"[T]he left-wing power elite is small and interconnected. Different groups have overlapping constituencies and share a similar history and tactics, allowing for tacit agreements about attitude and approach."168 How powerful and how far the left-wing power elite is willing to go is illustrated by the Stop Dr. Laura "public education" campaign that was "designed and controlled by as few as a half dozen people."169
Upon converting to Judaism later in life, the Jewish counselor changed her stance from pro- to anti-homosexual behavior. Homosexual activists became infuriated at Dr. Laura for publicly stating that she felt homosexuality was a "biological" mistake170 even though a couple sentences later she also specifically stated that homosexuals should not be hated or attacked.171 Hate speech, bigot, intolerance and all the "cism" accusations flooded out of the homosexual promotion machine.
Exaction pricing was brought into play. Homosexual web sites called for all homosexual supporters to complain to every local station carrying Dr. Laura. A special StopDrLaura.com web site was established with the help of free hosting by GAYBC.com, a generous donation by the HRC, support from Hollywood celebrities172 like Susan Sarandon,173 and intense media coverage framed as a national "uproar" by homosexual-friendly news media such as the Los Angeles Times174 and the New York Times .175
GLAAD's site launched a "Dr. Laura Watch" (along with other homosexual advocacy sites) which monitored every word of the conservative talk show host and then posted every statement she made judged to be "anti-gay."176 In addition, each day every advertiser that supported her new television program was listed for action. Sponsor telephone numbers were published and links to sponsor email addresses were included in homosexual web sites.
Actions taken against advertisers included phoning every advertiser to make sure the advertiser knew their ads were running (since many are placed via ad agencies), sending anti-Laura (i.e. claiming hate speech and bigotry) emails, complaining directly to the advertiser and threatening boycotts of the sponsor's products.177 Proctor and Gamble, AT&T, Sears, Robuck & Co., Xerox and ultimately dozens of major advertisers pulled out.178
Nine GLAAD updates during November and December of 2000 heralded Dr. Laura's deteriorating ratings, downgrading of time slots and nose-diving advertising revenues.179 Actions in local markets and all positive and negative media reports were posted for further action.
On March 30, 2001, GLAAD hailed the demise of the Dr. Laura show as a culmination of GLAAD's "three-year public education campaign…against [her] defamation and anti-gay tolerance."180
Dr. Laura's competing idea was silenced by a well executed promotion using print and electronic media that promoted the homosexual product as superior (tolerance versus hate-speech) and set a price to be exacted for not buying (boycotts and complaints). The Internet was exploited to help facilitate a "pull strategy"181 of complaints to sponsors, local stations, and local media.
A powerful and well-disguised example of "negative branding" as part of the homosexual promotion is the October 18, 2000 episode of The West Wing .182 The popular drama, which has a homosexual character, has won gay awards because it "regularly addresses issues of discrimination against the lesbian and gay community…"183 The particular episode was titled The Midterms but it became known in homosexual chat rooms as the “slam Dr. Laura show. ”
In this episode's story line, a manifestly obvious Dr. Laura-type character, radio talk show host Dr. Jenna (Jacobs) is meeting with the President of the United States played by Martin Sheen. The climax of the discussion is when it is revealed through the interrogation by Sheen that "Doctor" Jenna is not a medical doctor who might be qualified to give advice in the area of homosexuality. In fact, she has no training at all in psychology, theology, social work or health care. She has a Ph.D. in English literature.
Sheen's character, President of the United States Jed Bartlet, says that her talk show audience is probably confused, inferring they must have no idea that she is not qualified to give advice or, specifically, to say that homosexuality is an abomination. Dr. Jenna replies, "It's not me…but the Bible."
The President, scripted as well versed in scripture, then severely dresses down Dr. Jenna's character. Sarcastically ridiculing her reference to the proscription of homosexuality in Leviticus, he snaps off several other verses of Old Testament scripture obviously not enforced today, for comparison.184
He asks what would be a good price for selling his daughter into slavery as Exodus 21:7 allows. Further, must he kill his colleague who works on the Sabbath, as required by Exodus 35:20? Can the Washington Redskins continue to play football if they wear gloves so they do not touch the skin of a pig, as required by Deuteronomy 14:8?
Dr. Jenna, now exposed for what she really is has no defense. Sheepishly she casts her eyes to the floor. The President's tirade ends with a mocking statement that perhaps Dr. Jenna has confused this interview with the President of the United States with her monthly meeting of the "ignorant tight-ass club." He then reminds her that she should stand in his presence.
Because of all the obvious peripheral cues planted in the script, viewers who had heard of Dr. Laura likely would associate her as being represented by the Dr. Jenna character. Without even thinking, it is likely that many who did not know better would now "know" that Dr. Laura's Ph.D. was in literature. And therefore, Dr. Laura must be similarly and equally unqualified to comment on the biology of homosexuality or to offer moral advice as Dr. Jenna.
The not too subtle persuasive message is that Dr. Jenna/Laura is the bad brand of citizen: a deceptive, ignorant, tight-ass, unqualified to give advice let alone make moral judgments. The good brand of citizen is the enlightened, literate, credible President who comes down on the side of homosexuals. Buttressed by flagrant proof-texting, the good Christian (Sheen's character is hinted at as possibly Catholic) puts the moralistic right wing bigot in her place.
The problem is that the real Laura Schlessinger actually has exceptional credentials to do what she does. Her education includes a B.S. in Biology Sciences from the State University of New York, an M.S. and Ph.D. in physiology, and an M. Phil. from Columbia.185 She has a post-doctoral certification in marriage, family, and child counseling from the University of Southern California at Los Angeles, was a member of the graduate psychology faculty at Pepperdine University for eight years, and is licensed in marriage, family, and child counseling in California.186 She has been in private psychotherapy practice for twelve years.187
Focusing on (and distracted by) the obvious pro-homosexual speech of the President, what viewers likely missed was the subtle character assassination of Dr. Laura. Her education was misrepresented in order to destroy her source credibility, and Old Testament ceremonial law was conflated with proscriptions on homosexuality in order to confound biblical arguments. Many viewers would be left with two (subconscious) impressions: Dr. Laura is unqualified and only ignorant homophobes claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But The West Wing is only fiction.
Because influencing, even controlling the media, is so central to the marketing of the homosexual idea, it is worthwhile to cite one more example of purposeful yet disguised exploitation of the media. In the Home Box Office [HBO] "documentary" The Celluloid Closet , the producers purport to document that, even in early ultra-conservative Hollywood in the 1950s and early 1960s, movies were "coded" with subtle homosexual shadings and nuances.188 Movies mentioned as supposedly including homosexuality as a subtext include Red River, Ben-Hur, and Gilda189 "However, when pressed by…the Television Critics Association [the producers] said they had no documentation —no director's notes or producer's memos—to support their theory…"190 Nevertheless, the show aired in 1996 suggesting that big stars (credible sources, god words/symbols, cues) like John Wayne, Charlton Heston, and Doris Day winked at homosexuality.191
The homosexual product is promoted as good for business, education, and entertainment via the use of free celebrity endorsements—all with greater effect than any advertising money could buy.
Businesses (the workplace), the advertising by businesses, and the credibility of major organizations are all exploited by the homosexual persuasion campaign. Homosexuals have made great strides, especially at the national level, in private business. Hundreds of companies, including many of the Fortune 500, now have policies specifically banning sexual orientation discrimination.192 In addition to the usual activism one might associate with such equity goals, a rather unique and successful marketing tactic has been developed that combines media influence and a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation.
Resolutions are simple. Generally, any shareholder of title owning approximately $2,000 worth of stock one year before a resolution-filing deadline (generally twelve months before a shareholder meeting) may file a resolution. By SEC regulation, as long as the resolution complies with company guidelines for such filings, the corporation must actually get a waiver from the Securities and Exchange Commission to exclude a shareholder's proposal. While these resolutions almost never win on a vote, they only have to garner three percent support to be reintroduced again at the shareholders meeting the following year. At that time, if they gather six percent, they can be reintroduced again and then again every subsequent year if support is ten percent or above.193
Shareholder resolutions were designed by the SEC to give small shareholders a voice since they are, in fact, owners. Trillium Asset Management, a homosexual investment management company, began sponsoring these resolutions. Since then, other homosexuals and homosexual friendly organizations, such as the HRC itself, have taken the same tack. Since 1995, this persuasive maneuver has been successfully used to exact change from giants such as Johnson & Johnson, DaimlerChrysler, American Home Products, McDonalds, and General Electric.194 ExxonMobil is one of the more recent shareholder resolution "projects" of homosexual activists.195
This tactic is another example of exaction pricing. While the stated goal is substantive discussion that will lead to change in corporate policies and behaviors,196 "even if [the resolutions] are ultimately withdrawn by their [homosexual activist] proponents, proposals are often covered by the press."197 A price is exacted—either change or bad press.
Why are homosexuals so concerned about big business? It cannot really be about employment discrimination since their higher income level as a group would indicate access to capital, wealth, and power.
First, "[C]orporate actions often serve as models for government and for the popular culture."198 Second, "[S]ocial prejudice is eroded by mainstream advertising to homosexuals…[with] more big-league companies jumping on the gay-advertising bandwagon every day…"199 Third, the more workplaces that adopt anti-discrimination policies, the more the competition is subjected to cognitive dissonance via forced compliance on the job five days per week.
The real goal is to use the workplace and big business to promote and distribute the homosexual agenda.
Public schools, especially elementary schools, are at the forefront of the battle of homosexual tolerance programs. "Recent months and years have witnessed the beginnings of an unprecedented campaign…to affirm homosexuality and so-called 'gay youth' in schools… [A]llies argue that students need…'positive' images…to counter…'homophobic' society."200
PFLAG's Read this Before Coming Out to your Parents is described as its "most famous brochure."201 The stated purpose of the brochure is "to inform gay and lesbian young adults about the process most parents go through when their child's homosexual orientation is disclosed."202 Note how the persuasive message is framed as education to help your parents accept your coming out:
Don't raise the issue unless you're able to respond with confidence [that you are sure you are homosexual].
…If you're wrestling with guilt and periods of depression, you'll be better off waiting to tell your parents.
…Your parents will probably respond based on a lifetime of information from a homophobic society.
…If you suspect they are capable of withdrawing college finances or forcing you out of the house, you may choose to wait until they do not have this weapon to hold over you.
…If they tend to see social issues in clear terms of good/bad or holy/sinful, you may anticipate that they will have serious problems dealing with your sexuality. If, however, they've evidenced a degree of flexibility when dealing with other changing societal matters, you may be able to anticipate a willingness to work this through with you.203
To what does this message appeal?
PFLAG's (1995) promotional message maintains the theme that any parents who might reject homosexuality as normal are sick. Parents are characterized as possibly homophobic, potential victimizers who may use college finances to oppress the homosexual, or ignorant (needing education ) because they only see things "in clear terms of good/bad or holy sinful" and find their own child unlovable.204 The parents' competing idea of normality is not to be trusted. PFLAG has told the prospective customer to "buy" (make the decision you are homosexual) before discussing it with parents.
There are other forms of promotion that education takes. A health educator at a Massachusetts high school included these loaded questions in a sex quiz: "Are you heterosexual because you fear the same sex? How do you know you wouldn't prefer sleeping with someone of the same sex? Do you merely need a good gay experience?"205
The promotion can also take the form of self-improvement education. Project 10206 is a school-counseling program staffed by homosexual counselors. It is positioned as a "dropout prevention program"207 and "a response to suicide, alcohol/substance abuse and risk of AIDS."208 Its mission is to identify and provide support in developing positive homosexual identity.209 Again, the product is positioned as correct. Side effects like AIDS are, at best, a tertiary issue.210
One resource is a teacher self-evaluation quiz designed to expose "unconscious biased behaviors."211 While it asks legitimate questions with possible answers "Always," "Sometimes," and "Never" on using or allowing to be used pejorative language like "dyke" or "faggots," it also asks whether "I use examples in my job showing gay men and lesbians of diverse backgrounds…" or do "I supplement inadequate treatment of gays and lesbians [in the classroom]."212 The requirement is that to be equitable, not an "cist," teachers must not just tolerate homosexuality but value it enough to make sure that it is included in classroom discussions.
Another promotion strategy is to "help" schools. After monitoring a conference on Reparative Therapy in 1998 (psychotherapy designed to help homosexuals seeking change to achieve that goal), the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network [GLSEN] distributed almost 15,000 copies of Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth to school superintendents around the country as a "primer."213
Once again, the APA declassification in 1973 of homosexuality came into play. With an impressive list of supporting organizations including the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Just the Facts devoted an entire section discouraging any reparative therapy type materials (the competing idea) being made available in schools because national associations of "more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.'"214 The wishes of a child seeking possible change is irrelevant and documented success of many approaches over the years—including reparative therapy—is not to be considered.215
Just the Facts flatly states that the "most important fact [to recognize] about 'transformational ministry' is that its view of homosexuality is not representative of the views of all people of faith. Many deeply religious people…are supportive and accepting [of gays rights needing] to be protected from the discriminatory acts of others."216 Any discussion of the success of this approach is avoided by the introduction of a specious argument.
Promotion through education packaged as "tolerance" at St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud Minnesota went so far that a policy statement was issued that declared, "It is simply not acceptable for social workers to view homosexual people…as sinners… The only legitimate position…is to abhor the oppression…and to act personally and professionally to end the degradation [of homosexuals]."217 It suggested that a Catholic student or any students who could not agree should leave the degree program.218
It is important to take particular note that the statement, made in direct violation of the students' religious freedom, concerned a social work degree program.219 Furthermore, the American Psychological Association accredits schools offering graduate degrees in clinical psychology. Accreditation can be a critical factor for the long-term success of the program.
The issue of gays in the military is an excellent example of the multifaceted theme continuing to work. In a report on the entire issue of gays in the military, Waldman, Glick, Miller, and Clift, present this picture:
The key, strategists concluded, was to focus on the issue of discrimination [and avoid the actual activity. Do] not attempt to justify the "lifestyle" [and continue to trumpet a biological connection because] [s]everal focus-group participants…became more tolerant about gays in the military after hearing [those types of] news reports.220
It is for this reason that a constant stream of studies purporting to suggest some sort of biological cause (not necessarily supporting, let alone proving, a causal relationship) are dutifully reported in a cultivated media.
Next Page: Conclusion
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9