We Win!!!
Pinch Sulzberger & Margaret Marshall Are Fighting,
Their Scheme to Impose Gay Marriage Everywhere Is Falling Apart

       Although no one has noticed yet, including our many friends on the national scene, we have won the battle about gay marriage.
       The Democratic pundits were quick to blame the failure of John Kerry’s campaign on Margaret Marshall and her infamous decision which totally alienated the country. As a result of the pundits, Pinch Sulzberger immediately attempted to distance himself from Judge Marshall and her ruling. That, of course, is impossible for him to do.
       Meanwhile, Atty. Pawlick is just beginning to inform the entire nation about the skullduggery of Pinch Sulzberger and his New York Times. Even if no one ever reads Pawlick’s book (which they are now doing in ever-increasing numbers), the advertising is sending the message everywhere.
       Pinch will soon be gone, and the Sulzberger family will never be able to hide again.

By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
       I have always said that Pinch Sulzberger (Chairman of the New York Times and the Boston Globe) would abandon his friend Margaret Marshall (Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and wife to the radical Times columnist, Anthony Lewis) whenever that was in his best interest (the same as Sulzberger did to his black token, Jayson Blair, when the young man became a burden last year).
       It is now evident that Marshall is joining Jayson Blair. Her time has come.
       Both Sulzberger and Marshall were terribly shaken (as was the entire Democratic Party) by the election with its rejection of John Kerry and its endorsement of constitutional amendments in states across the country which would ban “gay marriage.”
       The first solid evidence of Sulzberger’s panic came on Saturday, Nov. 14, in a very strange article by his columnist at the Globe, Alex Beam. Here’s the beginning paragraph of that column in its entirety:
       “I am a great fan of micro-history; if you want to call it gossip, you won't offend me in the least. I was intrigued to learn that, after all the crocodile tears were shed for John Kerry's wrenching electoral loss, the name on everyone's lips was not Margaret Marshall, but . . . Judith Cowin.”
       Judith Cowin?!?         

Judith Cowin Is Responsible for Gay Marriage!?!
       Judge Cowin is the “moderate” Republican who broke the 3-3 tie among the other judges on the Court and allowed Marshall (and Sulzberger) to move forward on the scheme to impose “gay marriage” on the country, even though they had only a very slim 4-3 decision. (I personally warned Marshall in open court twice last year not to do that or she would suffer terrible wrath from the citizens.) The other judges (all Massachusetts liberals) were unusually passionate in their opposition to her ruling, saying that she had no rightful power to bypass the legislature in this unlawful manner.
       But that was kept quiet by the Times/Globe empire of Sulzberger and the rest of the compliant media (including the Associated Press in which the Sulzbergers are very active.).As far as the Times/Globe was concerned, this was a unanimous decision written by the “courageous civil rights activist,” Judge Margaret Marshall. According to them, there were no dissenters to this “historic” civil rights victory anywhere.
        So why is Sulzberger the one who is now violating that spin?

Sulzberger Is in Trouble
       It is clear that Sulzberger is in trouble back home with his 12 cousins who were very unhappy when he was appointed as the Chairman of the Times by his father in 1997. They insisted at the time that a cousin, Michael Golden, be appointed as Vice Chairman in case Pinch ever stumbled. Golden has an office right down the hall and is watching everything.
       Pinch did stumble badly last year and felt it necessary to blame and fire his two close friends as Editors of the Times in order to contain the scandal of Jayson Blair. But he did not fire himself; he remained.
        Golden is able to see that my book, “Libel by New York Times”, is rapidly going across the country to tell everyone about the evil that the Times is creating under Pinch Sulzberger. (I sent Golden a copy a few months ago.) The cousins do not want that threat to their very profitable business from this weird cousin.

What Did Alex Beam Write about Judge Cowin?
       Alex Beam’s article about Judge Cowin was totally incoherent.
       His second paragraph said that some people are saying that Marshall’s decision was the reason for the tremendous defeat of John Kerry. But we all know that the primary instigator of the decision was Pinch Sulzberger. If it is true that Marshall’s decision caused the terrible defeat of the Democrats, then the true villain among all Democrats is the New York Times and its inept, bungling Chairman.
       But what is the strange reason that Sulzberger believes he can get out of this if he blames Judy Cowin?
       The next paragraph of his compliant columnist begins: “What about Justice Cowin?”
       Well, what about Judy Cowin? (She is a 1955 graduate of Wellesley College, two years ahead of my wife, Sally, who is President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage). Well ... Cowin is a registered Republican who was characterized by the Globe as a “conservative” when she was appointed in 1999. Her mother also owned the popular restaurant, Bette’s Rolls Royce, in the 1970s which was popular among politicians and others.
       Should we believe that Judy Cowin voted as she did just to hurt the Democrats in the election?
       And that is how the article ended --- with total incoherence. It was much like the personal attack against me on April 14, 2004, which was the lead story at the top of the Globe’s Business section. In it, another columnist, Steve Bailey, attempted to do a hatchet job in which he told lawyers not to subscribe to my daughter’s newspaper, Lawyers Weekly (the bible of the industry), because it would somehow help me, the “screwiest fringe.” But it was not in the columnist’s heart and the whole thing gave my new book some excellent publicity.

Judge Marshall Came Out of Seclusion to Protect Herself
       Judge Marshall came out of seclusion on the day that the Beam column ran. She told an A.P. reporter on that day (see A.P. story of Monday, Nov. 15) in an attempt to rehabilitate herself. "I think you simply do the best that you can, you decide the case and you move onto the next case."
       According to A.P.: “Marshall said she welcomes scrutiny of the court and said the ability of the public to criticize its decisions is one of the great hallmarks of an independent judiciary in a healthy democracy. ’I think judges play an important constitutional role, and the label that somebody puts onto that is one that varies from time to time. I think as long as I'm not viewed as a lazy judge,’ [sic] she said. ’I - like, I think, 350 other judges - do the best they can to uphold the constitution, and the statutes and the common law in this commonwealth,’ she said, ‘and then we move on to the next case.’”
       Nowhere did A.P. ever note that the vote was a tie between the other six judges on the court, with Marshall breaking the tie and imposing her will upon the state and the nation. As far as the A.P. article was concerned it was a major victory for “civil rights.” They quoted many “right-wingers” who disagreed with their interpretation of the event but nowhere did they reveal that the most passionate of those dissenters were three liberal judges right on Marshall’s court.

Mary Bonauto also Gave Her Assistance
       In addition to all that, Pinch had the homosexual attorney for the plaintiffs in the “marriage” case, Mary Bonauto, write a column in the Globe (Tuesday, Nov. 9) in which she revealed that she is also receiving flack from “national Democrats” for causing the debacle to John Kerry. In her spin, she told many whoppers but we don’t have the space or the desire to critique all that now when they are obvious to any reader.

  *   *   *     *   *
Radical Feminists Are Responsible for Gay Marriage,
 They’re Empowered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964

News Analysis
Male Homosexuals Do Not Want to Become “Married”
By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
       The last thing that most male homosexuals want is to get “married.” They are not the people who are promoting “gay marriage” in Massachusetts or across the nation.
       The villains are radical feminists at NOW, many, if not most, being strident homosexuals. The women at NOW have been forthright from their founding in 1966 that this is their goal. They sincerely believe that traditional marriage is a serious threat to the independence of women. They dub married women as the “ultimate parasites.”
       After Betty Friedan wrote her famous book in 1963, “The Feminine Mystique,” she began the modern womens movement. But Friedan was not a homosexual. Therefore, she was quickly shoved aside in 1970 and labeled as a “grandmother” by the radicals, who have steadfastly stuck to their dream of removing marriage from our society.
       This history was proudly trumpeted here in Massachusetts in 2002 when NOW was given the credit for coercing the legislature into violating the state’s Constitution by refusing to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. If approved, it would have forbad Margaret Marshall from imposing “gay marriage.”
       The majority in the legislature violated the Constitution because Democrats were getting huge amounts of money from homosexuals. (One man alone, Tim Gill, who founded Quark software for desktop publishing, gave over $5 million/year, $50 million total over the ten year period beginning in 1995, to homosexual causes.)
       The Democrat leaders here understood that if they allowed a vote to take place in the legislature in 2002, the proposed amendment would have been approved by 25% of the legislators, which was all that was required to send it on to the voters for their approval. If they allowed that to happen, they would turn off the tremendous amount of money that was pouring into the state from the activists. (That was the same money that propelled Howard Dean as the frontrunner at the beginning of the Presidential primary election this year.)
       Therefore, the state Democrats, under the leadership of Senate President Tom Birmingham and the Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran, violated the state Constitution in order to keep the money flowing.
       After that huge “victory,” an ecstatic Bay Windows (Boston’s homosexual newspaper) wrote an editorial which trumpeted their success. But they were also troubled because male homosexuals had expressed only boredom with the whole thing. Bay Windows said it was the people from NOW who were responsible for the “victory.”
    But NOW, a hangover from the 1960s, had to stay quietly in background because they were no longer popular anywhere in Massachusetts, even among young women on college campuses.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Gave Feminists the Power, Never Reported by the New York Times
      I wrote a book in 1998 about the Civil Rights Act in which I showed that it was never intended that women be included in the law (which had been proposed only for the protection of black people). Even Eleanor Roosevelt opposed any move to include women. The only reason women were included was because a Southern Congressman, who was against black people, tried a trick on a Saturday afternoon (February 8, 1964). He did so because he believed that if women were included, that would kill the Act.
       Therefore, he strolled to the well of the House and began a circus atmosphere, laughing and joking about the need for an amendment to include women in the bill. All the women except for the highly respected leader, Edith Green, who had written the Equal Pay Act for women which had just been passed, joined in the festivities and passed the amendment in less than two hours.
       Rep. Green attempted to make the Congressmen act maturely. "For every discrimination that has been made against a woman in this country,” she said, “there has been 10 times as much discrimination against the Negro of this country. There has been 10 times -- maybe 100 times -- as much humiliation for the Negro woman, for the Negro man and for the Negro child. Yes; and for the Negro baby who is born into a world of discrimination."
       However, she was unsuccessful, as were the liberal leaders, including Roosevelt’s son, who opposed the amendment on that Saturday afternoon.
       The bill quickly passed, not because of the liberal vote but because every segregationist (all Democrats) voted to add women to the “protected” status in the new law.
       The New York Times never reported this to its readers (except for a very brief mention) and thus the country was unaware of what was happening. When Lyndon Johnston used 70 pens to sign the Civil Rights Act in a huge celebration at the White House on July 2, 1964, he never mentioned women at all.
       Only the radical women, who would soon establish NOW, knew exactly what was happening. But they didn’t complain. They were very silent as this trick was played on the American people. Even those radical women failed to realize the tremendous power this new law would eventually give them. No one could fully comprehend what damage was about to unfold in our society. 
       The black people also failed to understand. But it became clear to blacks a few years later that white, suburban women had become the primary beneficiaries of a law which was designed to help blacks. As a result, they became very bitter.
       This is now cynically used by the Democrats every year (including John Kerry in 2004) to get 90% of the black votes even though it was Republicans who voted for and provided the leaders in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Democrats were in confusion.

New Demand for My Book about Civil Rights Act
      As I begin to promote my new book nationwide, the interest in my book about the Civil Rights Act, ”Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism,” has increased dramatically. The two books are selling as a pair to many people.
       I first understood that the Times is no longer a “newspaper of record” when I began researching in the 1980s for the book about the Civil Rights Act. Prior to that, I thought that I would quickly obtain most of my history from old copies of the Times, but I quickly learned that that description of the Times was no longer applicable.
       I did not know then that the world famous paper was a shambles in 1964 due to the fact that Pinch Sulzberger’s father, Punch Sulzberger, had suddenly become Chairman the year before at age 39. Due to his dyslexia and the resulting inability to read, the Times was a shambles as everyone grabbed for power. It was years before Punch was finally able to gain power, not retiring until 1997 when he reluctantly named Pinch as Chairman.
       I also learned later that the title “newspaper of record” had been formally jettisoned by Pinch’s radical/liberal grandparents when they seized power in 1935 at the death of the conservative founder of the modern paper, Adolph Ochs. They had determined that being a newspaper-of-record was boring, and henceforth the reporters would interpret the news for the readers, with their own biases included.