By Douglas J. Hagmann
If you think Friday’s Supreme Court decision was about equality or equal rights for the three percent of the American population (at the expense of the 97 percent), you couldn’t be more wrong. If you think that Friday’s decision has no impact on you because you don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you think the homosexual agenda is about tolerance, diversity or other slick marketing buzzwords, you are not only wrong, but sorely misinformed, misguided or you are purposely facilitating a lie.
America has a huge problem right now. Multiple problems, in fact, but like the victims of a train wreck, we must do triage so we can apply treatment in order of importance. The blunt force trauma inflicted upon America by five rogue members of our judiciary, redefining marriage as a result of a highly potent cabal of activists intent on America’s destruction, certainly moves this problem up the list of importance.
In order to know how to fix the problem, however, you’ve got to know as much about the problem as possible. You need accurate information, not the spin of some morally bankrupt politician or the spin of agenda-driven talking heads who confine their discourse to the captive narrative of the archaic and completely fictitious right-left political paradigm. The next federal election will not solve our problems, for our problems are so threatening to our life and liberty, we might have the time.
As I’ve already suggested, those reveling in the rainbow of diversity and whose chests swell with pride at the luminous display at the seat of American power fall into one of two groups: the ignorant, misguided, brainwashed and/or spiritually, morally and selfishly decadent (i.e. unwitting dupes), or the facilitators of one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on our nation. What we have witnessed is not the beginning of tolerance and diversity, but its unceremonious demise through the completion of one giant step in the orchestrated dismantling of our country that is part of a much larger plan. It is a critical and vitally important step toward the formation of a “new world order” that no “dignified” journalist or syndicated talk show host will ever acknowledge exists.
The destruction of the moral fabric of America was set in motion generations ago under not a rainbow flag, but a Communist flag. Who better to usher in this mortal wound to our nation than the Manchurian Marxist Messiah of mystery and dubious origin and his cabal of renegade abettors?
What we see taking place today might not have been completely stopped, but it might have been slowed had those who held the attention of Christian conservatives pressed the legitimate issue of the eligibility and allegiance of Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate for the highest office in America. Alas, it was not to be, as those most revered by the conservative right dutifully parroted the lie that the background, origin and constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, or Barry Soetoro, perhaps, was nothing but a distraction.
Over the din of their vocal objections, or in some instances, assurances and more lies, those of us in search of the unadulterated truth can hear the unmistakable sickening sound of our freedoms, liberties and rights Cheyne-Stoking as their traumatic death approaches. Yet, those who fought us then continue to dismiss us today. They adhere to a choreographed narrative that fits within the script of the big lie, and one that is as shrewdly narrow as it is factually shallow. For this, it appears, requires less intellectual aptitude of the entranced American than the necessary first steps of a full recovery would require.
Meanwhile, Americans are served their daily portion of the big lie – in this case, sold under the pretext of diversity and tolerance and illustrated by the silly mantra “love wins.” Love, much like equal rights, has absolutely nothing to do with the larger agenda of rending America’s moral fabric. Redefining marriage and the traditional family is a well-documented plank of the Communist takeover of America, a tactic to destroy our Constitutional Republic, and an admission requirement to enter a system of global government.
The activist homosexual agenda in America has its roots in Communism. On January 10, 1963, Representative A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida read 45 goals of Communism in America into the Congressional Record. Listed at #26 was to “present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.” What was considered abhorrent behavior and a sin by all of the world’s major religions only a half-century ago is not only accepted and ostensibly “legitimized” today, but is being openly celebrated at the White House and state houses across America.
Why is virtually no one asking how approximately three-(3) percent of our population has seemingly succeeded in changing the moral and legal landscape for 97 percent of the population? How did this change happen so quickly? It nearly mirrors the meteoric rise of Barack Hussein Obama from a virtual unknown to the putative President.
The answers exist in history. The promotion of the fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey, the highly organized and well-funded efforts of Marxist Harry Hays, founder of the Mattachine Society in 1950, the effective use of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, to the refinement of the homosexual agenda by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the 1980’s – when they made public their very specific tactics in their book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s, were all cogs in the larger mechanism designed to destroy the morality of America.
When you read the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas and Scalia in last Friday’s SCOTUS decision, you will see some very chilling statements, including these from Justice Clarence Thomas (Please read and consider these in the context of the above):
“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.”
“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”
“Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.”
Many people believe that this ruling will remedy perceived injustices against a (falsely) significant segment of our population. These same people believe that this ruling marks the end of a long and arduous journey for equal rights. They are wrong, for this is merely the end of the beginning. The global activists, the Marxists and Communists propelling this agenda don’t care about rights, despite the pretty packaging. There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.
Having been empowered by SCOTUS, enablers and abettors at the Executive branch and others in power, they are now “all in” to complete the destruction of our nation. The agenda is as big as the lie.
Barring any immediate intervention and unified civil disobedience, what will follow will be exponentially worse to what will be left of our nation. Unless immediate action is taken, the mortal blow that was delivered to our country last week will become fatal.
It is imperative that we understand the depth, breadth and scope of the lie and the globalist, Communist agenda behind it. It is important we identify the agents of destruction. They, and their agenda, must be fully exposed.
Alternatively, the Cheyne-Stoke respirations of our liberties and freedoms we (still) enjoy under our Constitutional Republic will cease. Not because of their recovery, however, but due to their death.
Pray. Prepare.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
“I was arrested.”
It took a minute for me to wrap my mind around those words, uttered by a one of the most decent men I know. He is an attorney by profession, having worked in the prosecutor’s office within the Five Boroughs of New York City.
He’s dealt with some of the most unsavory people and unspeakable crimes of our nation in that capacity. More importantly, however, he is a proud and protective family man. He’s a loving husband and a proud father of two children, including Marina Baer, a ninth grader in the Gilford, New Hampshire School District.
My mind raced as I fired questions at him with mind-numbing rapidity. “Where, What for? What happened?” I prodded. He answered each question calmly and methodically, combining his replies with an extremely important “back story” that will probably not be reported anywhere by the mainstream media.
Mr. Baer explained that he was arrested at a meeting of the Gilford School Board meeting on Monday, 5, 2014, and charged with a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. As audio and video evidence of the events clearly illustrates, however, there was nothing remotely disorderly about Mr. Baer’s conduct at the meeting. It was the first time he was arrested in his life.
No, there was something far deeper at work here, something that you will not see, hear or read about in the “drive-by” reports done by the mainstream media. It is this lead-up to the school board meeting that puts the events of May 5th in a much clearer, and much more unsettling perspective. It should serve as a warning to all parents that there is an agenda much greater than what we are seeing. In the words of Mr. Baer, “something is very wrong.” Indeed it is, and the report that follows should send a chill down the spine of every parent, of every American, for this is coming to your city, town, or municipality if it does not already exist.
Last Thursday, Mr. Baer sent me an e-mail about a book his daughter was assigned to read by her teacher with the full and complete approval of the Gilford School Board. He wrote that he was stunned, despite his experience working in one of the toughest cities in the country, by what was assigned to his 14-year-old daughter for her ninth grade Honor’s English class, and attached a scanned copy of one page from the book for my perusal. Having over a quarter century of investigative experience myself, I’m no prude in reading graphic text. Regardless, I would never have knowingly permitted my child to read what he sent, even if it was part of a school assignment sanctioned by the school board.
Upon closer scrutiny of the book, Nineteen Minutes by author Jodi Picoult, Mr. Baer saw that it was a fictional account of a school shooting in New Hampshire that lasted for 19 minutes (hence the title) that contains explicit and graphic sexual material, (See Below) along with arguably controversial messages about homicide and yes, gun violence. Despite its inclusion on the New York Times best seller list, any ordinary parent of reasonable sensibilities would certainly question why such a book was selected as required reading for a ninth-grade Honor’s English class.
After doing his own homework, Mr. Baer followed a logical approach to learn why the book was assigned without his consent, and to be proactive, for he was not about to allow his daughter to be subjected to this subject matter, at least not in this fashion. He first contacted the high school principal, who declined to formally meet with him in order to find a suitable remedy to this issue. After being effectively deferred and deflected at every turn, Mr. Baer was left with attempting to remedy the situation by attending the school board meeting to publicly address this issue.
It was as if it was made impossible for Mr. Baer to be given any remedy to clear this matter up, except by attending the school board meeting that would convene the following Monday. It is here—at this exact point— that people must pay attention to how events were being managed behind the scenes.
According to information obtained by this author, the Gilford, New Hampshire school board was alerted in advance to Mr. Baer’s intention to raise this issue at their normal Monday meeting. In anticipation of Mr. Baer’s attendance, they did a number of things they have not done in the past.
First, they stationed a Gilford Municipal police officer inside the meeting venue “to keep order.” Then, they limited all public comments to two minutes only, and refused to answer any questions of the attendees. Ostensibly, this was done because of the multitudes of those present to speak out against the book, yet not more than a few dozen people were actually present. Also, the number who actually wished to speak remained in the single digits, including Mr. Baer. Accordingly, any sensible person would question the rationale behind such an arbitrary policy instituted for this particular meeting.
The critical back-story, then, indicates that the school board did not just anticipate Mr. Baer’s attendance, but took very precise steps to make certain that his objections would be muted and otherwise dealt with in a manner that has been inconsistent with previous public meetings. It would appear that dissent about the book as an assignment in a ninth-grade honors class was not merely expected, but the response to such dissent was decided in advance.
When attendees were called to speak, Sue Allen, the board chairwoman, could be heard asking at least twice if anyone cared to speak before Mr. Baer was recognized. When he was permitted (or confined) to his two minutes, he first noted that there was an unusual “default setting” to the parental authorization that would permit the children to be exposed to this material. Normally, a parent must “opt-in” to allow the book to be read by their child, much like parental authorization is given for a field trip. In this case, however, it was only if the parent had an objection to the book that they would need to “opt-out.”
Secondly, Mr. Baer asked the principal present to read page 313 of the book to give those in attendance the reasons for which he was voicing his objections. After all, not everyone there was aware of the contents of the book. The principal refused as did every other board member, calling it “inappropriate.” Mr. Baer attempted to compel the board members to answer legitimate questions about the class assignment and methods, but they refused, asserting they would only allow the attendees two minutes worth of comments to be put on record. As the video shows, it was an exasperating exercise in futility for Mr. Baer to seek redress in this venue to which he was directed.
Mr. Baer ultimately exceeded his two minutes by 18 seconds, an obviously egregious offense to the royalty of the Gilford School District. After sternly warning Mr. Baer that his time was up and they would have no part in addressing his concerns, he dutifully sat down.
At this point, a man positioned behind Mr. Baer spoke up and glowingly described how the book actually prompted a frank family discussion about the subject matter of the book, taking a tone that seemed to paint Mr. Baer as an advocate of censorship and book banning, which is far from the truth or Mr. Baer’s intent. In response to this false accusation and mischaracterization, Mr. Baer verbally dissented. He calmly defended himself against these public accusations, attempting to set the public record straight.
It was as a result of this egregious offense, one that caused Mr. Baer to add another 30 seconds or so onto his unauthorized 18 seconds beyond the allotted 2 minutes that caused the school board to react – and react with prejudice.
Remember that out-of-place municipal police officer standing guard for the first time in recent memory at the Gilford School Board meeting? Based on what appeared to be the hand signal of a member of the school board, the officer responded by walking to a stunned Mr. Baer, who was now seated, reaching to escort him from the meeting. Mr. Baer asked if he was being asked to leave, if he was being arrested, and was further stunned by the rapidity of the response for such a minor infraction of exceeding his allotted time by less than a minute in total, including his unscheduled verbal defense against his character.
According to Mr. Baer and as seen in the video, the arresting officer appeared a bit nervous while escorting this dissenting parent from the room and placing him in handcuffs behind his back. Mr. Baer has a bad neck injury, which he made known to the officer, that restricted the movement of his left arm. This, as is seen, was apparently construed as resisting arrest by the otherwise docile Mr. Baer.
Apparently the officer had his orders, for it is here that the officer could have used his discretion and let Mr. Baer go, as long as he did not re-enter the meeting or otherwise cause problems for the school board.
Unless or until enough Americans rise up to the tyrannical methods used to quell dissent against child abuse at the hands of school authorities, Mr. Baer will be arraigned on June 17th, 2014, for charges of disorderly conduct. I spoke with Mr. Baer, who stated that he feels strongly about not just the book, but how he stood up to the school board to protect his daughter.
As an investigative journalist who thoroughly researched this set-up and a friend of Mr. Baer, I urge everyone to see through the fog of disinformation and to make your own voices of dissent heard on his behalf by demanding that the charges against him be dropped without prejudice.
I am absolutely certain that Billy Baer, attorney, father and American patriot, would do the same for all of us.
