Reprinted from LifeSiteNews.com [click here to sign up for LifeSite's daily news e-mails]

Lisa Miller, a former lesbian who accepted Christ and left the lifestyle, with her daughter Isabella. Miller does not want her Isabella raised in an environment in which sexual immorality is modeled as normal.

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

NEW YORK, February 2, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Janet Jenkins, a practicing lesbian who was once in a “civil union” with ex-lesbian Lisa Miller, is conducting a media campaign to locate Miller’s seven-year-old daughter in an attempt to gain custody of the child.

Miller’s daughter, Isabella, was conceived via artificial insemination during the pair’s relationship, and has no biological relationship with Jenkins. Miller disappeared with Isabella in December, apparently in an effort to prevent a Vermont judge from transferring custody of her child to Jenkins.

But Jenkins is doing numerous interviews with mainstream media outlets, ostensibly in an effort to locate Isabella (described by Jenkins in one interview as “my child”), which are uncritically repeating her charges against Miller, while failing to mention Miller’s charges against Jenkins – -including that her relationship with Jenkins was abusive.

“I think she’s dangerous, and I think she’s very vulnerable and I think she’s capable of anything,” Jenkins told ABC News on January 29 when asked about Miller.

“I think she’s very desperate,” added Jenkins. “I think the people and the places that she is exposing herself to and my child to – our child to – it’s just frightening for me to even think about.”

Reports of Jenkins’ abusive behavior

However, Jenkins herself has been repeatedly accused of being “dangerous” — both to Miller’s child, Isabella, and to Lisa Miller herself.

In a lengthy interview with LifeSiteNews.com in 2008, Miller recounted the physical and emotional abuse she said she suffered at Jenkins’ hands, and also stated that her daughter was desperate not to return to Jenkins’ custody.

In addition to being “physically and emotionally abusive,” and repeatedly trying to throw her out of the house, Jenkins even “said she wanted to kill me,” Miller told LSN in her account of her relationship with Jenkins, which began in late 1998 and lasted more than four years.

Miller said she fled the ongoing abuse twice before leaving Jenkins permanently in 2003.

According to Miller, Isabella had become desperate not to return to Jenkins (shown at left) after a visit in which she said that she had been required to bathe naked with her other “mother.” She had even spoken of wanting to die.

“Last year, Isabella put a comb up to her neck and said she wanted to kill herself after one of the visits,” Miller told LSN. “She took a comb and pressed it into her neck and said, ‘I want to kill myself.’ I don’t know where she got that. It was immediately after a visit. Other people have seen huge changes. She also started openly masturbating which is not something that my child has done.”

“She is 6 now (2008) but this started when she was 5 — after visits,” Miller continued. “The very first time that Janet ever saw Isabella after the two and a half years, her very first over-night visit — the court ordered it and I allowed it because it was in Virginia and she was supposed to have been supervised by her parents — Isabella came home and said, ‘Mommy, will you please tell Janet that I don’t have to take a bath anymore at her house.’

“I asked her what happened. She said, ‘Janet took a bath with me.’ I asked her if she had a bathing suit on. ‘No, Mommy.’ She had no clothes on and it totally scared Isabella. She had never seen this woman except once in 2 ½ years and she takes a bath with her.”

Other Witnesses

According to Miller attorney Rena Lindevaldsen, Miller was not alone in her accusations. In a 2008 interview with LSN, Lindevaldsen said that a psychologist who had examined Isabella before and after her trips to see Jenkins had submitted two affidavits testifying to the damaging effects of the trips.

At least two other witnesses also submitted affidavits testifying to Isabella’s troubling behavior following visits with Jenkins, according to Lindevaldsen.

Even Jenkins’ own parents, who are supportive of their daughter, admit that Jenkins had a “spat” with Miller while they were together, in which Jenkins threatened to force her onto the street, something they objected to.

“Janet said: ‘I’m going to kick her A-double-S out. I’m going to put her clothes on the curb.’ My answer was: ‘You can’t do this. The kid has no place to go,” Jenkins’ father told the Washington Post Magazine. “‘You’ve already said you’d allow her to move in. You can’t put her out on the street. You don’t do stuff like that.’ ”

When LSN spoke to Lindevaldsen in late 2008, she said that the Vermont courts had delayed ruling on the accusations for nine months, but that a hearing had finally been scheduled. Ultimately the testimony of Miller, at least one psychologist, and multiple other witnesses was not enough to prevent Judge Richard Cohen from transferring custody to Jenkins in late 2009.

The mainstream media also has almost completely ignored the accusations, with the exception of a single 2008 Newsweek article that mentioned them in passing, along with Jenkins’ rebuttal. The affidavits presented to the court were never mentioned.

However, ABC News and other major newspapers and media outlets have allowed Jenkins to repeat, without proof and without rebuttal, her accusations that Miller is “dangerous” and “capable of anything.” One writer at ABC, David Schoetz, went so far as to compare Miller’s disappearance to that of Clark Rockefeller, who tried to flee with his ex-wife’s biological daughter. Schoetz wrote that if “we can learn anything from the Clark Rockefeller, pictured in his mugshot above, it’s that hiding a child is not an easy thing to do, especially when so many people care.”

_________________________________________

Related links:

Helping Isabella Facebook Page

AFTAH articles:

• Virginia Christian Mom, Lisa Miller, Could Lose Custody of Daughter to Former Partner, Vermont Lesbian Activist;
• CWA, Barber Urge Prayer for Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller and Daughter Isabella;
• Liberty Counsel Update on the Hearing in Lisa Miller’s Case;
• ‘You’re Not My Mommy!’ — Matt Barber on Lisa Miller Custody Battle;
• Barber: Virginia Supreme Court Buys Time on Lisa Miller Case

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

• Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest;
• Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller “Disappears” as Date Passes for Court-Ordered Transfer of Daughter to Former Lover;
• Exclusive Interview with Lisa Miller, Ex-Lesbian Fighting for Custody of Own Child against “Civil Union” Partner;
• Lisa Miller Ordered to Hand Custody of Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover

“Most of the studies of gay men [couples] report about 50% are monogamous—they have been Bay Area studies and studies that were done all over the US and Australia and Western Europe.” –San Francisco State University researcher Colleen Hoff in e-mail to lesbian couples therapist Michele O’Mara of Bilerico.com. See the comments following O’Mara’s Bilerico column.

_________________________

Lesbian couples therapist Michele O'Mara

Dear Readers, note the distinct nonjudgmentalism of lesbian writer Michele O’Mara regarding the not-so-shocking report (if you are familiar with “gay” male promiscuity) that half of homosexual male “couples” choose to be “non-monogamous.” That is, they agree to or allow their male partner to have “outside sex” with other men.

O’Mara asks, “I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender?” Let me answer: the “open option” is rooted in the anything-goes mores of the Sexual Revolution, which served as a catalyst for the modern “GLBT” movement. Homosexual behavior is immoral and perverse: why would anyone expect monogamy — of the sort that imitates a faithful marriage — from a promiscuous sin movement? And men are simply more promiscuous than women. (Note that the fact that O’Mara professes to practice monogamy with her lesbian partner confers no legitimacy on her sinful relationship, nor does it negate the damage that her intentionally fatherless parenting will do to the boys they are raising.)

The implications for the “same-sex marriage” (SSM) debate are obvious: we hear a lot about homosexual men being domesticated by homosexual “marriage” — supposedly a noble public policy goal. A more compelling question is: how will legalized SSM and/or “civil unions” help bleed rampant homosexual non-monogamy into the straight married world? (This is not to say that modern-day “heterosexuality” needs help from the Homosexual Lobby to sink into ever deeper levels of corruption: witness the creation of mainly heterosexual websites devoted exclusively to helping married men and women hook up with adulterous sex partners.)

AFTAH has already reported on how “gay” sex columnist Dan (“Three-Way”) Savage [his blog is HERE]– whom O’Mara cites below — espouses “non-monogamy” for straight couples, but I doubt that the vast majority of everyday Americans would agree with Savage on the practical benefit of what is essentially organized cheating. Neither would they be comfortable with O’Mara’s studied neutrality on the issue. After all, isn’t faithfulness between husband and wife at the core of real marriage? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

O’Mara writes in the homosexual website Bilerico.com (emphasis hers):

____________________________________________

Monogamy: Gender vs. Sexual Orientation

Filed by: Michele O’Mara
February 4, 2010 7:00 PM

After studying 566 gay male couples over a three year period, Colleen Hoff of San Francisco State University discovered that roughly fifty percent of gay male couples choose to be non-monogamous. Blake Spears and Lanz Lowen are a great example of how this works. Spears and Lowen started dating in their mid-twenties with the agreement that they will keep their relationship open. Thirty-four years later the couple is still going strong. In fact, this duo credits their relationship success in part to their decision to keep their relationship open.

Lowen and Spears have taken their interest in non-monogomy a step further by studying 86 non-monogamous, long-term (8+ years) gay male couples. Their research reveals that forty percent of the 86 couples started out with agreements to be open and have maintained this status, while the remaining sixty percent of the couples took an average of 6.5 years to open their relationship. The average length of relationship for the 86 couples in this study is 16.2 years.

While I’m not interested in promoting or discouraging open relationships, I do find it fascinating to consider what makes this arrangement work for so many gay men. Of the 86 couples in the Spears/Lowen research, only one couple is raising young children. This does not surprise me. Raising children is a time and energy consuming experience that will unlikely leave much room for extra play. In an email exchange with Hoff, she explained to me that while they did collect data on parenthood for the couples in their study, they did not separate that data out to examine the relationship between monogamy and parenthood.

I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender? Traditionally men are thought to be better at separating sex from emotion, which is helpful in an open arrangement. As Spears and Lowen point out on their website:

We found many couples had a somewhat compartmentalized perspective and approach to outside sex. “It’s just sex” – a release without meaning, quite separate from the relationship.

The statistics on fidelity among men and women suggests that monogamy is a struggle for heterosexuals too. According to Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, “Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair.” That’s a whole lot of cheating. To clarify, infidelity is deceptive non-monogamy, but an open relationship is non-monogamy that occurs with the consent and knowledge of both partners.

Dan Savage, chimed in on the topic recently during a guest appearance on The Joy Behar show, saying:

I believe men can be monogamous. But I believe that it’s a difficult struggle. You know, when you’re in love with someone and you make a monogamous commitment, it’s not that you don’t want to sleep with other people; it’s that you refrain from sleeping with other people.

The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others and that makes people–essentially puts them at war with their own instincts and leads to lies and deceit because you’re lying and deceiving yourself.

In my own practice, having worked with more than 1,000 lesbians over the last decade, I would be very surprised to discover that lesbians choose non-monogomy at a rate of fifty-percent. While my sample of gay male couples is much smaller, it is large enough to support the notion that fifty percent of gay male couples open their relationship to outside “play” or sexual activity.

Some advocates of gay marriage are discouraged by findings such as Hoff’s and Lowen/Spears’s. I anticipate that norm-seeking gays and lesbians will post about this topic adamantly defending the fifty percent of us who choose monogamy. The inference is that monogamy is better. Seems to me that most people have their hands full just trying to figure out their own relationships. Maybe if we all focused a little more on how to make our own relationships work, and less about how others are going about it, we would all end up with more meaningful and satisfying relationships.

As a partnered lesbian, in a long-term (10+), monogamous relationship I enjoy the simplicity, comfort, and predictability of our relationship. As co-parents, it is also important to us to prioritize time with our sons and time as a family. By the time I’ve gone to work, tended to our homestead, done homework with my sons, spent time with them, prepared dinner, taken a family walk, caught up with my partner and how her day has gone, read to and tucked the boys into bed, I can’t imagine fitting in to my life an outside liaison or two. This is what works for us. That doesn’t mean it will work for or be fulfilling for everyone. That doesn’t mean that our way is the best way. Our way is simply the best way we’ve discovered for us.

What works best for you? At the end of the day that’s all that matters.

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain -- a man -- won his quest to get a tax deduction for his "sex-change" operation.

Folks, America’s rapid descent into post-Christian chaos continues. The 11-5 U.S. Tax Court decision below now gives a (sizeable) monetary incentive for men and women steeped in gender confusion to go through grotesque and horrifying, body-disfiguring “sex-change” operations. I’m saying this as someone who attended a “female-to-male” “transgender” conference where I witnessed young, early-twenties women showing off their newly-flattened chests — after their healthy breasts were surgically removed in their quest to be like men.

Yes, in the Brave New “Transgender” World, trans women cut off their healthy breasts while their male counterparts seek to grow a feminine-like pair in a pathetic attempt to become like women. (And “pathetic” doesn’t begin to describe the MtF — male-to-female — transsexual’s effort to create a makeshift “vagina” from his surgically-dismantled, once-healthy penis.)

Note the last paragraph in the AP story below: this poor man – yes, he is still a man — Rhiannon O’Donnabhain — actually sought a deduction for his follow-up boob job, after he had already grown fake breasts by taking female hormones. (The latter “augmentation”  deduction was denied.) Who could make this stuff up?

Men were never intended to have sex with men, nor were they intended to try to turn their bodies, as God made them — into female bodies, as God made them. Wake up, America: your judicially-approved tax code is now creating incentives for one of the most tragic manifestations of rebellious man’s claim to know better than God. In the meantime, Mister O’Donnabhain needs our prayers. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Does this mean that parents, too, are going to receive a tax break for pushing aggressive “transgender” treatments on their gender-confused children?

___________________________________________

Here is a second, follow-up AP story: “Woman Says Sex-change Tax Battle also Helps Others”; and below is the original, biased AP story with its politically-correct, “transgender”-approved pronouns and descriptors:

Tax Court Allows Deduction for Woman’s Sex Change

(Boston) The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain (oh-DON’-oh-vin), who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.

The IRS said the surgery was cosmetic and not medically necessary.

In its decision Tuesday, the tax court said the IRS position was “at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances” that is “thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence.”

The legal group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented O’Donnabhain, said the ruling could potentially affect thousands of people a year in the U.S. who undergo similar operations.

“I think what the court is saying is that surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people to alleviate the stress associated with gender identity disorder is legitimate medical care,” said Jennifer Levi, a GLAD attorney.

IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge declined to comment on the ruling.

In a 2007 interview with The Associated Press, O’Donnabhain said she underwent sex-reassignment surgery at age 57, after a tormented existence as a father, husband, Coast Guardsman and construction worker.

She wrote off the $25,000 in medical expenses on her taxes, but the IRS disallowed the deduction, ruling that the procedure was not a medical necessity.

O’Donnabhain, now 65, said she brought the lawsuit in an attempt to force the IRS to treat sex-change surgeries the same as appendectomies, heart surgeries and other deductible medical procedures.

“It is not OK for them to do this to me or anyone like me,” she said.

O’Donnabhain’s lawyers argued that because gender-identity disorder is a recognized mental disorder that is generally treated with hormones and surgery, the costs are legitimate medical deductions.

The tax court agreed.

“The evidence amply supports the conclusions that petitioner suffered from severe GID, that GID is a well-recognized and serious mental disorder, and that hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are considered appropriate and effective treatments for GID by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who are knowledgeable concerning the condition,” the court said in its ruling.

An estimated 1,600 to 2,000 people a year undergo sex-change surgery in the United States, according to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

The tax court said O’Donnabhain could deduct as a medical care expense the costs associated with treating her gender-identity disorder, including sex-reassignment surgery and hormone therapy. But the court said she could not deduct the costs of breast augmentation surgery because it found that she had achieved breast enhancement through hormone treatments.

The following is excerpted from WorldNetDaily.com:

________________________________________

Dakota Fanning in steamy, lesbian sex flick

15-year-old starlet popular with kids plays cocaine-snorting rocker

Dakota Fanning, 15, (left) plays singer Cherrie Currie. Kristen Stewart, 19, (right) plays guitarist Joan Jett in "The Runaways." (photo: IMDB.com)

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily, posted Feb. 2, 2010

[Warning: This story contains graphic content that may offend some readers.]

Fifteen-year-old child star Dakota Fanning is starring in yet another provocative movie role – snorting cocaine in bathrooms and participating in a steamy lesbian kiss and heavily implied sex scene with her female co-star.

Her latest movie, “The Runaways,” is rated “R” and will release March 19. It premiered at this year’s Sundance film festival.

Fanning plays the role of Cherie Currie, lead vocalist of The Runaways, an all-girl hard-rock band popular in the 1970s. Former “The Twilight Saga” star Kristen Stewart, 19, plays openly lesbian rocker Joan Jett, the band’s guitarist.

According to an early version of the script, the opening scene includes a splotch of menstrual blood hitting the sidewalk. Fanning’s character is seen with blood dripping down her leg as she begins her first menstrual cycle.

Jett is a rebellious teenager who curses, shoplifts leather pants, urinates on electric guitars, smokes, pops pills, takes part in several sexually charged scenes and smashes objects. Jett teaches another band member, Sandy, how to masturbate to Farrah Fawcett.

Fanning’s character cusses often, acts out, appears scantily clad in bed with “twenty-something surfer dudes,” drinks, uses cocaine and pops prescription pills. At age 15 she is abandoned by her mother, who moves to Indonesia with her boyfriend, and her father is an alcoholic.

Actor Michael Shannon plays band manager and bad guy Kim Fowley. According to one version of the script, when he meets the girl band, he declares, “Lemme guess, you sing in a band. And it’s the greatest f—ing band in the world. And I’m the luckiest dogf—er in the world because I get to hear it first.”

Get the inside information, in “What Hollywood Believes: An Intimate Look at the Faith of the Famous”

Fowley wears female clothing, constantly cusses and talks about sex and warns the band, “Rock n’ roll is tough music played in tough venues. Men don’t like to see women anywhere but in their kitchens or on their knees – let alone on-stage with guitars.”

Fowley has countless outbursts filled with expletives and pelvic thrusts as he teaches the girls to express rage in their music.

“They start jamming with Fowley listening, who is seemingly coked to the gills with a bent towards pedophilia,” a Cinematical review states. “He decides the band needs, as he so eloquently illustrates with his finger pointed at a woman’s crotch, more sex.”

Fanning’s character participates in a sex scene with her fellow female rocker. One version of the script describes the scene:

Precarious … a hand pushes a top up to expose a breast …
Unsteady … a bible on the night stand …
Tottering … white sheets unravel around a leg …
Weak … Toes curl up … roller-skate wheels spin …
Agitation … streaks of light …
A quiver … Cherie’s mouth opens …

The scene is followed by, “Whatever clothes they were wearing the night before are scattered all over the floor.”

Donna Miller special projects coordinator for Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, expressed concern that Fanning’s young fans might glamorize the starlet’s shocking behavior.

“That behavior includes a lesbian affair, sexually explicit song lyrics, risqué clothing and a pathetic character in a drugged-out existence,” Miller told WND. “In her interviews at Sundance, nowhere have I seen her denounce any of that behavior as destructive or immoral. In fact, she romanticizes her Cherie Currie character. Fanning indicates the lesbian sex scene is just a natural progression of the relationship.”

Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter echoed Miller’s concern about the movie’s portrayal of the band’s dysfunctional behavior: “While the film makes it clear its personalities suffered tremendously for their addictions, it all looks so glam.”

Fowley forces the girls to endure a rock-and-roll boot camp. He allows teen boys to throw bottles, bricks and garbage at them so they learn to cope with hecklers.

As WND reported, another controversial Fanning movie, “Hounddog,” sexualized a 9-year-old little girl. At the time, Fanning was only 12 years old when she played the child character who was violently raped. The movie earned a stunningly low $12,500 on its first weekend of release in theaters.

Miller said Fanning’s mother and campaign manager, Joy, is to blame for selecting sexualized roles for her daughter. ….[Story continued at WND.com]

Read the rest of the WND.com story here: “Dakota Fanning in Steamy, Lesbian Sex Flick”

Barack Obama's campaign promise to "gay" activists to homosexualize the military -- like much of his far-left agenda -- did not receive wide coverage in the general election. Will Congress now allow him to unilaterally undermine the law banning homosexual servicemen?

TAKE ACTION: Oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces.  One homosexual lobby group plans to spend $2 million to pressure Congress on “gays in the military.”  Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act.”  The act, mischievously titled the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces.  Also, tell your representatives to resist President Obama’s reckless plan to homosexualize the military non-legislatively — as the release below describes.  President Obama does not have the right to do an end-run around Congress and undermine U.S. law on military conduct!

BACKGROUND NOTE: Did you know that “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land?  Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.

_____________________________________

News Release: see http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7965812944.html

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

February 3, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

AFTAH Condemns Sec. Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s Capitulation to Obama’s Radical Plan to Homosexualize the Military

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued the following statement in response to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s testimony yesterday in favor of President Obama’s plan to allow open homosexuals in the military:

“At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis — and the ongoing national security crisis presented by worldwide Islamic terrorism — most Americans do not view homosexualizing our military as a top priority. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama, and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers, have chosen.

“With Defense Secretary Robert Gates‘ pledge to draw up plans to implement President Obama’s pro-homosexual military objective — and to remove a key means of identifying violating homosexual servicemembers (third-party reports on illegal same-sex behavior) — America now faces the spectacle of another grinding, unnecessary, Left-driven policy debate.

“The problem for Obama — and Gates — is that the American people have a say in stopping this latest “gay” capitulation. Implementing a pro-homosexual plan in the military will:

• devastate morale and unit cohesion in our Armed Forces;
• lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers — and discourage religious men and women of high moral character from seeking military service;
• violate the privacy concerns of normal (straight) servicemembers: will new “Gays-Only” showers be constructed at all U.S. bases?;
• ultimately subject millions of small-town, traditionally-minded recruits to pro-homosexual “diversity” training that undermines historic Judeo-Christian teachings;
• further alienate the United States from a Muslim world that already regards us as a decadent nation.

“This anti-military, left-wing policy misadventure must be stopped in its tracks by the American people standing up and shouting a collective “NO!” to the Democratic/Obama plan to homosexualize the military.

“If Sec. Gates (who also served as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense) and Adm. Mike Mullen – the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who strongly backed Obama’s plan — were men of courage and principle, they would resign rather than consent to this misguided sexual experiment that will weaken our military. Instead, they have become complicit in the escalating degradation of the homosexual exclusion law under President Obama, who is beholden to his homosexual activist allies.

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Representative and Senators [House: 202-225-3121; Senate: 202-224-3121; www.congress.org] and urge them NOT to allow President Obama or Defense Secretary Gates to unilaterally stop enforcing the existing law banning homosexuals in the military. Urge your Congressman and Senators to OPPOSE HR 1283, a bill that would implement a pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination” policy in our Armed Forces, thus eviscerating the current law banning homosexuals. For the best information on the dangers of homosexualizing the U.S. military, go to the Center for Military Readiness.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates

_______________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Dear Readers,

At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis, a two-front war and an ongoing national security threat from Islamic radicals who would just love to see a planeload of Americans be bombed into smithereens, I doubt that a top priority in the minds of most Americans is to promote open homosexuality in our military. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama — and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers — have chosen. With Defense Secretary Robert Gates‘ pledge today to draw up plans to implement President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing our military — and to remove a key means of identifying violating homosexual servicemembers — America now faces the spectacle of another grinding (and unnecessary) Left-driven policy debate.

The problem for Obama — and Gates — and every liberal that celebrates the prospect of sexual perversion gaining a stronger foothold in the Armed Forces of the greatest nation on earth– is that the American people have a say in stopping this latest “gay” capitulation. Make no mistake: the downsides of effectively putting a “Welcome” sign up for open homosexuals at every military recruitment center have hardly been contemplated. Allowing/encouraging homosexuals in the military would:

• devastate morale in our Armed Forces;
• lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers;
• discourage moral-minded and religious men and women of high character from seeking military service;
• violate the privacy concerns of sexually normal servicemembers: will new “Gays-Only” showers be constructed at U.S. bases the world over — or will there just be special showering hours for men-who-are-sexually-attracted-to-other-men and lesbian-practicing women? And what about the bisexuals? (“Transgenders” have been left off the list for now — as even giddy pro-homosexual activists realize that is going too far at this time.);
• subject hundreds of thousands of small-town, traditionally-minded recruits to Orwellian, government-run brainwashing “diversity” propaganda training, as the military becomes officially part of modern man’s effort to erase God’s law and wisdom on this issue. Such pro-homosexuality “diversity” training dulls the mind and corrupts the spirit — two results that surely will not find their way onto retooled U.S. military recruitment brochures;
• further alienate the United States of America from the Muslim world; believe it or not, Mr. Obama, but the celebration of homosexuality that is all too common between our shores is nothing to brag about.

This radical, anti-military, left-wing policy adventure must be stopped in its tracks by the American people standing up and shouting a collective “NO!” to the Democratic/Obama plan to homosexualize the military.

If Secretary Gates (who also served as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense) were truly a man of courage and principle, he would offer to resign rather than consent to be the designer and manager of a sexual experimentation plan that will damage our troops’ effectiveness, cohesion and morale. Instead, he adopts “gay rights” euphemisms (see below) and becomes complicit in the escalating degradation of the homosexual exclusion law under his new boss Obama.

To add insult to injury, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his announced support for the homosexualization of the Armed Forces in the name of “integrity.” No, Admiral Mullen, there is no integrity — and no honor — in advancing immorality and destructive sexual agendas in our Armed Forces. The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force exist to defend our nation and win wars — not to propel politically correctness agendas like the obnoxious crusade to turn homosexuality (changeable, immoral and unhealthy misbehavior) into a “civil right.”

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Representative and Senators [House: 202-225-3121; Senate: 202-224-3121; www.congress.org] and urge them NOT to allow President Obama or Defense Secretary Gates to unilaterally stop enforcing the existing law banning homosexuals in the military. Oppose HR 1283 — the “Homosexualize Our Military” bill otherwise called the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act.”

_________________________________________

FoxNews.com reports today:

Gates Backs Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that he supports President Obama’s decision to seek the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military and has appointed a “high-level working group” to figure out how to do it.

Gates, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that Gen. Carter Ham, who leads U.S. Army forces in Europe, and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson will lead the review. The defense chief called for an “implementation plan” by the end of the year.

“I fully support the president’s decision,” Gates said. “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we … best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.”

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Gates’ remarks and added that, in his “personal view,” changing the policy is the “right thing to do.”

“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Mullen said. “For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

Mullen said he believes, but does not know for a fact, that military personnel will “accommodate” a change in the policy.

Obama said during the State of the Union address last week that he will work with Congress “this year” to repeal the controversial policy, renewing a campaign pledge that fell by the wayside last year as the president devoted his energy to health care reform.

But Gates cautioned Tuesday that no matter how much the Pentagon studies the issue, the “ultimate decision” rests with Congress.

A senior Pentagon official earlier told Fox News it does not appear the votes are there in Congress to actually change the law, but said it is not the Pentagon’s role to get involved in that aspect.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday he was “deeply disappointed” by Gates’ remarks and reminded him that the plan requires the support of Congress. He said that the administration should not repeal the policy, which he called “imperfect but effective,” at a time when the nation is engaged in two wars.

“Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not. But it has been effective,” McCain said.

Mullen and Gates acknowledged that the Pentagon is embarking on the change in policy in war-time but argued that the military could do so thoughtfully and objectively, with minimal disruptions.

Gates said the review, among other things, would examine how a repeal would affect policies on base housing, benefits and other issues.

Reprinted from Republicans For Fair Media; to support RFFM, go HERE

By Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director, Republicans For Fair Media; e-mail: dan@rffm.org

Social conservatives have noticed that FOX's Bill O'Reilly has tilted steadily further left on the homosexual issue.

As expected, during his first State of the Union address, Barack Obama called for the lifting of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The only problem for Obama and the far left wing of the Democratic Party is this would take an act of Congress because the Uniform Code of Military Justice would have to be twisted to allow Obama’s plan to be implemented.

Most members of the U.S. Armed Forces, especially those in command positions, recognize that homosexuals openly serving in the military would have a negative impact on morale, esprit de corps and, subsequently, combat readiness.

Amazingly, those who participated in a Jan. 28 segment that Bill O’Reilly (FOX News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor) refers to as “The Culture Warriors” made clear that they agreed with Obama’s proposal to rescind “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT).  The segment usually includes pro-family conservative Gretchen Carlson who tackles issues from a conservative perspective in contrast to Margaret Hoover who argues the liberal point of view concerning political and social issues.

But on Thursday, January 28th, FOX business anchor Cheryl Casone (who stepped in for Carlson) and FOX News analyst Margaret Hoover both agreed America was ready to have homosexuals openly serve in defense of our nation [Transcript available HERE].  It was a shocker for me to hear this on FOX News–the “fair and balanced” network.  Even O’Reilly fed into the liberal line which suggested it was time for this social experiment to take place.  It has become all too evident the network seems to be leaning to the left, in order to appease and attract more liberal viewers.  FOX would not want to offend this new demographic which has helped the FOX News Channel’s ratings go through the roof.

Mr. O’Reilly, the purpose of the United States Armed Forces is to defend America.  It is not a place for social experiments or political correctness.  Indeed, the  Constitution does not apply in many cases to the U.S. military and FOX News should not be advocating Barack Obama’s far-left policies.

Unfortunately, the tack to the left is evident, especially on O’Reilly’s highly popular primetime program.  But, as I wrote in a related column, FNC also seems to have a penchant for supporting moderate Republican candidates.  This was made clear in 2008 when Sean Hannity seemed to be shilling for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and eventual GOP presidential nominee John McCain.  At the same time, Hannity took every opportunity to ignore the highly effective and energized grassroots campaigns of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.  Is FOX News becoming MSNBC Light?  You  certainly couldn’t tell what network you were watching on Thursday evening during the Culture Warriors segment.  Very sad.

“Gay rights groups were already mobilizing Thursday to make the subject [of homosexuals in the military/ending "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"] a campaign issue before congressional elections in November. The Human Rights Campaign announced plans to start a more than $2 million national grass-roots and lobbying campaign targeting lawmakers whose votes would be needed to pass a repeal.” – Washington Post, “On Issue of Gays in Military, Pentagon Will Make Recommendations to Congress”, Jan. 29, 2010

"Gay" military porn ad. Homosexual military pornography is a huge business. Many "gay" men are attracted to "macho" (masculine) guys in uniform. The last thing our Armed Forces need is to welcome in more men and women with disordered sexuality.

BACKGROUND NOTE: Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION:  Dedicate yourself to actively oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces (pro-”gay” “diversity” is political). As the Washington Post above reveals, homosexual activists will be going all out to pressure Congress to impose their radical agenda on our Servicemembers. Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act” — which is mischievously named by liberals as the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act.” This act would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces. In other words, it would radically force a change in ethos in the military to one of approving of homosexuality — including through one-sided “diversity” programs that would undermine servicemembers’ faith and morals (as happens today to people of faith in major corporations implementing pro-homosexual ”sexual orientation” agendas).

Also oppose all efforts by the President to advance his misguided agenda of homosexualizing our military non-legislatively (i.e., by various executive actions). Already, military leaders are laying the groundwork for a plan to gradually open up the military to homosexuality — the Washington Post reports. Obama must NOT autocratically launch this revolutionary change to our Armed Forces without legislative action and oversight.

__________________________________________

Two points about the 2006 FOX story below on a homosexual porn bust at Ft. Bragg:

1) There is a huge market for “gay” military porn because lots of homosexual men are turned on by “straight-acting,” “macho” (masculine) men. I realize it’s a sick comparison, but just as many women like a “man in uniform,” so do homosexual men. On Jan. 29, 2010, a Google search on the three words “gay military porn” (no quote marks) yielded “about 1,300,000″ entries. “Gay Military Porn” (in quote marks) yielded 34,300 entries. This is a huge (and very twisted) business, and obviously the demand is high among men with a homosexual problem.

The last thing our fighting men and women need is to have the military floodgates opened up for homosexual men and lesbians to join as open practitioners of homosexuality. That would put men who are sexually attracted to men, and women to women, in tight bunking situations, showers, etc., with servicemembers of the same sex. Remember: homosexuality is not an “identity” issue (sorry, Warren Throckmorton) or a “civil rights” issue; it’s a BEHAVIORIAL issue, and welcoming in men and women who are tempted to practice – or inclined to practice — disordered same-sex behavior is wrong and detrimental to the morale, effectiveness and readiness of our Armed Forces. 

Of course, there is a huge straight pornography problem, too, of course. But men do not bunk and shower with women in the Armed Forces (except married couples). The sexes are segregated. [And then there is this peculiar logic by a homosexual activist, Dale Carpenter, who argues that allowing open homosexuality in the military would help identify the “gay” soldiers — making it harder for them to leer at naked straight soldiers!  “Under present policy, the straight soldier doesn’t know who might be leering at him in the shower. So he has to wonder about everybody — hardly a reassuring prospect,” Carpenter writes. “Under a policy of openness, he’ll have a better idea who might find some of his 2,000 body parts especially appealing. Thus, he can take whatever modest precautions are available to minimize his exposure.”  How absurd. To even discuss such folly in a time of war is a needless distraction — and showering/privacy issues are just one of the many problems caused by homosexualizing the military.

2) Read the second to last sentence of the Fox story below: “The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” What kind of a nonsensical policy encourages “homosexuals” to join the armed forces but then bars homosexual conduct? This is a triumph of “gay” activists’ “sexual orientation” ideology — skewing the debate toward “civil rights” and away from aberrant behavior. And it is very bad public policy. As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness constantly reminds anyone who will listen, “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land, but rather a political compromise driven by a previous president”s (Bill Clinton’s) desire to pander to homosexual activists. We must go back to following the actual law passed by Congress, which bars homosexuals from serving. But that can only happen after the Obama presidency is over. Meanwhile, we must resist Obama’s plan to homosexualize and politicize our Armed Services.

__________________________________________________ 

Army Paratrooper Pleads Guilty in Gay Porn Case
April 27, 2006, FoxNews.com

FORT BRAGG, N.C. —  An Army paratrooper pleaded guilty Thursday to engaging in sex acts on a military-themed gay pornographic Web site and was sentenced to prison.

Pfc. Richard T. Ashley, one of seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division charged with appearing on the site, pleaded guilty to sodomy, conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit, and drug use.

He was sentenced to 90 days in prison, but was given 15 days credit. Ashley also was demoted to private, will receive a bad conduct discharge and will lose two-thirds of his pay.

“I’ve embarrassed the entire Army, my country and most of all, dishonored God,” Ashley said during the hearing.

Pfc. Wesley K. Mitten and Pvt. Kagen B. Mullen were charged with pandering, sodomy and conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit. Mitten and Mullen, who also faces adultery charges, have pleaded not guilty.

Military Investigating 82nd Airborne Over Gay Porn Allegations

The 82nd Airborne says that four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received nonjudicial punishment for appearing on the Web site. They were reduced in rank to private, forfeited half a month’s pay for two months, performed extra work and were restricted to Fort Bragg for 45 days.

The Army has recommended that all seven be discharged.

The 15,000 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne are among the Army’s most elite soldiers, having volunteered to serve in a unit that trains to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” Service members who violate the policy are removed from the military.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose all legislative efforts to homosexualize the U.S. Military.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center For Military Readiness, the leading pro-family advocate opposing the effort to homosexualize the U.S. military, writes:
__________________________

Walking the Plank for Military “LGBT Law”

President Barack Obama is expected to push for acceptance of professed gays in the military, a goal that can only be achieved legally by passage of a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. In response, the Center for Military Readiness predicted that the effort would fail for three basic reasons:

1. Members of Congress are becoming aware that repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in our military. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10), and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”
2. A decision by the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath of office by suspending enforcement of the law would alienate members of Congress and break faith with the troops he leads.
3. Political dynamics of the issue could develop in ways similar to 1994, when Republicans regained majority control of Congress, and no GOP incumbents were defeated.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly noted that even if President Obama keeps pushing for a new LGBT Law for the military, some members of Congress may be more concerned about lessons learned in the recent Massachusetts special election, as well as in 1994. Said Donnelly,“Voters are concerned about national security, and they don’t want America’s military to be used for any purpose other than national defense.”

1. In 1994, a survey done for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by Stanley Greenberg, President Clinton’s own pollster, indicated the second most important factor that shifted control of Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 mid-term election was President Bill Clinton’s 1993 push for gays in the military.
2. That finding was reported by Dan Balz in a November 14, 1994, Washington Post article titled “Health Plan Was Albatross for Democrats: Big Government Label Hurt Party, Poll Finds.” Greenburg found that 54% of 1,250 voters surveyed named the Health Care Task Force issue as the number one reason they cast a “vote of dissatisfaction” in the leadership of Clinton and the Democrats controlling Congress in 1993. Greenberg also identified a second issue, called “cultural liberalism,” which was cited by 51% of respondents and symbolized by Bill Clinton’s failed 1993 campaign for homosexuals in the military.
3. Greenberg’s survey was significant because gays-in-the-military was not even an issue in the 1994 elections. Congress had already settled the issue in 1993, and bipartisan veto-proof majorities had approved current law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. The voters punished Democrats anyway, due to a lingering impression of what Greenberg called “cultural liberalism.” Those concerns could emerge again if President Obama and LGBT Left liberals in Congress insist on votes for gays in the military.

In 2010, the Massachusetts special election detected public opposition to similar issues involving what is usually called “political correctness in the military.” In an article titled “It’s the Enemy, Stupid,” Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online quoted Senator-elect Scott Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign’s internal polling showed “terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants” to be an even bigger issue than health care.

Said Donnelly, “Liberals and Blue Dog Democrats can dismiss the national security message sent by Massachusetts, as well as Stanley Greenburg’s post-1994-election analysis, but they would do so with political risk.”

To arrange an interview on these and related military/social issues, please call CMR President Elaine Donnelly at 734/464-9430 or CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears in Washington D.C. at 202/347-5333.

* * * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness in an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.

Here’s how Illinois liberal political blogger Rich Miller (Capitol Fax Blog) tries to slam my RFFV story:

One of Peter LaBarbera’s websites is currently attempting to out a suburban county candidate for having adulterous affairs. No link [read: Miller refuses to link to the story]. Try to avoid the Google. It’s really disgusting. LaBarbera has stooped to a new low.

Ouch, Rich. You wouldn’t want your readers to actually READ the piece you are criticizing, would you? Bottom line: Miller is an intolerant leftie who hates social-issues conservatives. Why is it a “new low” to investigate and expose serious moral compromise in the life a very public Republican “Christian pro-family” leader? (Of course, when Miller exposes hypocrites, it’s OK.)

Well, for the same reason that liberals like Miller despise those who oppose the pro-homosexuality movement. The secular Left’s “non-judgmentalism” is applied liberally when it comes to NOT criticizing those who transgress historic Judeo-Christian values. But as you can see, their nasty judgments overflow when it comes to bashing people and groups who stand up for traditional morality.

America is waking up to the reality that the Secular Left is a mean-spirited and highly intolerant political force that is bad for America. “Consensuality,” “choice,” “my truth” (versus absolute truth), “tolerance,” “diversity”: these are some of the Left’s self-satisfied buzzwords. But watch out if you uphold a divinely-ordered morality that pays no heed to their worldly, politically correct — and, yes, selfish — trends. Then you are anathema.

In other words, today’s liberals are fundamentalists of different stripe. And remember: don’t read that piece! — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton -- who is on record affirming homosexuality as "natural, normal and healthy" despite the College's biblical faith charter -- has joined homosexual activists in crusading against Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality law. Perhaps Throckmorton, who has lost his faith in the ability of Jesus Christ to help "homosexuals" leave the lifestyle, could learn something from the more biblically faithful Ugandans.

TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural “orientation”).

___________________________

Folks, I’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. (Sadly, Warren has lost his faith in the ability of God to radically change homosexuals through Christ, and now busily works — even in Uganda! — to promote the faithless and disheartening message that most “gays and lesbians” cannot change their basic “orientation”; see his Uganda Independent column in which he makes that assertion HERE.)

Here’s the question I keep asking myself about the Uganda controversy: just what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality? Is it our public policy that enshrines immoral sexual behavior (oops: “sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (er…”gender identity and expression”) as a “civil right”? Is it our homosexual “marriage” laws that make a mockery of this divine institution (laws about which Prof. Throckmorton is curiously silent)? How about our pro-homosexuality educational propaganda in K-12 schools that corrupts young students’ minds in the name of “tolerance”? Or the 24/7 “gay bathhouses” and sex clubs that proliferate in urban centers across the United States to facilitate quick-and-easy (and anonymous) deviant sexual hook-ups? (“Come to America: where you can have all the safe sodomy you want! Discounts for students (no joke) and free condoms available for your perverted pleasure!”)

Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

[TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural "orientation").]

Challenge to Accommodationists: I stand corrected if Prof. Throckmorton or any Grove City prof — indeed, any homosexual activist or pro-”gay” apologist — can show me anything resembling “sexual orientation” in the Bible as this concept is currently understood and posited in academia, the media and society.

Nope. What we’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. (Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media calls it “Homosexual Imperialism.”) I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals. But I do know this: Uganda would do well to avoid the example set by America of a cultural-elite-driven society that celebrates homosexuality (along with other sexual immoralities) — and then reaps the whirlwind that results, including the following:

• devastating (public) health crises that are prolonged by the politically correct protection of the very sexual misbehaviors that helped spread the disease in the first place;
• the proliferation of “gay” activist groups that war against Judeo-Christian values and cruelly smear people of faith who dare to defend those values;
• pro-homosexuality, politically correct indoctrination — even on the job — masquerading as “diversity” — i.e., the gradual replacement of Christian proselytization with the institutional advocacy of sin, disguised as tolerance;
• public immorality and annual “gay pride” parades that subject children to immoral displays including public nudity;
• the undermining of historic Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage; “queer” theological attacks on the Bible and sacred texts due to their unambiguous teachings against homosexual acts;
• the rise of “gay”-sympathetic, anti-religious bigotry and even laws that criminalize the outworking of a biblically-informed conscience against homosexuality; legal and cultural harassment of moral-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army that refuse to treat homosexuality as a civil right;
• the corruption and victimization of children — including ever younger “coming out” ages for children declaring their supposed “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (“queer”) identity.
• turning the public schools into indoctrination zones for the “GLBT” ideology — all in the name of tolerance and “protecting kids”; the spread of “gay” school clubs, first to high schools, then to middle schools, and ultimately to grade schools.

As you can see, most of America’s “lessons” on homosexuality for Uganda are negative ones. Could it be that the more faith-filled and Bible-trusting African Christians have something to teach jaded Americans like Barack Obama and Warren Throckmorton about homosexuality?  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ; send us your thoughts at americansfortruth@comcast.net

__________________________________

The following is a column by Bob Knight in World Net Daily:

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

Exclusive: Robert Knight hits N.Y. Times for ‘knee-jerk spasms’ targeting Christians

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

You cannot find a better example of selective outrage and character assassination than the Jan. 5 New York Times editorial, “Hate begets hate.”

This humdinger of a self-descriptive screed has it all: wild, unsubstantiated charges; villains; hysterical calls for action; and a smug, holier-than-thou tone that would put “Saturday Night Live”’s Church Lady to shame.

At issue is Uganda’s proposed law criminalizing homosexuality. But the editorial’s real focus is crucifying Christians who had given talks in Uganda and any part of Christendom that has not bowed its knee to the gay gods.

The Times notes that “three evangelical Christians, whose teachings about ‘curing’ gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred.” The editorial names Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who “gave a series of talks” last March that “claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

I don’t know Mr. Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate. And it is beyond absurd to label as a bigot a man like Don Schmierer, who supports AIDS ministries and reaches out to sexually conflicted people with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. Casting the gentle, soft spoken Mr. Schmierer as a “hater” is like calling Mother Teresa a foul-mouthed harpy.

These men discuss sexual behavior and its consequences for individuals, families and societies, and the blessings of God-given hope. As is typical for a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement, the Times falsely claims that the Christian leaders oppose the people themselves. The Times has bought into and promoted the media-fed fiction that people are born gay, cannot change and therefore their volitional sexual behavior is synonymous with identity. In gay parlance, it’s “who they are,” not what they do.

This is nonsense. If we are defined by our sexual behavior, then men addicted to pornography are nothing more than “pornophiles.” It is homosexual activists who have insisted on making sexual desire the be-all and end-all of personal identity. They did this to hijack the moral capital of the black civil-rights movement, equating “sexual orientation” with immutable characteristics like skin color or ethnicity. One big problem remains for them, though. Skin color and ethnicity are morally neutral. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral, social and physical consequences and has been regulated by every society since time began.

The Times ignores the Christian men’s pointed criticisms of the proposed Uganda law and says, “We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts.”

Well, we don’t have a whole lot of hope that the Times will atone for its many portrayals of Christians as hate-filled bigots whenever the “gay” issue surfaces. They are following the playbook of “After the Ball,” a gay strategy manual from 1989 that instructs activists to “jam” opponents into silence through threats of guilt by association, outright smears and phony “scientific” claims that go unexamined. The strategy has worked brilliantly, as even conservative voices have been frightened into silence or into steadily ceding moral ground, circling the wagons only around the word “marriage.”

The Times is not alone, of course, in its relentless pursuit of homosexual orthodoxy. On Jan. 7, the Washington Post ran an editorial about Uganda entitled, “A barbaric proposal.” The Post editors, at least, did not engage in Christian bashing, and stuck to very real problems with the proposed law. They did repeat a gay mantra, however: “Being gay is not a choice.”

Science has by no means settled the issue. None of the highly publicized studies by gay researchers in the 1990s has been replicated, and several have been discredited. Then, too, there is the inconvenient existence of many people who engage in homosexuality for years and later embrace the straight life. The “ex-gay” movement is large and growing, but the media are keeping it one of the best-kept secrets out of deference to militant gay activists in the newsrooms.

Uganda has been in the cultural elites’ hot water before by bucking the U.S.-backed condom crusade in Africa and slashing its AIDS rate with campaigns for abstinence and fidelity. The current homosexuality bill is seriously flawed. It contains such overreaches as jail terms for people who do not report homosexual activity and life imprisonment for people who engage in the behavior. But the Times and the Post go beyond criticizing the harsher aspects of the law and attack the underlying concern of Ugandans to defend marriage and family, avoid the corruption of their children and put the brakes on AIDS and other diseases.

The Times and the Post warn that Uganda will become a “pariah” nation “shunned globally” if the law is passed. That may be so. But it might behoove the press to take a closer look at some other countries in Africa whose governments, in the grip of Muslim extremism, routinely cut off people’s heads merely for changing religions. Some nations, such as Egypt, have governments that look the other way as young Christian girls are abducted, raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Do these nations qualify as “pariahs”?

The Times’ editors need to come to terms with their knee-jerk spasms against evangelical Christians and others who defend family values. They routinely depict pro-marriage Americans as motivated solely by hatred and prejudice, never by genuine, heartfelt concerns.

In their editorial’s own words: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”

If this is so, the next equipment the Times should order for its newsroom is … a mirror.

____________________________

Robert Knight is senior writer and correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of “Fighting for America’s Soul” (Coral Ridge 2009) and the upcoming book “Radical Rulers.”

Reprinted from Newsmax.com:

Commentator Jack Cafferty — who has been outspoken in his praise of Obama in the past — launched a blistering attack on Obama and the Democrats over the closed-door negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

“How dare they!” he began on a recent edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

“President Obama and Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference committee in order to reconcile those two healthcare bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal — that’s another word for secret — negotiations meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.

“What a far cry from the election, when candidate Obama pledged to ‘broadcast healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people can see what the choices are.’

“President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.”

C-SPAN Chief Executive Brian Lamb sent a letter to House and Senate leaders on Jan. 5 asking that the negotiations be televised, saying healthcare reform “will affect the lives of every single American.” The request was rebuffed.

“The Democrats insist this is all on the up and up,” Cafferty continued, “with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying ‘there’s never been a more open process for any legislation.’ Really?

“This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have the ‘most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.’

“Here’s hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.”

The blast was a sharp turnaround for Cafferty, who in March rhapsodized about the “bright” and “terrific” Barack Obama in an interview with Media Bistro.

Asked whether he thought the president could turn things around, Cafferty described himself as “hopeful” and gushed, “I like him a lot. I think he’s a bright guy.”

Then in a statement that now appears strikingly ironic, he added: “I like the fact that he’s visible and that, you know, he’s attempting to bring some transparency and some legitimacy and honesty to the office, which has been missing for a while.”

Bruce LaVallee-Davidson

Once again we are confronted with the unparalleled deviance of a Sexual Perversion Movement that masquerades as a “civil rights” cause. As we’ve said many times, truth really is stranger than fiction when it comes to the “gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/sadomasochist” (GLBTS?) lobby.

Just four days after attending a sadomasochistic party where he shot a fellow homosexual, Fred Homer Wilson, who “got a thrill out of using a loaded gun as a sex toy,” Bruce LaVallee-Davidson testified for “gay marriage” with his homosexual lover Buck at a public hearing.

Had such a bizarre situation emanated from the “religious right,” Maine’s liberal media would have had a field day with it and used it to discredit pro-family ideas. Here’s a description of the sex-party shooting from WorldNetDaily:

The defense in the case said there were three men participating in the sex party, and they were consenting adults and were aware of the risks. The defense also said no one was at fault, because Wilson was an ultimate thrill seeker and wanted the gun to be loaded to maximize the sexual experience.

We aren’t surprised that homosexual activist groups are silent about the LaVallee-Davidson scandal. After all, powerful “gay” groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — which was heavily involved in Maine’s recent plebiscite on same-sex “marriage” — promote sadomasochism as part of their overarching “sexual freedom” agenda.  Kudos to the Maine Christian Civic League for their good work in bringing this to the public. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org [Christian Civic League press release follows jump]
__________________________

The Christian Civic League of Maine has issued the following press release in response to the manslaughter conviction of (Malcolm) Bruce LaVallee-Davidson for the killing of South Portland resident Fred Homer Wilson (emphasis added):

In January last year, the homosexual rights lobby used State Senator Dennis Damon (Democrat – Hancock County) to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage.”  Not only did the bill legalize same-sex “marriage,” it made all terms pertaining to the family, words such as ‘husband and wife’, ‘father and mother,’ gender neutral.  It was a travesty to introduce such a bill at a time of deep economic crisis, a fact acknowledged by Democrat Governor John Baldacci, the most liberal governor in Maine history.

The bill was shepherded through the Maine Legislature by State Senator Larry Bliss (Democrat – Cumberland County), a homosexual activist from California, now head of the Judiciary Committee.  During the campaign to repeal the law, the ‘No on 1′ side offered a sanitized view of same-sex “marriage,” marketing their product with commercials which showed “married” homosexual couples and their children, all smiling, healthy, and content in a typical Maine setting.

It took an act of brazen hypocrisy for the truth to be revealed.  The public discovered that one of the proponents of same-sex “marriage” testified in person in favor of gay “marriage” shortly after killing a man during a night of drug and alcohol-fueled debauchery. During the public hearing on same-sex “marriage” at the Augusta Civic Center, Bruce LaVallee-Davidson stood alongside his homosexual partner ‘Buck’ and claimed he was “already married in the eyes of God.”

Some independent observers, including those who support same-sex” marriage,” have claimed LaVallee-Davidson’s remarks taint the entire same-sex “marriage” movement, and that the leadership of that movement must move quickly to disown his call for gay “marriage.”  We at the Christian Civic League of Maine agree.

We wish to give the leaders of the same-sex “marriage” movement a fair chance to explain why they have not already publicly repudiated the remarks of Bruce LaVallee-Davidson.  Let them step forward and state forthrightly why they have been reluctant to call LaVallee-Davidson’s  actions by their right name — perversion.

The Christian Civic League of Maine calls on EqualityMaine, Senator Larry Bliss, Senator Dennis Damon, Senate President Libby Mitchell, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, and Jesse Connolly, to take this opportunity of the news of the manslaughter conviction of LaVallee-Davidson to clear the air.  Let them explain how LaVallee-Davidson could state he was “married in the eyes of God” after a night of  tenfold depravity — tenfold because his actions that night involved two guns, five drugs, and three men — one of whom is dead.

Let the leaders of the same-sex “marriage” movement in Maine use the opportunity of the news of the manslaughter conviction of LaVallee-Davidson to explain why sadomasochistic bondage-and-discipline homosexual organizations march in their parades, namely the Harbor Masters of Maine and Blackstones bar, under the name of Pride.  Let them also explain the extent and prevalence of illegal drugs and AIDS infection in their homosexual community, as all three men involved used illegal drugs and were AIDS-infected at the time of the killing.

Absent such explanations, the public will be left with the impression that the call for ‘gay marriage’ by these groups and individuals is nothing more than a sinister ruse.  Convicted violent felon LaVallee-Davidson’s own claim to marriage, like the claim to marriage made by many other homosexuals, is built on a foundation of appalling homosexual perversion and sodomistic deviancy.

Worse, the failure to speak out publicly against such perversion by these groups and individuals will be seen as a tacit admission that such behavior and practices are not an aberration in their community, but rather, a normal and accepted part of everyday homosexual life.

________________________________

Report from Haiti

Food for the Poor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
01/15/10

DONATE TO ‘FOOD FOR THE POOR’ HERE

Our team from Florida is in Port-au-Prince, Haiti and reported back. Staffer Chris Frosch reported this morning, January 15, that there is dust, debris and “dead bodies everywhere,” and little or no cell phone service. Tens of thousands of people are camped out in public parks because of the aftershocks. The team is staying at a Haiti staff member’s house. “Last night we all slept in the cars because it was not safe to sleep inside,” Frosch said.

Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, has been hit hard in the earthquake. “This is Haiti times 100. People are looking for lost relatives, it’s chaos,” said Frosch.

Almost 100 containers of urgently needed medical supplies, rice and canned food from Food For The Poor are ready to be distributed to the people of Haiti, who are reeling from the devastating effects of the 7.0-magnitude earthquake. Another 300 containers are planned as a part of the initial relief effort.

The containers are part of Food For The Poor’s goal to provide $5 million in relief to the struggling nation, as it endures one of the worst natural disasters in its history.

“Our hearts are broken watching this news about the country that we care so much about, and have worked in for so long,” said Robin Mahfood, President/CEO of Food For The Poor. “Our job now is not to ask why they have had to suffer again, but to do everything we can to get help to them. We need everybody’s help.”

DONATE TO ‘FOOD FOR THE POOR’ HERE

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

Dr. Michael Brown is right on here: sin is our “mortal enemy,” and the Christian Church in America is way too tolerant of it. If you would like to order a 2-DVD set of Dr. Brown’s superb presentation at AFTAH last year, send $20 postpaid to “Americans For Truth” to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Or pay online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ and designate: “Dr. Michael Brown DVD.”

For our homosexual readers: I urge you to get out your Bible and pursue these questions honestly: Does God approve or disapprove of homosexual behavior? Is there any basis in Scripture for homosexuality (“gayness”) being a core part of your identity — “who you are”? Or homosexuality being “moral,” as some “gay” activists argue? Or are you just another lost sinner fully capable of deceiving yourself on this particular issue? Whatever you do, do NOT trust your eternal destiny to the fallacious claims of sin-justifying, pro-”gay” theology. Jesus Christ offers you complete forgiveness if you will swallow that gay pride, repent, believe in Him and accept His sacrificial atonement as a “free gift” for your eternal salvation. Jesus is God yet He came down to earth to pay the price for your and my sins! Many former homosexuals have obeyed Christ’s words — “Go now and leave your life of  sin” — and embarked on a new, abundant life in Him. And you can, too. God bless you. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

____________________________________

Liberty From Sin, Not Liberty To Sin

By Dr. Michael Brown

Reprinted from Dr. Brown’s online magazine, “Voice of Revolution”

Jesus came to set us free! This is one of the fundamental truths of the gospel, repeated over and again in the New Testament. As expressed by Paul, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free” (Gal 5:1a). In the words of Jesus himself, “. . . if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

But what kind of freedom do we have in the Lord? The New Testament speaks of different aspects to our liberty, including these:

• We have been released from serving God through an external legal system “so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code” (Rom 7:6)
• We have been delivered from slavery to Satan and the fear of death (Heb 2:15)
• We have been set free from condemnation and guilt (Rom 8:1-4); in fact, the primary NT word for forgiveness (aphesis) means “release from debt,” in this case the debt of our sin against God.

In Jesus, we are no longer prisoners, and when the Lord announced his mission in what is often called his “platform speech” in Nazareth, he declared, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19).

There is another aspect to our freedom in the Lord, however, one that is stressed more than any other in the NT: In Jesus we have been set free from sin. Look at this well-known passage from John:

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:31-36).

The ultimate bondage is bondage to sin. That’s why the root of our freedom is freedom from sin. Jesus is our liberator!

When Paul wrote to the Galatians, he was very concerned because they had fallen into a Judaistic-based legalism, one that taught these Gentile believers that unless they observed the Law of Moses and were circumcised, they could not be saved. Paul confronted this error head on, emphasizing the freedom they had in Jesus. But it was a freedom that could be abused, and Paul confronted this dangerous error as well: “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love” (Gal 5:13; see also 5:19-5:21, where Paul lists some of the works of the flesh, closing with this warning: “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”)

In similar fashion (but in a very different context), Peter wrote, “Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God” (1 Pet 2:16; this follows on the heels of 2:11, “Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul”; and this builds on the foundational call to be holy because the Lord is holy in 1:13-16).

Look at how Paul opens this up to the Romans:

You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life (Rom 6:18-22).

All this is quite clear and, for the most part, quite obvious. Really, how could Paul or others in the New Testament made it any more clear? And yet in recent years, a very strange message has been gaining momentum, one that claims that Jesus has set us free to sin rather than from sin. To be sure, believers who embrace this concept don’t flatly say that they the Lord has set them free to sin – but they say everything other than that. For example, a friend tells you excitedly about a movie he just saw, one which is laced with profanity, nudity, and sexual scenes. You say to your friend in surprise, “But I hear that’s a really filthy movie. Why in the world did you see it?” He replies, “I’m free in the Lord, man. You’re not going to put me under some old legal system. I’m been liberated from that kind of bondage.” What a bizarre concept!

When you are liberated from prison, you don’t go back to live in your prison cell. When the shackles are taken off of your wrists, you don’t put them back on. Why would you? What kind of liberty is that? And who would ever think of saying, “Hey man, I’m free! If I want to put the shackles back on, that’s my right.” Only a demented person says to the doctors who pumped her stomach after a massive drug overdose, sparing her life, “Thanks so much! You pumped my stomach and saved my life so I can overdose again.”

Sin is our mortal enemy, and there is nothing good in sin, only evil and death and deception and bondage. And sin is so ugly that it cost Jesus his very blood. Why in the world would we want to indulge in the very thing from which Jesus delivered us? It not only makes no sense, it also undermines a foundational truth of the gospel, namely that Jesus sets us free from both the penalty of sin and the power of sin. We really have been liberated!

How odd it is that many believers today boast of their freedom in Jesus as if it provided a license to sin – the very thing Paul warned the Galatians about. I would recommend that the next time someone abuses the concept of liberty in Jesus and liberty in the Spirit (“Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom” 2 Cor 3:17b), throwing around the “I’m free” mantra, just ask them: Then why are you making yourself a slave again? If he cleansed you, why are making yourself dirty again? Jesus died to give you a brand new nature, not a license to indulge the old nature that brings only destruction and death.

It’s really pretty simple, isn’t it?

From the Republican Study Committee:

Frank Kameny (center) holding one of his original "gay" protest signs, as he was being honored by Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in 2007. President Obama has hailed Kameny as a "civil rights pioneer" and thanked the homosexual activist for his "leadership."

Folks, there is no shortage of sinful pride and presumption among “gay” activists and their allies, that’s for sure.  How appropriate is this coming from the hero of a movement that redefines changeable sexual sin as a “civil right”? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

P.S.  If you wish to write Frank Kameny, send your letter to me at americansfortruth@comcast.net, and I will pass it on to him.  May the living, holy, omnipotent, omniscient — and merciful — God bless you in 2010!

________________________

Frank Kameny, a “pioneering” homosexual activist celebrated by fellow homosexuals the world over — and honored by President Obama and his administration — says the God of the Bible is a “sinful homophobic bigot” who needs to “repent of his sinful homophobia.”

The octogenarian Kameny (born in 1925) made the assertions about the Judeo-Christian God in a letter to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, October 13, 2009:

“Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4000 years.” wrote Kameny to LaBarbera. “It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner….”

An astronomer who was fired from his federal government job in 1957 due to his homosexuality, Kameny led the first public homosexual protest in America (over his firing), in 1965. Kameny, who gained notoriety with his aggressive, counter-cultural slogan “Gay is Good,” was a leader of the organized homosexual activist campaign to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders (which succeeded when the APA capitulated in 1973). He says that he is an atheist but curiously also claims that “Gay is Godly”; he now adds “for those who so believe” to the latter slogan after being questioned as to how someone who rejects God could make definitive statements about Him.

On June 17, 2009, Kameny received the official White House pen from President Obama in a White House signing ceremony enacting Obama’s executive order providing domestic partner benefits for certain federal employees. The ceremony was intended to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City that homosexual and transgender activists claim were the catalyst for the modern “gay rights” movement.

Later, at a June 29 White House speech honoring “gay pride month,” President Obama praised Kameny with the following words:

[Describing the history of the homosexual rights movement:] “That’s the story of a civil rights pioneer who’s here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired — [applause] Frank [Kameny] was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. [Applause.]

Kameny was also honored by John Berry, Obama’s openly homosexual Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in a special ceremony June 24, 2009 sponsored by the OPM “gay” employees organization. There, Kameny received the Theodore Roosevelt Award, the OPM’s highest honor, “For More Than a Half-Century of Leadership in the Struggle for Civil Rights.” Berry also issued a formal U.S. government apology to Kameny for his firing over 50 years ago.

Responding to Kameny’s letter asserting that God needs to repent, AFTAH’s LaBarbera said:

“Of course Frank Kameny’s outrageous statements about God are completely backwards: it is Frank who is the stubborn sinner who needs to repent. Thankfully, it is never too late for sinners to turn away from their sins and humbly accept God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. However, in one sense at least Kameny is forthright about how his homosexuality-celebrating ideology stands diametrically opposed to God’s plan for mankind, as revealed in the Bible. Unfortunately for Frank, he has no authority to judge sin and morality; that is the province of Almighty God alone.”

The following e-mail letter was sent by Kameny to Americans For Truth on October 13, 2009. Various typos in the original letter have been corrected:

Peter [LaBarbera]

You have the whole issue of sin, vis a vis homosexuality, “on the wrong foot”.  It is your homophobic God of Leviticus (and of the Bible as a whole)  himself (herself? itself? themselves?) who is the sinner because of that homophobia.

Bigotry is sinful, whether it be racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia.

Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years.

It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner, on this account (I deal with no other issue here)..

Your claim that advancement of the gay agenda would deprive you people of your religious and other rights is flatly untrue.  If you disapprove of homosexuality, you will remain free to abstain from involvement with it.  That is the proper limit of your freedoms.  You do not have a valid right to impose your disapproval upon those of us who disagree with you, as you people endlessly seek to do.  Those whose beliefs in a round earth prevail do not in the least deprive the Flat Earthers of their rights to believe and speak as they wish.  So with gay rights and you homophobes.  You can continue freely to make intellectual and rational fools of yourselves, just as the Flat Earthers continue to do. — and, in your case, un-American and anti-American ones as well.

Gay is Good, Godly (for those who so believe), and American.  You homophobes are not.

Franklin E. Kameny
Washington, DC

More AFTAH stories on Kameny:

• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK ‘as Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind’;
• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981;
• Your Tax Money at Work: Preserving Homosexual Activist Frank Kameny’s Papers;
• Frank Kameny Responds to AFTAH Report that He Spoke at NAMBLA Event in 1981;
• Will PETA Respond to Frank Kameny’s Endorsement of Sex with Animals?;
• ‘Gay’ Hero Frank Kameny Calls Believers “Christianofascists”; Library of Congress Honors “Gay Is Godly” Atheist;
• WATCH IT: Video and Transcript of Obama’s White House Speech Celebrating ‘Gay Pride’ Month: (President Obama heralds Kameny as a “civil rights pioneer” and thanks him for his leadership; see full quote above)

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and homosexual activist Dan Savage (right) ridicule FOX News' Brit Hume for saying that Tiger Woods needs Christ's forgiveness.

Well, we extolled Brit Hume and his sage advice to Tiger Woods, so now we have to give you some of the hyperventilating comments from America’s reactionary secular bigots, headquartered at MSNBC, of course. That includes the left-wing network’s chief blowhard, Keith Olbermann, who joined self-described “radical sex-advice columnist faggot,” Dan (“Three-Way”) Savage, in ridiculing Hume’s heartfelt Christian outreach to Woods.

Why on earth is Olbermann still a TV commentator for NFL games (for NBC Sports)? Seems that if the NFL cannot tolerate Rush Limbaugh as an owner, why does it allow a mean-spirited, Christian-bashing, hard-left talker to be connected to the league in any way? Let’s see if we can help to change that. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION: Please join us in urging the NFL and NBC to drop Olbermann from his NFL media duties.  Here is the NFL Comment Page and the NBC Sports Contact Page. E-mail NBC Sports directly at nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com; or send a regular-mail letter to:

NBC Sports — Please Fire Keith Olbermann

c/o National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY

My good friend and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber writes:

______________________________

The Crucifixion of Brit Hume

By Matt Barber
Friday, January 08, 2010

During the Roman Empire’s secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain – for lack of a better word – the “progressive” elites of the day. There’s little doubt that if many of today’s secular-“progressives” (more accurately: “moonbat liberals”) had their way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.

Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of Christian faith. You don’t see it when Muslims proselytize in government schools; the ACLU doesn’t sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant “gay” activists don’t picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants grasp at Zen. No, there’s something about Christianity that just drives ‘em nuts. Always has. Always will.

Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that Tiger Woods might find “forgiveness and redemption” for his serial philandering should he “turn to the Christian faith.”

Hume first offered Tiger the advice on “Fox News Sunday” and then reiterated his sage, though decidedly non-PC council on “The O’Reilly Factor” the following night. When asked by host Bill O’Reilly what kind of response he’d received for his comments, Hume replied, in part: “It’s always been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ… and all hell breaks loose.”

Yes indeed.

After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not knowing what they do or why they do it) liberals went apoplectic. Here’s a small sampling:

As reported by CNSNews.com: “Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post , in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian remarks ‘even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.’”

MSNBC’s reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting “to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity” and demanded that his Fox News ratings superior “keep religious advocacy out of public life” (back in the closet, Brit old boy).

Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that “the worst example” of this kind of “proselytizing” are “jihadists.” Finally, he betrayed the left’s typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a homosexual and wondering aloud: “WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if he’s straight?” [Note: the conservative "Newsbusters" blog of Media Research Center interpreted Olbermann's remarks differently -- saying that WWJDIHS refers to "What would Jesus do if he strayed"; start watching at about 3:15 in the five-and-a-half-minute MSNBC video.]

While the mainstream media’s rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere. On the sexual anarchist site, “JoeMyGod,” poster “QScribe” suggested that Brit Hume’s deceased son had been “gay” and viciously accused Hume of being responsible for the young man’s suicide: “Brit Hume still hasn’t ‘repented’ for trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from a pig like that, I’ll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU.” (Hume has publicly shared that his son’s heartbreaking suicide played a large role in his acceptance of Christ.)

The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: “Dead victims don’t tell on their molesters.”

Commenting on the Huffington Post, “Kandaher” bypassed Hume altogether and aimed his vitriol directly at his Creator: “anyone (sic) watched ‘The passion of Christ’? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!”

You get the idea.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void called moral relativism. When the left’s religion of choice – secular-humanism – is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your clock to it.

But believe it or not, there’s actually something rather delightful about such hateful lashing about. These poor souls – to be pitied and prayed for – fail to realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.

Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He reminds His followers: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

Now, I’m real sorry that most “progressives” and other non-believers feel that Christianity is deficiently “tolerant” or “inclusive” of various man-made religions and lifestyle choices. But it’s just not our call. Christ Himself reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one, requiring membership in a rather “exclusive” club – a club wherein belief in Him and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.

Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Note that, rather conspicuously, He did not say: “…No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh, and – on Tuesdays – L. Ron Hubbard.”

But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman and child on earth – past, present and future: “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

So, Brit Hume had it right, didn’t he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing proposition, isn’t it?

As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in his blockbuster book “Mere Christianity,” Christ could only have been one of three things: A lunatic, a liar, or – as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have believed – the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.

Noted Lewis:

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” – C.S. Lewis

So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little ‘s’) intended: Brit Hume’s woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon the man’s words and heart.

Perhaps they should – being all “tolerant,” “diverse” and whatnot – consider, if only for a moment, the very Spirit (big ‘S’) from which came those words and was formed that heart.

In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: “Well done good and faithful servant.”

__________________________

Matt Barber [e-mail: jmattbarber@comcast.net] is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

"Stay at Home" Lesbian to Take Kids 1,800 Miles from their Dad? University of Illinois professor Karen Kelsky is one step closer to uprooting her children from their devoted father in Illinois and raising them with her lesbian lover in Oregon.

Folks, this is a tear-jerker — a real-world by-product of the cultural elites’ myth advancing the supposed equality of “gay parenting.” If this rancid decision is left unturned, these poor children will be forced to live with immoral role models and all the confusion that entails — far, far away from their devoted father. (Maybe a couple of homosexual “uncles” from Portland could replace him….) Also, note the perverted “scholarship” at the University of Illinois — your tax dollars at work, Illinoisans! God help us, and God help these poor children: that they won’t become guinea pigs in the Left’s latest social experiment: intentionally fatherless, lesbian parenting. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute

I apologize for the lurid title, but this is a lurid story.

Every divorced father, every non-custodial parent, and every decent, fair, compassionate person should both tremble and be outraged by the recent feckless court decision of activist Illinois judge, John R. Kennedy.

The now-lesbian ex-wife of Mr. Taro Iwata took him to court in Urbana, Illinois in a successful attempt to take their two young children, with whom Mr. Iwata is very close, to Eugene, Oregon to live with her and her lesbian partner.

Eugene, Oregon–a stone’s throw from the lesbian mecca of Portland, Oregon–is 1,800 miles away from Champaign, Illinois, where both Mr. Iwata and his children currently live.

His ex-wife, Karen Kelsky, is a tenured associate professor of East Asian Languages and Culture and Anthropology at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign). Kelsy has decided that her self-serving and disordered desire to live with a lesbian lover across the country trumps her husband’s natural and legitimate desire to be deeply and regularly involved in his children’s lives and trumps her children’s needs, desires, and rights to be deeply and regularly involved with their father.

And apparently Champaign County Judge Kennedy agrees, for he has decided that Kelsky may uproot her children, take them far away from their devoted father, and settle them permanently in a household defined by deviance.

According to attorney Jason Craddock, who represents Mr. Iwata, the Court found the following:
that the children’s best interests will be served by allowing the move because 1) the mother will be a “stay at home mom” (ah, yes, the quintessential picture of traditional domesticity: a fatherless home led by two lesbians) while her lover works (even though their standard of living here in Illinois is higher than their standard of living will be in Oregon); 2) the judge views the lesbian relationship as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage (even though neither the state of Illinois nor the state of Oregon views them as equivalent); 3) the judge found that the mother being with her lover will be a direct benefit that will enhance the children’s quality of life; and 4) the judge found that the presence in Oregon of the extended family of the lesbian lover was a factor warranting removal of the children in that neither the mother’s nor the father’s extended family lives close to Illinois or Oregon.

So now interactions with the extended family of a homosexual partner constitute a greater benefit to children than regular, frequent interactions with a loving, committed–and heterosexual–biological parent? That is a radical, subversive, insidious, pernicious, and stupefying idea. Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.

The Court went even further in its efforts to undermine the fundamental human right of both children and fathers to be intimately involved in one another’s lives: Kennedy decreased the remaining inadequate summer and holiday visitation times.

Attorney Craddock explains that,

Even from a “coldly” legal standpoint, this decision is subversive. It flies squarely in the face of decades of removal jurisprudence in Illinois, as Illinois courts historically and consistently give great weight to the relationship enjoyed between children and their non-custodial parents, and typically allow removal only where the visitation time would either remain the same or increase after the move. Also, Illinois courts have never allowed removal where a custodial parent desired to move to a place in order to move in with a paramour or when such a move would lower the family’s standard of living. Courts have without exception allowed removal only where the new spouse or fiancee of the custodial parent lived away from Illinois and where the standard of living would be increased.

This decision clearly constitutes an activist decision, with Judge Kennedy going boldly where the Illinois legislature expressly declined to go before: the Illinois “civil unions” bill presented in the House of Representatives was soundly rejected this past year. Our elected legislature apparently recognizes a legal distinction between heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples. Judge Kennedy has taken it upon himself to confer legal status where it decidedly does not exist.

This tragic, unconscionable, deliberate rupture in an essential relationship serves the unholy desire of Kelsky, who writes this about herself on the U. of Illinois faculty bio page (emphasis added):

My current work is on the lesbian community and the politics of transgenderism in Japan. I am at work on a book project entitled “The Personal is Personal: Reading the Lesbian in Contemporary Japan,” which is a cultural studies-based exploration of the major lesbian popular texts of the last twenty years, including autobiographies, zines, and pornography. I focus on the major sites of contestation around lesbian identity and subjectivity in this work, particularly around issues of butch-femme and sexual autonomy, coming out, privacy and visibility, and the question of sexual diversity. I have just finished a manuscript entitled “[Not] a Lesbian Feminist: Kakefuda Hiroko and the [Im]Possibility of the Lesbian Subject in 1990s Japan.”

Judge Kennedy’s findings reveal his likely underlying assumptions: he likely holds the unproven, highly arguable, a-historical theory that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, whereas in reality homosexuality is both ontologically and morally equivalent to polyamory or consensual incest.

He also likely holds the unproven, arguable, a-historical, erroneous theory that “gender” is irrelevant to both marriage and parenting.

Perhaps most troubling of all is that he has arrogantly decided that subordinating the relationship of father and children to the profoundly disordered relationship of mother and homosexual partner serves the best interests of the children.

It’s a wonder that Kennedy can sleep at night.

Mr. Iwata intends to appeal this execrable decision. Please pray for his victory.