Sightings:

Berkshire Fathers Split from State Group Mass. Citizens Prominent in Book about Rethinking Pro-Life Strategy Sen. Susan Fargo Follows Feminist Beliefs; Obeys the Law Only If It 'Feels Good' Sen. Susan Fargo Wins Prize for Inaccurate Information

Berkshire Fathers Split from State Group

January 14, 2003

The Berkshire Chapter of the Fatherhood Coalition has split from the state group. They say the vote was done by the officers and the vote was "not marginal." The decision was made in October but not announced until this month.

The reason for the departure was because of "differences in policy, differences in how the structure of the organization should be changed, differences in political philosophy, and differences in rhetoric."

They say that, "Nothing of this departure should be construed as suggesting that there has been malfeasance or misfeasance by any of its members. Rather, we simply have differences of philosophy that are serious and irreconcilable. We salute the efforts of the Fatherhood Coalition and all they have done. In fact, we feel deeply indebted to them. Still, serious philosophical differences exist and it has been a view of the officers that departure is necessary."

Moderator of the group is Atty. Rinaldo Del Gallo III.

Mass. Citizens Prominent in Book about Rethinking Pro-Life Strategy

January 14, 2003

A new book, which calls for a reevaluation of the pro-life strategy features essays by three prominent Mass. citizens.

The book is Back to the Drawing Board: The Future of the Pro-Life Movement by St. Augustine's Press. It will be published later this month.

Among the authors are former Mayor Ray Flynn, Dr. Mildred Jefferson and former Bay Stater Howard Phillips.

In an article about the book, Paul Weyrich says: "As I had emphasized in my February 16, 1999 letter addressed to the conservative movement, I believe that we social conservatives and pro-lifers should still harbor significant concern about placing all our chips in the basket of politics. The pro-life movement and social conservatives did place
most of our chips in that basket back in the 1980s and I think it is fair to say that we came away quite disappointed with the results.

This reevaluation of the pro-life strategy is long overdue and has been
taking place in fits and starts for some time. But a new collection of
essays that will be published later this month should help to give added
momentum to the rethinking of strategy.

"My chapter discusses political engagement and in it I reflect upon my 1999
letter, making clear that the rush to interpret the letter as calling upon
social conservatives to withdraw from politics was never accurate, but
something promoted by the liberals in the news media. My point was that
social conservatives had placed too much faith in politics and that we are
no longer a `moral majority' in the way that I had thought we were two
decades ago.

"There never was a call to have social conservatives stage a Dunkirk-like
withdrawal from politics. The grassroots understood what I was saying about
the need to develop counter-institutions not infected with the Politically
Correct thinking now in vogue throughout much of society that maintains, for
instance, it is not right to eat meat because a steer must be slaughtered
but it is okay to abort a baby because the young child is only a "choice."

"To this very day, many in the news media either miss or willfully turn a
blind eye toward the developments taking place at the grassroots level that
are in synch with what I had discussed and that provide hope that more and
more people are dropping out of our PC society.

"Social conservatives must stay politically active but we must also work
harder to find new ways to change the culture."

Sen. Susan Fargo Follows Feminist Beliefs; Obeys the Law Only If It 'Feels Good'

January 8, 2003

Sen. Susan Fargo is telling her constituents that she obeys the law only if it feels good.

She voted not to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment because "the calls, emails, and letters received by this office were roughly 10 to 1 against this amendment." Instead of following the requirements of the Constitution and having a vote by the Legislators and a vote by the voters as required by the law, Susan decided she would do it her way. Whoever sent the most messages to her ("roughly" speaking) would win.

But say her constituents (who do not believe her numbers), if your poll is accurate and the people are overwhelmingly against it, why are you afraid to just let the people vote on the issue? To which Susan will undoubtedly reply that they don't understand feminist reasoning and they shouldn't try to confuse her with logic or analytical thinking. If it feels good to her, she can do anything she wants. Just watch her in action!

Sen. Susan Fargo Wins Prize for Inaccurate Information

January 8, 2003

One of Susan Fargo's constituents is still shaking his head over a message he received from her office.

In response to his message expressing unhappiness with her illegal vote to adjourn on July 17 without a vote on the Marriage Amendment, he received the following info.

"According to the Constitution of Massachusetts, amendments to the Constitution are presented to the public for approval by the voters only if a majority of senators and two thirds of the representatives approve of the amendment."

What?!?!!

No wonder Ms. Fargo and company break the law! They don't even know what it is!!

In the first place, the Senate and House do not sit separately to vote on Amendments. They sit together as one body. And only 25% are required to pass it on to the people, not "a majority" or "two-thirds."

That is if Fargo finally decides to follow the Constitution.

Her constituent wonders how we still exist with such idiots as our "leaders."