David versus the Bolsheviks: The Battle of Lexington Green in the Year 2005

On April 27th of this year, the heavy hand of Bolshevism clamped down upon David Parker, a Lexington, MA. citizen and father of a six year old son. David was arrested on trumped up charges, handcuffed like a dangerous felon, and led off to jail. His heinous crime? Parker is guilty of being a morally principled man with the courage to request that he and his wife be given advance notification when issues of sexual unnaturalness and perversion (transgenderism, sodomy, and same-sex headed relationships) were going to be discussed in his son's classroom. Said Parker, "certain authorities insist that I agree that my children must be taught that gay relationships and transgender transformation are acceptable and normal. When I firmly, albeit patiently, objected and then finally insisted to be notified when and how my own children were to be exposed to these issues, I was arrested and hauled off to jail." Freedom of conscience has been made a hate-crime in Massachusetts.

Among the communist goals listed on the Congressional Record—Current Communist Goals (pp. A34-A35, Jan. 10, 1963) are these: 17) Get control of the schools…use as transmission belts for socialism, 25) Break down cultural standards of morality, 26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as 'normal, natural, healthy."

These goals are affirmed by the Communist Textbook of Psychopolitics. It is written, "Degradation and conquest are companions. In order to be conquered a nation must be degraded. By attacking the character and morals…by bringing about contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling (will facilitate) command of the population."

Lexington Bolshevik commissars are actualizing invidiously evil stratagems devised to effectuate moral decay and collapse within America. In their capacity as school board officials and as teachers, they are spreading propaganda designed to "destroy the home." By "creating continuous juvenile delinquency, forcing upon the state all manner of practices to divorce the child from it (the family) will in the end create the chaos necessary to Communism. Creating a greed for drugs, sexual misbehavior and uncontrolled freedom (will) bring about our alignment." (Communist Textbook of Psychopolitics)

David Parker, a morally principled man, devoted father, and courageous dissident of their evil devices has been stamped: "Enemy of the State."

In a speech before his supporters, Parker stated, "I stand before you banned from attending my son's first day of school…banned from voting, teacher-parent conferences and school committee meetings. The Lexington school administration demands that I ask permission for these rights. What free U.S. citizen must ask for permission to vote, or to be in the presence of his son? The school administration…is attempting to put themselves in the role as parents."

Facing off against Parker and his supporters was a malevolence-fueled rabble gathered together to spit and spew venom. Among the venomous hissing snakes were commissars Helen Cohen, Chairman of the Lexington School Committee; Tom Griffiths, a School Committee member; and Jeanne Kreiger, member of the Lexington Board of Selectmen. Also in attendance were three Marxist 'liberation theology' preachers: Rabbi Howard Jaffe of Temple Isaiah, Rev. Judy Brain, Pastor of Pilgrim Congregational Church, and Rev. Bill Clark, Senior Pastor of the First Unitarian Parish in Lexington. (Article8.org)

Of the venom-spewing rabble, one witness commented, "You could see the look in their eyes, even the kids. It was eerie. They really can't stand us, as if we're polluting their town just by being here." (Article8.org)

In speaking of commissars, Balint Vazsonyi (America's Thirty Years War) observed that, "commissars of 'social justice' demand conformity in our most private thoughts, our innermost sentiments. Conformity—not only to their failed theories, but to their every whim."

"In the predawn light of April 19 (1775), the beating drums and peeling bells summoned between thirty and fifty militiamen to the town green of Lexington. As they lined up in battle formation the distant sound of marching feet and shouted orders alerted them of the Redcoats approach. The British troops approached…rapidly in platoons…a general officer on horseback at their head. The officer came up to within about two rods of the centre of the company…swung his sword, and said, "Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!" Thus began the "confrontation that would launch a nation." (EyeWitnessToHistory.com)

David Parker has been ordered to 'lay down his arms' and surrender. But he, a valiant modern-day Paul Revere, not only cried out the alarm, but courageously fired the first volley, so to speak, when he bravely vowed:

"Let the call go forth from Lexington, across Massachusetts, and throughout the United States to the world - Parents stand your ground!

But if they mean to have a war over parental rights, Battling for the hearts and minds of our children,

And with regard to the Lexington School administration banning a father's will and presence from all schools,

No powers or principalities on this earth or beyond shall separate the Father from his Son!"

David Parker has sounded the battle cry. Now it's time for all good men to unite and join the fight, for as Edmund Burke cautioned, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

About the writer: Linda Kimball is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on politics, culture, and worldview.

You claim that I am "lying" because I stated that you are supporting the homosexual agenda.

I can only laugh. I can't believe you are serious. It's obvious to anyone reading this thread what you are supporting.

I am talking about Catholic teachings, not perverts who live within its hierarchy and abuse their power.

Where have I invoked God's wrath? I merely made statements about the dangers of flouting natural law.

You think the Catholic Church has done some damage over the years? Nothing that approaches the death and destruction caused by the abortion industry, Communism, or Nazism - none of which is founded on any religious belief but in fact the opposite.

If you want to bring up religion (which you keep doing), many priests and members of other Christian denominations performed great personal deeds of sacrifice and mercy during the Third Reich. Every religion has had its saints as well as wolves who wear sheeps' clothing. The fault is not with God, the fault is with those who wear religion as a cloak to further their own nefarious ends.

You think the Catholic Church has done some damage over the years? Nothing that approaches the death and destruction caused by the abortion industry, Communism, or Nazism - none of which is founded on any religious belief but in fact the opposite

I wasn't the one who was defending vehemently abortion, communism or nazism. I merely pointed out that the Church had done its share of damage over the centuries.

If you want to bring up religion (which you keep doing), many priests and members of other Christian denominations performed great personal deeds of sacrifice and mercy during the Third Reich

Actually, if you will go back and read the thread, I didn't bring up religion at all. You and your helpers did that. I merely said questioned what Parker had done, and all the religion I could handle was stuffed down my throat. And of course Catholics did things besides provide support for Hitler. But what most fundies refuse to acknowledge is the other side of the coin.

As for my support of the homosexual agenda, please other than a generalization, tell me what I said that indicates that.

Folks, it's been real, and it's been fun, but it's ain't been real fun. We're just delving into insults, religious intolerance, homosexuality in general, and a host of other things having nothing to do with the pros and cons of Mr. Parker's actions. A few months ago, I had an excellent and in-depth discussion with another fundamentalist Catholic. We covered the issues in Europe, Catholic history, judicial appointments and a few other areas. In all of about 2 months worth of exchanges, not one insult was ever given. But he was an intelligent and thoughtful person. We disagreed completely on a number of areas, but both of us added much to the dialogue. You folks haven't the desire or capacity for such dialogue without a continuing barrage of insults, innuendo and otherwise ad-hominem attacks.

Free Republic should be for the exchange of ideas, not for what this thread has become. I take part of the blame for continuing with the responses, rather than letting it drop. But I truly wanted to know why Parker would throw so much away, and I suspect I will never know.

Little, I thought you capable of reasoned debate, until your little torpedo. That did anger me. I apologize for a couple of statements, as they were unwarranted, but most weren't. In any case, I will not stay on a useless thread like this any more. Too many good people on FR and too many good issues.

God bless and have a nice day.

I think you were angry before that.

The point that I think you can't seem to grasp is that the acceptance of homosexual behavior as a normal variant of human sexuality is tantamount to its promotion.

Years ago homosexuals were pretty much tolerated by those who knew them. They didn't have parades, they didn't have clubs in middle schools, they didn't have faux marriages, they didn't adopt kids or have them by turkey basting ceremonies. They stayed in the closet, and some people knew of their proclivities and tolerated their errant behavior.

But that was then, and this is now. It is the homosexual agenda with all that that implies that many of us are intolerant of. Children need to be protected from homosexual indoctrination, and the truth needs to be able to be told - that homosexuals can change, if they want to - and become free from the impairment or dysfunction. It isn't healthy or natural or normal.

I do not hate homosexual individuals, and I sincerely doubt that the others posting here do either. But I do hate the imposition of the highly destructive "gay" agenda on the public, especially in schools. Homosexual activists have foisted "sensitivity training", forced hiring, forced toleration of cross dressers, transsexuals, transvestites and the like, homosexual adoption and foster parenting, and on and on. This is nothing more than forcing immorality on the public, primarily by judicial activism hand in glove with homosexual activists.

If homosexuals actually had a "live and let live" attitude, so would we.

BTW, they aren't my assistants - I'm just a little chihuahua!

Peace be upon you, and I sincerely hope that you re-think your position. You are in essence supporting the "gay" agenda by your attitude. It is the poster child for the destruction of the family, which means the destruction of civilized society.

It is a free country and you are welcome to your opinion -however, on FR some opinions are not welcome. I do not think your 'opinion' -in essence, whining and negative critique of tactics employed in this case rise to the level of complete morally liberal trollishness unless one might possibly consider what you omit from your numerous statements or the fact that you appear to be whining quite much in liberalesque fashion...

You have posted several mouthfuls YET I can not ascertain whether or not you support the parent's cause regardless the supposedly bad tactics you harp on or intent you repeatedly attempt to skewer?

Maybe you could contribute in someway positive unless you simply enjoy pooping on others efforts? There is a saying that has been around forever seems -- Lead, Follow, or get out of the way...

This radical religious right guy suggests you take your non contribution to this effort elsewhere e.g. get out of the way...

It is a free country and you are welcome to your opinion -however, on FR some opinions are not welcome.

Let's not call it FR, let's call it the cave of the radical right, as you people have little to do with FR. And those unwelcome opinions seem to be anything contrary to the word as laid down by you folks on this thread. And you are free to punch the abuse button any time you like.

You have posted several mouthfuls YET I can not ascertain whether or not you support the parent's cause regardless the supposedly bad tactics you harp on or intent you repeatedly attempt to skewer?

Then try reading a few more posts. But you are typical of several others here. You don't like the message, so instead of a reasoned and intelligent response, you simply attack the messenger and move the subject away from the one that will embarrass you.

Maybe you could contribute in someway positive unless you simply enjoy pooping on others efforts? There is a saying that has been around forever seems -- Lead, Follow, or get out of the way...

When and if you show any efforts here, I'll consider pooping on them. And I will continue to poop on Parker and the school. As for leading, etc., in your case, getting out of the way is likely the best approach.

This radical religious right guy suggests you take your non contribution to this effort elsewhere e.g. get out of the way...

And this conservative says for you to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Many here find your politics fundamentally foolish. I know I do.

You constantly parade your contempt of Biblical Christianity in utter ignorance of the fact that absent a traditional, religious culture you cannot have conservatism (the conservative revolution in America began when the Christian Right displaced the Rockefeller Republicans for control of the GOP). A permissive, individualist culture that accepts open deviance will be too self-centered to make the sacrifices required to have more than 2 children. Look at Europe. Look at knowledge workers in America. It is religious people who actually have large families, whom sodomites sneeringly call "breeders".

A society of 2 child families will of necessity demand that the state take care of its elderly and look after it sick. It cannot do these things for itself. Only a traditional, religious culture of 5+ child families, only a culture dominated by the "radical religious right" will not need government programs to nurse its members through sickness and decrepitude. As families got smaller, the state got bigger. The totally secular European right has no agenda of even trying to restore a traditional religious culture so it can do nothing to challenge or roll back the welfare state. Britain is approaching underclass ghetto levels of illegitimacy. A country in which the state is father to millions of children, a culture in which traditional religious attitudes towards promiscuity and illegitimacy have collapsed completely, can never be conservative.

There is no such thing as secular conservatism. There can be no conservatism in a culture without duty, deferred gratification, faith, respect for authority, and family. Look at Europe.

Let's not call it FR, let's call it the cave of the radical right, as you people have little to do with FR.

Your attempts to demonize and impugn the character of those who disagree with you is noted -it is a strategy doomed to failure as attested to by the those of the now politically impotent far left -those that would support by either direct action or indirect moral relative equivocation the efforts against a parents unalienable right to teach his child absolute Christian based morality, teach his child that homosexuals are disordered and merit just discrimination, and teach his child that the homosexual 'lifestyle' is but a depraved death style.

I do not have to like your message -in some cases, e.g. your disdain for the religious "far right", your message is not welcome and not necessarily one required to be tolerated...

As far as FR being a cave -I prefer to consider those that think religion has no place in public discourse to be the cave dwellers as it is only in darkness that they can promulgate their moral relative nonsense -I consider FR as just what the founder considered it and still considers it:

What Free Republic is all about:

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Your attempts to demonize and impugn the character of those who disagree with you is noted

Are you sure your on the right thread? Apparently you did not take my advice and read the entire thread. I disagreed with Parker's actions and for that I was called every name in the book. I was insulted, defamed, lied about, and in your words demonized. So when I finally return the compliments, I am demonizing and impugning the character of those who disagree with me? Cute!

it is a strategy doomed to failure as attested to by the those of the now politically impotent far left

I couldn't agree more with you. I stated that a number of times on this thread that such attacks on me were equivalent to those tactics used by the left.

those that would support by either direct action or indirect moral relative equivocation the efforts against a parents unalienable right to teach his child absolute Christian based morality, teach his child that homosexuals are disordered and merit just discrimination, and teach his child that the homosexual 'lifestyle' is but a depraved death style.

Once again I agree with you. Any parent has both the right and the obligation to provide guidance to his children. And once again, if you had actually read the thread you would have seen how many times I suggested just that. All of Parker's woes would have never happened if he had simply provided such guidance to his children. It's what most parents would have done. But Parker had other motivations in mind, not what you describe as teaching his children. You know it, and so do the others on this thread. None of you is stupid, but I suppose it's any port in a storm with respect to the campaign against homosexuality. Parker screwed up big time, but he has your full support nonetheless. Hope his kids appreciate him. They're the ones paying the tab for this one.

I do not have to like your message -in some cases, e.g. your disdain for the religious "far right", your message is not welcome and not necessarily one required to be tolerated...

I never asked you to like my message. I really don't care. As I indicated to you and others, you know where the abuse button is. Don't threaten me again.

This is scary. I completely agree with everything you said, except for FR being a cave. That cave belongs to the intolerant extremists who will do anything at all to stop dialog such as I offered on this thread. Religion has every right and place in the public discourse. But when a bunch of whacked out extremists try to stop that discourse such as here on this thread, it is they who live in the cave.

BTW, when you posted JimRob's statement, you forgot something:

Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.

You needn't tell me about the virtues of Free Republic. I support it in many ways. I promote it whenever I can. But like any successful venture, and JimRob's is the most successful of its kind, it's bound to attract radicals who would rather preach than dialog. It's simply the price of success.

So if I am a liberal troll, please, let JimRob know immediately, because if the conservatism I have made a part of my adult life has now taken on the mantle of the intolerant, radical religious right, color me liberal. But if, on the other hand, you can actually defend Parker with some semblance of logic and reasoned perspicuity, as opposed to simply launching salvos of insults, then by all means proceed. Because so far, you and a few others here have attempted to simply make me the issue, and keep away from any attempt to defend the specific actions of Parker....or the school. Have a good day.

I have not attempted to make you the issue -I pointed out what the issues I had WITH your postings were -you responded to all...

No, you pointed out that I was a liberal troll. You threatened me with expulsion from FR. You never actually read the thread, or even considered the issues. If 3 or 4 other fundies thought I was Satan, who were you to question such God inspired judgments?

I suggest you drop the "radical religious right" victimhood strategy as well... If you got a problem with a specific poster -deal with them rather that allude or imply this or that in Don Quixotesque fashion -those "radical religious right" windmills are quite elusive.

I suggest you drop the "liberal trollishness" strategy of attacking those who may disagree with you. And once again, try reading the posts. I dealt with each of those attacking me specifically, including you. People like you can only join in on a piling on, just as you did, without reading the entire thread. You made a mistake, and now simply wish to cover it up. A good defense is manifested in a good offense huh? And by the way, you referred to yourself as a radical rightwinger. Check out post 82!

Believe me, I'm no victim. The only victims in today's society are those whose minds are too closed to permit even the slightest ray of light in. The only victims here were the children. That includes the children of Parker, and the child of the lesbian parents.

What was it that Goldwater said about moderation? (Notwithstanding he got it wrong about homosexuality later in life... He wasn't perfect, after all.)

The bottom line is that "toleration" and "acceptance" of homosexuality is tantamount to its promotion. That is what we are objecting to. Homosexual promoters do not deserve a place at the table. Their opinions, voices, ideology and plans do not deserve acceptance, inclusion or consideration. Anyone whos says they do is either part of the problem or just plain ignorant. Anyone who peruses FR has no excuse to remain ignorant.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~scripter/index

If anyone doesn't know much about the "gay" agenda, click the link and spend a good amount of time reading. Shine the light of truth on it, become informed, and you'll see why appeasing homosexual actvists is like like Neville Chamberlain's successful diplomacy with Hitler.

Not liking someone's tone and focusing on that takes away the focus on the message, which is the more important of the two.

Don't even pretend to be a conservative because there is no such thing as pro-deviant "conservatism".

Well sir, I've asked before to please point out my posts identifying me as pro-deviant. But like your bud Cindy Sheehan, you think just hurling insults and labels makes it so. You can't stand on your own, so you ping all of your pile-on buds, hoping they will help you out of the corner you've painted yourself in. You can't conceivably discuss the real issue, but you are good at changing the subject and demeaning the messenger, heaping invectives and opprobrium on anyone who believes the children should not have been the pawns here.

As for conservatism, please don't even begin to lay claim to that philosophy. You and your ilk are no more conservative than your friends at DU. Extremist religious philosophies such as those all to frequently seen here and radical Islam have far more in common than you do with conservatism. Most here don't want to go back to the days of the "Holy" inquisitions any more than they do the days of Mohammad.

That means what people are actually prepared to vote on. Because those strongly opposed to bugchaser marriage outnumber those strongly supportive by four to one, that means taking a pro-bugchaser marriage position will cost you votes but not get you any.

I hope you're right, but you can't ignore the changes made in our culture over the past 50 years. If you're arguing the merits of either the gay lifestyle or gay marriage, you are simply preaching to the choir. If you are arguing the realities of the changes in both American and worldwide tolerance over gays and lesbians in society, then you are simply blind to reality. Picking and choosing which polls to accept based on your specific religious beliefs is a tad disingenuous, to say the least. Accept them or reject them, but basing your entire religious philosophy on one poll is fatuous at best.

MACVSOG68, my "religious philosophy" has nothing to do with any poll, which is why it was ridiculous of you to start spouting polls in the first place. Bible believing Christians (the only kind, really) understand that God's commandments do not hinge on popularity polls (and if you aren't a Bible believing Christian you will either stop attending church regularly or your children will never start). "Abomination" means "abomination" no matter how many UCC, Episcopalian, or Unitarian Universalist types disagree. Just because there are people who choose sin and evil does not change God's laws.

The only use of polls is to demonstrate that for the GOP to go soft on bugchaser marriage would demoralize its most passionate constituency and get in return nothing. It would also throw away the best opportunity for the GOP to reach out to Black Americans in the last half century. As the Democrats are increasingly dominated by your "So many Christians, so few lions" types they will and indeed are hemorrhaging Black support that they need desparately. The deviants are completely willing to run the Democratic Party into the ground rather than loosen their grip. All the GOP needs is 20% of the Black vote and the Democrats will never elect another president.

You are trying to move away from your earlier spouting of polls now that I have pointed out to you that you are repeating Wilson and Specter's mistakes when they saw polls stating that many Republicans were pro-choice. They assumed, as you did, that there was equal intensity of committment on both sides. Wilson, Specter, and McCain found out real fast what happens when you chase the elusive "moderate" vote and try to run against the Christian Right.

And on this so-called "acceptance" of deviance you have been answered many times. There has always been tacit tolerance of the "confirmed bachelor" so long as he didn't camp it up or rub his "lifestyle" in everyone's face. All else is Hollywood trying to impose its bohemian values on normal Americans and the bluest of blue cities becoming more and more single empty nesters as normal families leave. If the "acceptance" you talk about actually existed, "Alexander" would have actually made money. "Brokeback Mountain" isn't going to make a dime outside of the biggest cities. And if it is nominated for Academy Awards, as I think a deviant friendly Hollywood will, expect the lowest rated Academy Awards in television history.

This is important. You state:

"If you are arguing the realities of the changes in both American and worldwide tolerance over gays and lesbians in society, then you are simply blind to reality."

The fact that homosexual activists, feminists (but I repeat myself) and those who promoted secularist, hedonist destruction of traditional sexual morality have made inroads over the last couple of generations tells me to fight harder, and tells you to surrender and wave the white flag.

I wonder why.

You claim that you do not support the homosexual agenda. I can only compare your "non-support" to leftists such as the "women in black" and others who are against the war in Iraq. They may claim that they aren't supporters of the Saddam regime, but they are. I hope you see the sense in that.

Your vituperation is leveled against those who are fighting the homosexual agenda, not at those who are promoting "gay" sex in schools. You stated that GLSEN (and I posted plenty of links so anyone who doesn't know what they do in public schools across the country can easily find out) is morally equivalent to David Parker, who is trying to protect his child from "gay" indoctrination.

You claim his efforts are merely grandstanding and publicity hounding.

Do you consider that Rosa Parks was grandstanding? She admitted that her refusal to move was in reality an activist tactic. Does this make her wrong in your eyes? According to your logic, she is wrong, just as wrong as David Parker.

Unless you think that the "gay" agenda promoters should be in public schools.

Here's a letter from a Bishop in Canada about this exact same topic. In this particular case, the school did not want to have to use the pro-"gay" book, but the Canadian Supreme Court refused the case, so the school lost.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1493778/posts?page=1

***Bishop Henry adds the example of Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, where the Supreme Court refused a school board’s attempt to deny use of a kindergarten text that included positive portrayals of same-sex families. “The refusal was on the basis that a significant number of parents and others in the school district would consider them to be incompatible or inconsistent with their moral and religious beliefs on same-sex relationships,” the bishop explained. “The case marked a significant moment in the debate about parental rights in education.”

BC Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote in her opinion, “Parental views, however, important, cannot override the imperative placed upon the British Columbia public schools to mirror the diversity of the community and teach tolerance and understanding of difference.”

Read the whole letter. He explains precisely how "tolerance
and "non-discrimination" lead to discrimination of those who do not want homosexuality promoted in schools (or elsewhere).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.