips Bari.

His children include Brad Phillips of the Persecution Project Foundation; Doug Phillips of Vision Forum; Elizabeth Lants (who goes by Amanda); Jennifer; soprano opera singer Alessandra Rossi-Filippi; and Samuel Joshua Phillips.

Visitation is scheduled for this Saturday and Sunday at Money and King Funeral Home in Vienna. His funeral service will be held next Monday at The Smith Center of McLean Bible Church. Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate, will deliver the eulogy.

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dan Guernsey

, , ,

Where’s the tolerance in San Francisco?

Dan Guernsey
By

April 20, 2015 (CardinalNewmanSociety.org) -- Proclaiming their values of tolerance, inclusion, and non-judgment, 100 “prominent” San Francisco Catholics last week took out a full-page ad in the newspaper to tell the Pope and the world that they will not tolerate or include and indeed soundly condemn the archbishop of San Francisco.

His crime? Following Canon law, which requires him to ensure that “Instruction and education in a Catholic school must be based on the principles of Catholic doctrine, and the teachers must be outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life” (Canon Law, 803, § 2). He is also condemned for following the teachings of the U.S. Bishops, who have consistently taught that “all members of the faculty, at least by their example, are an integral part of the process of religious education…. Teachers’ life style and character are as important as their professional credentials” (1976, Teach Them, p. 7), and the bishops’ National Directory for Catechesis which requires Catholic school leaders to “Recruit teachers who are practicing Catholics, who can understand and accept the teachings of the Catholic Church and the moral demands of the gospel, and who can contribute to the achievement of the school’s Catholic identity and apostolic goals” (2005, National Directory for Catechesis, p. 231, 233).

Archbishop Cordileone and all U.S. bishops are bound by Canon law and Church teaching to do what he is doing: ensuring that Catholic schools in his diocese are Catholic. And indeed, he is not alone in this effort. He is joined by similar significant efforts underway by bishops in the dioceses of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Santa Rosa, Honolulu and Oakland, among others.  He is just currently the biggest target in a bastion of the fully-empowered tyrannical Left who will not tolerate any deviance from their liberal orthodoxy.

The sexual dogmas of the liberal orthodoxy are so confused and so consuming that any other understanding of the nature and purpose of human sexuality and marriage, even those views held by the vast majority of humanity throughout all ages, must be condemned and ultimately silenced. To state the clear and unequivocal Catholic teaching that the only proper and moral exercise of the marital act is exclusively in the context of a committed natural marriage in the service of both love and life is viewed by some as a type of hate crime.

These “anti-bully” bullies are doing what bullies do. They are seeking to gain in their own social status and self-concept by belittling, shaming and humiliating someone outside their local social norm. As the authors admit, the social sexual norms in the Bay Area are completely supportive of sex outside of natural marriage. Those who control the culture are dead set on humiliating and eliminating anyone who would not fully support their power and the status quo.

Many other dioceses have stipulations in their employee handbooks and in their contracts related to the need to uphold Catholic teachings in word and action as terms of employment. This is nothing very new. A challenge has occurred more recently, because of the rapid deterioration of social norms related to human sexuality, and because so many Catholics and Catholic school employees are so poorly catechized regarding human sexuality and complex but critical human life issues.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

It is possible that some employees can unwittingly jeopardize their employment by running afoul of the expectations of their employment agreements. In a preemptive effort to avoid such suffering and embarrassment, a number of dioceses are striving to clarify and publicize these expectations of Catholic teachers in a spirit of truth and charity and to ensure that folks do not unwittingly join in an evangelical enterprise they cannot advance, support or—even worse—work against. Charity demands clarity and truth. Justice to one’s employees demands clarity and truth as well. Justice to ones’ employer demands that one should not work against his interests or intent. The more clearly we can all be about what we intend and believe, the better.

It is also important in a pluralistic society, where we should not all have to agree with each other on complex issues and matters of faith, that we leave room for dissent and marginalized thinking and thinkers—especially in the realm of religious thought. Our country was founded by religious dissidents whose religious views and practices did not fit in with the dominant cultures and beliefs of the powerful in their home countries. They came here seeking freedom of religion—freedom to practice their faith as they saw fit without governmental persecution. Archbishop Cordileone has sought no retribution or even disparagement against those in San Francisco who clearly disagree with the Church; he only seeks to protect his right not to hire them to do the work of the Church, a reasonable and just freedom.

While these wayward Catholics seek to drive their archbishop out of San Francisco in the name of the dominant culture, but not the Catholic faith, we must be aware that many more of us are endangered from attack as well in this rapidly declining culture. These same bullies demanding that Archbishop Cordileone lose his job as a bishop for teaching the truths of the Catholic faith will next deem it critical that Catholics lose their jobs for agreeing with him and the Church.

Reprinted with permission from The Cardinal Newman Society

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 7, 2014. Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , ,

Rubio: I’d attend a gay ‘wedding’. Walker: I have. Santorum: I wouldn’t. Cruz: Pass.

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Are you now, or were you ever, willing to attend a same-sex “wedding”? That seems to be the question lighting up the Republican presidential field, as GOP hopefuls who may one day have their finger on the nuclear button are asked the query over and over again.

So far, the Republican hopefuls' answers are yes, no, I have (sort of), and...unclear.

The media began by asking Florida's U.S. senator, Marco Rubio, if he would attend a homosexual 'wedding' ceremony, especially if he were invited by a relative or close friend.

“If there’s somebody that I love that’s in my life, I don’t necessarily have to agree with their decisions or the decisions they’ve made to continue to love them and participate in important events,” Rubio told Jorge Ramos of Fusion TV's America program.

Rubio, who became the third Republican to throw his hat in the ring last week, likened attending a same-sex “marriage” to attending the second marriage of a divorced friend. “If someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them or having them a part of our lives,” he said.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – who has not yet formally announced his candidacy yet is considered a front-runner – said that he attended a same-sex reception, but not a ceremony. “I haven’t been to a [homosexual] 'wedding,' that’s true,” he said, “even though my position on marriage is still that’s defined between a man and a woman, and I support the Constitution of the state.”

“But for someone I love, we’ve been at a reception,” he added.

A series of candidates and potential candidates have faced similar hypotheticals.

Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, a libertarian-leaning Republican who strongly supported Mitt Romney in previous primaries, asked two contenders “a meta-question.” Is it more important to know whether a candidate would attend a homosexual wedding or whether a president will “destroy the Islamic State before it throws hundreds of thousands of gay men to their deaths”?

Former Pennsylvania senator and 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who has said he is considering another presidential run, said it was “amazing that the Left has not risen up” against Islamic Shari'a law. “They don't focus their energy on anything except the attempt to gather more power in this country by using this issue of same-sex 'marriage' as a tool to do that.”

Then he addressed the direct question: Would he attend a gay “marriage” ceremony?

“No, I would not,” he replied curtly. When asked why not, he said, “As a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”

Ted Cruz, the first Republican to say he will seek the GOP's presidential nomination next year, gave a more roundabout reply.

“That's part of the 'gotcha' game that the mainstream media plays, where they come after Republicans on every front, and it's designed to caricature Republicans to make them look stupid or evil or crazy or extreme,” he said. “Sadly, most media players are not actual, objective journalists. They're active partisan players.”

He called reporters “the praetorian guard protecting the Obama administration” now gearing up to campaign for Hillary Clinton.

Cruz said he had not attended a gay “marriage” ceremony but made no commitments about the future.

“Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance,” he said. “I have not had a loved one have a gay wedding. You know, at the end of the day, what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities. So they say, 'Gosh, any conservative must hate gays.'”

The Texas senator said that he is a conservative Christian and also “a constitutionalist.”

“What we’ve seen in recent years from the Left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”

“And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does,” he said.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lesbian teacher Pam Strong teaches a classroom of elementary students at Ellengale Public School on Day of Pink in 2012. http://etfovoice.ca
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay ‘marriage’, starting at 4-years-old

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
Some of the pro-gay children's books Strong uses with her students. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
The chart Strong uses to show her students that same-sex partnerships are the same as male-female families. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews

TORONTO, April 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A primary grade lesbian teacher from an Ontario public school revealed in a workshop at a homosexual activist conference for teachers earlier this month how she uses her classroom to convince children as young as four to accept homosexual relationships.

“And I started in Kindergarten. What a great place to start. It was where I was teaching. So, I was the most comfortable there,” Pam Strong said at the conference, attended by LifeSiteNews.

The conference, hosted by the homosexual activist organization Jer’s Vision, now called the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, focused on the implementation of Bill 13 in Ontario classrooms. Bill 13, called by critics the ‘homosexual bill of rights,’ passed in June 2012 and gave students the right to form pro-gay clubs in their school, including Catholic ones, using the name Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA).

Strong, who is in an open relationship with another woman and who has been a teacher for about five years, focused her workshop on what she called the “power of conversation” for promoting LGBTQ issues in an elementary classroom. She began her talk by relating how she reacted the first time one of her students called another student ‘gay’ as a putdown.

“With [the principal’s] encouragement, we decided that I would go from class to class and talk about what ‘gay’ means, what does ‘LGBTQ’ mean, what do ‘I’ mean,” she told about 40 attendees, all educators, at her workshop.

Strong related how she began with the junior kindergarten class.

“And I read a [pro-gay child’s] book [King and King], and I started to realize that conversations can be very difficult, and they can have the most power when they are the most difficult.”

“But difficult conversations are a part of what we do as teachers, right? And when these conversations are properly supported by teachers within the safety of the classroom, they provide a rich environment for our students as they unpack these complex social issues and they reflect on their own preconceptions, right, of gender, sexuality, love, all these different things,” she said.

Strong related that as she was reading “King and King” in the junior kindergarten class as a springboard to discuss her sexuality with the kids, she got to the part where the two princes become ‘married’ when one of the boys suddenly shouted out: “They can’t do that! They can’t get married. They’re two boys.”

Recounted Strong: “And I said, ‘Oh, yeah, yeah, they can. It’s right here on page 12.”

To which the boy replied, according to Strong: “Oh, yeah, I know Mrs. Strong, but that’s just a story. That’s not real life.”

“And I said: ‘It happens in real life too. I am married to a woman. I am gay. And I am in love with my wife.”

Strong said the young children “just all kind of went silent.” She then told them: “That may seem different to you, how many of you have heard of that before?”

“Not one hand went up,” she related. “And so I said: ‘That may seem different to you, but we’re not that different. Would you like to know about what I do with my family?”

“Yeah, tell us,” she recounted the children enthusiastically saying. 

“I said, you know, we take our kids to the park. I swing them on swings,” she related, telling conference attendees that she could share things she did with her own children that “mostly likely all of their families did with them.”

Then she told the children: “We laugh together. We go grocery shopping together. I read to them. I tickle them, sometimes until they scream and laugh and when they cry, I hug them until they stop.” 

Strong said that at that point, the boy who had used the word ‘gay’ looked and her and said: “Well, you’re a family.”

“And I said, yeah, we are,” she related. “And off I go to the next classroom.”

Strong said that she went from “class to class to class and continued with these conversations, and they were very powerful.”

‘It’s normal in my classroom’

Strong related an incident that happened last fall involving a new boy who had recently entered her grade 5 classroom. The new boy had not yet been made aware of Strong’s sexual preference for other women.

“All my class is very used to who I am. My family picture is very proudly in my room now. On Mondays they quite often will say, ‘What did you do with your wife?’ It’s normal in my classroom.”

Strong said that a conversation between herself and the students came up one day where it was mentioned that she was a lesbian. The new boy put his hands over his mouth and said, according to Strong: “Oh, my God, I think I’m going to puke.”

“As I took the abuse — personally, as an individual – of those words, I also saw half of my class look at me with incredible concern. One student who was right in front of me already had tears in her eyes. And I noticed several other students who were looking at him. They were just very, very upset with this kid,” she related.

Strong said the boy instantly became aware that “something he had said had just created this unbelievable tension in the room.” She related how she addressed the boy, telling him: “I think that what you might not be aware of is that I am gay, and I am married to a woman, and my family has two moms.’”

“His eyes just started darting around, and he was incredibly uncomfortable,” she related.

“I looked at the other kids and I said: ‘Ok guys, what I want to ask you is: Am I upset with him?’ And the one little girl in my class put up her hand — that doesn’t usually get into these conversations very much in my classroom — and she said, ‘Mrs Strong, I know you’re not upset with him, because he hasn’t had the benefit of our conversations.”

“And I looked at my little friend, my ‘new’ friend, and I said: ‘But, we’re going to have one now,’” she related.

Strong said that she then directed her class to the board and asked them to write everything she had told them related to LGBTQ.

“And my class all of a sudden popped up. ‘LGBTQ’ was on the board, ‘lesbian,’ and all the different words coming out there. And I sat back and said, ‘Let’s review.’ So, the last year and a half of ‘inclusive’ education came alive in my classroom.”

Strong told her workshop attendees that her “new little friend” is now a devoted champion of diversity. She boasted how he was the one in her class to count down the days to the pro-homosexual Day of Pink that took place earlier this month. When Strong took a photo of all the children wearing pink shirts in her classroom, she said the boy requested to be in the front.

“For me, that is the power of conversations. That’s the power of sharing our stories,” she said.

LGBTQ classroom ‘conversation starters’

Strong called it “key” to develop a “positive classroom culture” — and she mentioned it often takes months — before getting into what she called “difficult conversations” with students about convincing students of the normality of her sexual preference for women.

She mentioned how she spends time “building a common vocabulary” in her classroom of words like “stereotype, prejudice, discrimination” so her students will be able to more readily conform to her pro-LGBTQ message.

“Sometimes with these big ideas there are also very big words that are very hard to understand. I find that whether it’s kindergarten, right up to grade six, visuals help a lot,” she said.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

The lesbian teacher has amassed a collection of “conversation starters” that she says helps get her started when presenting to her students the LGBTQ message. She said pro-gay children’s books are one of her favorites.

“I use current events, news articles, advertisement are great for gender, especially with Kindergarten kids, pink and girl toys and all the rest of it. Commercials are great, I use one right now, the Honey Maid commercial.” The 2014 “Dad & Papa" commercial depicts two male same-sex partners engaging with their children in normal family activities such as making s’mores, eating dinner around the table, and walking in the park.

Strong says she watches the commercial with her students up to three times, asking them to make a list of all the similarities between the gay-partnership and their own families.

“Of course they think it’s going to be so different, [that] this family is going to be so different,” she said.

Strong said the kids notice dozens of similarities, but usually only one difference, namely that the commercial has “two dads.” Other than this, she said the students “could not find one thing in that commercial that was different than their own families.” In this way she convinces the kids that a gay-partnership is identical to a family made up of a male and female. Strong called it a “fantastic lesson for kids of all ages.”

“There was nothing left for me to teach at the end of it. It was a huge learning for some kids,” she said.

‘Recruiting children? You bet we are’

Though homosexual activists their efforts in the schools as a way of combatting bullying, a number of homosexual activists have highlighted that the movement’s goal is in fact to “indoctrinate” children into accepting the normalcy of the homosexual lifestyle.

“I am here to tell you: All that time I said I wasn't indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie,” wrote Canadian gay activist Sason Bear Bergman, a woman who identifies as a transgender man, in a March 2015 piece titled “I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I'm Not a Bit Sorry).” Bergman holds nothing back, stating she wants to make children “like us” even if that “goes against the way you have interpreted the teachings of your religion.”

In 2011 U.S. gay activist Daniel Villarreal penned a column for Queerty.com stating that the time had come for the homosexual lobby to admit to “indoctrinating” schoolchildren to accept homosexuality.

“Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

“We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. Recruiting children? You bet we are,” he added.

Homosexual activist Michael Swift wrote in 1987 in the Gay Community News that school children would become explicit targets for homosexual indoctrination. “We shall seduce them in your schools…They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us,” he wrote at the time. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook