Posted on 06/10/2004 11:04:08 AM PDT by NYer
Edited on 06/10/2004 12:20:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
SAN DIEGO (AP) - Late in the day, when most others have cleared the course of rolling hills and serene lakes, B. Birgit Koebke, golfs alone at her country club. If a group happens to be ahead of her, they no longer allow her to play through.
"I just sit there and wait," she says. "They've made it impossible for me to enjoy the club."
Koebke, a 47-year-old television sales executive, is a longtime member of the Bernardo Heights Country Club. She is also lesbian, and her extended drive to win club golfing privileges for her partner of 12 years, Kendall French, has left few members willing to play with her.
Koebke hopes the California Supreme Court will hear her argument that the state's civil rights laws should require the club to give French, her state-registered domestic partner, the same benefits given to spouses.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
No group should be protected as far as membership in a private club goes.
Private is private----period!
What the heck, just for those who didn't take the time to click the link, here is the summary of "After the Ball" with comments:
Although homosexual propaganda has been around for 50 years, the current campaign started in 1989 with a very popular book within the homosexual community called: “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This very popular book within the homosexual community makes a passionate argument that homosexual activists should implement an organized propaganda campaign to change public opinion to gain public acceptance to their behavior and obtain special rights, benefits, and privileges. Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with them are “bigots, haters, or ignorants”, and therefore activists can and should justifiably employ any tactic possible, including mass deceit, lying, slander, maliciousness, intimidation, violence, etc.
Although many activists initially condemned this approach at first in public, remaining hold outs have jumped on board after benefitting from the success of the propaganda campaign. The following are exerpts taken from “After The Ball.” These strategies, tactics, and techniques have been and are currently employed by most homosexual activist groups, as verified by their well documented trail.
1) The homosexual agenda can succeed by conversion of the average Americans emotions, mind, and will, through, a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda to the nation via media (page 153);
2) “Propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation that upon logic, since its goal is to bring about public change” (page 162);
3) Propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided, there is nothing wrong with this (page 163);
4) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “desensitization” achieved by lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level of sheer indifference (page 153);
5) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “jamming” and “confusing” adversaries, so as to block or counteract the “rewarding of prejudice” (page 153);
6) “Heterosexuals dislike homosexuals on fundamentally emotional, not intellectual grounds” (page 166)
7) “Desensitizing” is “our recipe” for converting “ambivalent skeptics”;
8) Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them (page 221);
9) The Nazi story of “pink triangle as a symbol of victimization” should be a sufficient opening wedge into the vilification of our enemies (page 190);
10) Show grisly victimization of gays and demand that readers identify themselves with either social tolerance or gruesome cruelty;
11) Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
12) Jam people by pointing out that it’s inconsistent with the reader’s belief in the value of love between individuals (page 233);
13) AIDS epidemic should be exploited “to increase attention and sympathy” as “victimized minority.”(page xxv)
14) “We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence” (page 184);
15) “Muddy the moral waters”, that is, to undercut the rationalization that justify religious opposition… this entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections” (page 179);
16) Portray opposing churches “as antiquated backwaters”, badly out of step with the time and with the latest findings of psychology (page 179);
17) Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235);
18) The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome (page 178);
19) All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in “Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice” (page 112)
20) It is acceptible to call people “Homophobic” or “Homohaters” if they do not agree 100% with homosexual views, opinions, or behavior. (page xxiii)
21) A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
22) Show others accepting gays and homosexuals (page 241);
23) Heterosexuals are like Aryans and people who are against homosexual behavior are “Nazis” and “Clansman”.
24) Homosexual persecution is identical to Jewish persecution (page 57, 62, );
25) Homosexual persecution is identical racial prejudice to Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (inferring inborn) (page 62, 73);
26) All scientific/medical arguments to prevent 1973 APA/AMA removal from disorder list were rooted in cultural prejudice, medieval knowledge of science/medicine, and misinformation.
27) “Two-thirds of all boys” have rudimentary homosexual experiences (inferring most teenagers want to have homosexual sex) (page 44)
28) “Vast majority” of homosexuals do not engage in compulsive high-risk sex (page 49)
29) American opposition is based solely on prejudiced, outdated, and hypocritical Victorian morals (page 51)
30) All homosexually suicides are based entirely on societal rejection (page xv)
31) All sexual morality should be abolished (pages 64 to 67);
32) Homosexual civil rights are “explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights”;
33) Health concerns for AIDS prevention are unwarranted (page 91)
34) Opposition to homosexual marriages is based on “family nostalgia” and “sexual guilt” based on religious/Victorian values (page 92)
35) Adoption agencies have been “placing kids with gay people for a long time,” as long as “you do not bring up” the fact that your gay;
36) “Kids in gay households ultimately receive better-than-average parenting” (page 97)
37) All speech that is opposing homosexual behavior should be banned under “clear and present danger to public order” (page 101)
38) All and any news or media coverage that is presents homosexual in negative form is prejudiced and invalid (page 54);
39) Everyone comes out must be prepped by a media campaign carefully crafted, repeatedly displayed mass-media images of gays (page 169);
40) “Gay activists have tried to manipulate the American judicial system.” Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which side step the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain rights (page 171);
41) “Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert on an emotional level” (page 173);
42) “Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and sponsors” (page 173);
43) “Ambivalent skeptics” are our most promising targets (page 176)…
44) Associate gay cause with “talk about racism, sexism, militarism, poverty, and all the conditions that oppress the unempowered.” (page 181)
45) Project gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers (page 183);
46) “Mustachioed leather men, drag queens, and bull dykes” should not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations (until later after wide acceptance) (page 183);
47) Groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in the medioa campaign (page 184);
48) Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice…graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation… (page 185);
49) In time we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image (i.e., drag queens, pedophiles, etc.) (page 186);
50) Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188)
51) In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique” (page 190);
51) The media campaign will reach straights on an emotional level, casting gays as society’s victims and inviting straights to be their protectors (page 187);
52) We like television because it’s the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message (page 201)
53) Over the long-term, “television and magazines” are probably the media of choice (page 204);
54) Ads must manage to get the word gay into the headline or tagline (page 207);
55) Each message should tap public sentiment, patriotic, or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachable agreeable proposition into the mainstreams head (page 208);
56) Several years down the road, our tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to mainstream media (page 213);
57) Associate and link gays to good causes and non-controversial activities (page 219);
58) The more people who appear to practice homosexuality, and the more innate it appears to be, the less abnormal and objectionable, and the more legitimate it will seem (which is why it is important to maintain claims to 10% of the population)(page 217)
59) Stage candid interviews with gays who appear as solid citizens. Subjects in commercials should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers (for now) (page 247);
60) Most people derive their impressions of the world through the national media (page 250);
61) It will be a sheer delight to besmirch our tormentors, we cannot waste our resources on revenge alone (page 189);
62) “Too many Americans share this mistrust of gay citizens” (page 55);
It is so outrageous and evil what homosexual activists are up to, one does not know where to start. One does not know who to feel sorriest and embarrassed for: the "ambivalent skeptic" who could care less if they were being desensitized, manipulated, and used; reporters and media officials who fail to expose such fraud and fail in their jobs as public care takers of the truth; public officials who are afraid to stand up to these activists out of fear of reprisal; the parents of the children who are apathetic and indifferent and allow their children to be desensitized, manipulated, and reprogrammed; or the homosexual activists who preach of “gays having virtue and honesty” while actively participating in on-going “hate campaigns.”
Does the ends justify the means? Should any group in society be able to get away with such audacity and corruptness
1 posted on 12/23/2003 1:00:41 PM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
More power to them!
When properly riled, then plans of action are next. There's a freeper in, of all liberal spots on the globe, Rhode Island. Starting all by himself, he is organizing a rally to support marriage and there's a thread about it. Freepers living nearby are planning to come and help, and there's been discussions about signs, how to promote it, and so on.
There's this thread (kind of ongoing, been slow lately) to toss ideas back and forth - kind of brainstorm, about what we as individuals can do to fight against the takeover by the homonazis:
What We Can Do To Defeat the Homosexual Agenda
http://www.abidingtruth.com/index.php?viewmode=resources
Even convincing a few people around you of the truth is a huge shot in the right direction. Say you help 2 or 3 people understand the dangers and real goals of the homo-radicals (as partially outlined in the above post), and they each influence 2 or 3 people, and THEY each etc etc.
Ummmmmm, methinks this rag's playing games, here.
Rag makes it sound as if no one will play with the rug muncher BECAUSE of her "drive to win golfing privleges..." yadayadayada when in truth, no one wants to play with her, period.
Of course that'd be wayyyyy too honest & insensitive but worst of all?
It would not advance the agenda, ehhhh?
"Koebke hopes the California Supreme Court will hear her argument that the state's civil rights laws should require the club to give French, her state-registered domestic partner, the same benefits given to spouses."
Well then, to hell with "Freedom of Association" then because it's the infamous -- albeit hyper-activist -- CSC to the rescue!!
...I could just puke.
It's called "Thought Crimes" - she wants it considered a crime to NOT WANT TO HANG OUT WITH HOMOSEXUALS!
Uh-huh.
You got it then when I mentioned "Freedom of Association," eh. ;^)
Truth is you're absolutely correct.
What's more, I've an inkling this may just turn out to be the angle our Liberal-Socialist's have been long in seeking so they may successfully get around the FOA right, as written in the US constitution.
But really, they're merely doing what they've been doing for the past 50 years or so.
Make ( fill in the blank ) a "Legal" issue concerning "human rights" et al ad nauseum.
Next take "the case" to a stacked court whose members are beforehand known to be sympathetic to their ( fill in the blank ) cause, & *voila*!!
Finally, whatever it was they wanted is either il/legal* in favor of themselves.
I mean just like that.
It'd have to be velcro for it to be any easier to pull off.
That's not the most sickening part of this, though.
Oh no-no-noooooo!
The most putrid fact has to be most law abiding citizens have been falling for this crap, without so much as a wimper.
Why?
Because we're law abiding, of course.
...& *they* know that.
I stand corrected.
So .. no man from the club has the fortitude to nominate a female .. and if they have she couldn't get enough votes. LOL!
These good North County folks should tell this lesbo to go to Hillcrest, where she belongs.
There are a lot of things I want...a few million bucks and a private island in the Carribean would be a nice start. Oh, and a pet gecko.
Want, want, want...that's all the gay lobby says, is how much they want things.
You'll be added forthwith.
Your story is unfortunately one of many. The publicly stated goals of the homosexual radicals (and how many of the rank and file disagree?) is to entirely dismantle the moral foundation of society, and remake it into one that suits them.
And we know what suits them, and it doesn't suit us. Since they are roughly 2% of the population, and mentally ill, it is suicidal to give in to their agenda.
Because of something the Left can never understand: principles.
This is one of the reasons why most people believe that J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual cross-dresser (which is an unproven urban myth). It also has accomplished the goal of humiliating and invalidating (among the sheeple) one of America's most vigorous and successful anti-communist leaders.
As Joseph Goebbels said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
Yep. That was really gratuitous, aside from the fact that they couldn't possibly have children. It was really important to the reporter to show her solidarity with the litigant (Koebke), as if she hadn't done so in 101 other ways, such as taking Koebke's point of view as THE objective point of view. The reporter would surely say, "But the club's directors refused comment." So, why didn't she seek out A SINGLE club member who opposes Koebke, instead of only seeking out (clearly with the litigant's help) a former member who supports the litigant?
And Koebke is as phony as a three dollar bill (no apologies for the unintended pun) -- witness her complaining that no one embraced her, after she sued the club. She couldn't possibly be that stupid. I've never heard of anyone suing people, and then getting mad when they didn't "embrace" her. However, I am all-too-familar with the homosexual demand that all heterosexuals embrace and celebrate them. Note how Koebke took any statement by the club leadership that did not toe the homosexual party line as a "personal attack" on her.
Note the chutzpah of suing essentially based on someone having "violated" a non-existent law.
This is more evidence, as if any were needed, that "domestic partnership" is a trojan horse, which is one of the reasons I oppose it. (Actually, I entered into a domestic partnership seven years ago -- it's called marriage. Is it possible that this thing was called "domestic partnership" as a euphemism for marriage, as some sort of gay in-joke?)
When I first read this line, I thought "Naw, not fear. Contempt, disdain maybe, but not fear."
As I've thought about it for a while, I've begun to reconsider. Maybe she is right, maybe the appropriate word here is fear. There is no denying anymore that our right to Freedom of Association is under full frontal attack by individuals with an agenda. These individuals are not bashful about using the courts to force us to conform to their will. The attacks aren't limited to the courts either (though that remains the weapon of choice). Other weapons are used in the assault as well; the media, human resource departments, professional peer groups and other avenues are all being employed to make us accept behavior which we find repugnant, base and detestable. When legitimate complaints are voiced, the attackers use the tools in their repitoire to reduce the validity of the complaints by denouncing them as an "ism" or a "phobia". We're made to squirm and sweat, self-censor ourselves and generally walk around as if on eggshells, and for what reason?
Last weekend we had two "festivals" in Milwaukee at the same time; Pridefest and the Milwaukee Rally. One received copious amounts of attention and celebration through the various media outlets and channels, and the other went virtually unrecognized and unnoticed. Not that I'm complaining mind you; I just never thought I'd see the day when 50,000 bikers could decend on a city and virtually disappear into the woodwork.
Dylan was right. The times, they are a changin' . . .
"...the media, human resource departments, professional peer groups and other avenues are all being employed to make us accept behavior which we find repugnant, base and detestable. When legitimate complaints are voiced, the attackers use the tools in their repitoire to reduce the validity of the complaints by denouncing them as an "ism" or a "phobia". We're made to squirm and sweat, self-censor ourselves and generally walk around as if on eggshells, and for what reason?"
Well said. Doesn't all this manipulation remind you of the so-called Cultural Revolution in Communist China? People who didn't accept the "groupthink" pyschosis were forced to endure all kinds of public humiliation and "re-education" camps, self-criticism, and so on. Of course, we haven't gotten to the point of incarceration, involuntary admission into mental hospitals, or the Gulag.
Yet.
So, it's not that the club won't let her lesbian lover join; she just can't get the membership for free. And this woman has the gall to compare herself to Rosa Parks in trying to get an extra free membership at a country club!
It's all very deliberate, targeted and planned. It's more a matter of deconstructing private property and the right to free association, individual liberties anathema to collective, socialist societies, so they must be de facto destroyed. A group can still define itself, but just barely. Witness the unprecedented assault against groups like say, the Boy Scouts of America. They have their own definition of who may be a Scout, and what qualities they wish to inculcate in young boys, and later, young men. Instead of forming their own group, radicals wish to subvert or destroy that which from they are specifically excluded. It sure is interesting to watch, but... Never mind...
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.