A chilling experience – just how bad it is on Beacon Hill. 

by Brian Camenker

I got a call this week from James Eisenberg, chief of staff of Rep. Robert DeLeo, chairman of the powerful Ways & Means Committee of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

DeLeo was orchestrating the override of Gov. Romney's veto of a 70% increase of state funding for homosexual programs in the public schools. Parents across the state were livid -- and hundreds were calling his office -- but DeLeo didn't seem phased.

I asked Eisenberg why DeLeo was willing to take so much heat for something as bad as this - money for homosexual programs in the schools. I just can't understand it, I said. This money goes for such poisonous things. Is he familiar with the "Little Black Book", I asked.

Yes, he knows about "The Little Black Book", he told me. Then he said something that completely floored me.

He mentioned the part where it discusses urination, as an example. He said he has no problem with it, or any other part of that book, as long as it's "clinically correct."

Clinically correct? First of all, it's not clinically or medically correct at all, I said. We've posted a letter by a physician that describes in detail the massive mis-information this book contains.

But wait a minute. Urination? I reminded Eisenberg what we're talking about here: the book (given to kids) describes people urinating on each other, and cautions its readers to be careful not to accidentally drink any of it. There's nothing medically or clinically correct about this. It's depraved. The book should say that to people.

"We have a difference of opinion," was Eisenberg's reply.

He went on to say that these programs are about saving lives. The proponents (the homosexual lobby) report that when the funding for these programs goes down, gay teen suicides go up. That's why they need to give them more money, so suicides will go back down.

I was stunned. These are complete lies, I said. I asked him if he'd actually looked at the statistics, or examined what these programs actually are. No, he hadn't personally done that. This is completely bogus, I told him. This is simply an excuse to get into the schools by the homosexuals. The State of Massachusetts, in its suicide statistics and records, does not keep track of "reasons" why anyone commits suicide. And has he looked at the "Youth Risk Behavior Surveys" given out in the schools, which they use to for their claims, I asked? These surveys are completely phony, and they ask all kinds of leading questions to impressionable kids. Any actual statistician would laugh at these surveys.

But worse than that, I said, these programs are not run by anyone with any medical qualifications, or legitimate experience in suicide prevention, such as the Samaritans. It's just homosexual activists pushing programs to normalize homosexuality in the minds of kids. In fact, these programs can be very destructive emotionally to kids who are at a vulnerable time in their lives emotionally.

"Well, we have a difference of opinion," he said again.

Why don't you people look at any of this with a critical eye? You don't question anything they tell you. Why do you just hand them money? He didn't respond to that.

He said he lived in the same town I do, and he knew about me, and my activities on these issues. So what does he think about that, I asked him. You people act as if you're "under siege," he told me.

I asked him if he has kids in the schools. He said no, he doesn't. I talked to him about the homosexual programs in the local schools - the transgender assemblies, the pamphlets asking if kids "if they hadn't had same-gender sex, how do they know they wouldn't like it", and the counseling sessions I'd witnessed, telling kids that if they feel "different" maybe they're really gay. Has he seen our postings about this on our web site? Yes, he had. But beyond that he didn't have any comment, except "We have a difference of opinion."

He reiterated that this is his personal opinion, but that he definitely supported these programs. He admitted that Rep. DeLeo could stop the veto of the funding increase from being overridden if he wanted to. But he did not dispute the observation from the other aide that DeLeo "Is very, very, very supportive of these programs and sees a great deal of importance in them. So you can rest assured on that."

So there you have it. Whatever Rep. Robert DeLeo once was - pro- life, pro-family - this is the person he's chosen to have as his chief of staff. A man who has no trouble with the state funding a book about people urinating on each other for sexual pleasure.

And Eisenberg's not at all alone. From what we've been told, he's more the rule than the exception among Legislative staff on Beacon Hill. This is absolutely beyond belief, but in 2005 this is what is actually happening, the force behind our legal process.

This is why the we all have to do the hard work of taking back control of our government. That's what Article 8 Alliance is dedicated to. That's why we're here.