Pro-life/pro-family advocate Jim Finnegan has fought long and hard in Illinois for "Choose Life" specialty license plates, which would raise funds for adoption. Democratic politicians, influenced by pro-abortion lobbyists, have stalled the plates for years.

This is Part One of AFTAH’s interview [listen HERE] with Jim Finnegan, a longtime pro-life and pro-family Catholic advocate in the Chicago area who is active with Defend Marriage Illinois. Finnegan is also leading the campaign for “Choose Life” specialty license plates in Illinois – thwarted for years by liberal Democrats. This interview was pre-recorded and aired February 18, 2012. Finnegan and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera discuss the radical group Gay Liberation Network’s ongoing attacks on Cardinal Francis George, due to George’s and the Catholic Church’s opposition to homosexual “marriage” and homosexual acts.

LaBarbera describes the GLN’s hateful protest Feb. 12, 2012, directly in front of Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral, with signs mocking George as “Archbigot.” He also notes GLN’s refusal to condemn a pro-homosexual brick attack against a Christian school hosting AFTAH’s October 2011 banquet — and says that if he had refused to condemn such an assault on a homosexual group he would legitimately be called a “hater.” (See AFTAH report on GLN’s record of hate HERE.) Both men discuss a newly introduced “same-sex marriage” bill [more info HERE] introduced by three openly homosexual Illinois legislators — and how House Speaker Mike Madigan (himself a “Catholic”) has blocked pro-family bills in Springfield while allowing pro-homosexual bills to be considered.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

2-18-12, Jim Finnegan, Part One

D.L. Foster, founder of Gay Christian Movement Watch (www.gcmwatch.com).

Part Two of AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera’s interview with D.L. Foster, founder of Gay Christian Movement Watch (www.gcmwatch.com). This pre-taped interview aired Saturday, Nov. 6, 2010. Part Three will air this Saturday at 11:00 on WYLL-Chicago (AM 1160). Foster and LaBarbera discuss the Republican landslide that swept the GOP into control of the U.S. House of Representatives. They also note the stunning vote in Iowa denying retention to three state Supreme Court judges who voted to legalize homosexual “marriage” in that state. LaBarbera compares the arrogance of liberal congressional leaders to that of homosexual activists like Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign – who recently declared — in a column attacking Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — that homosexuality is not sinful.

“The arrogance of homosexuality is part and parcel of its sin,” says Foster. He says he does not let strident opposition from homosexual activists divert him from his calling before God to expose the false “gay Christian” movement and to speak the truth in love to homosexuals. LaBarbera and Foster affirm that staying principled on social issues like abortion and homosexuality transcends party politics, and warn that many Christians will abandon the GOP if it fails to defend the truth on those issues.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show. 

11-6-10, Pastor D.L. Foster, All

Barack Obama may be setting new highs when it comes to presidential appointments of People Practicing Homosexuality (PPH) in his administration — already more than 150, according to AP – but he’s setting new lows everywhere else. Yesterday, leftie Comedy Central “anchor” Jon Stewart referred to the Commander-in-Chief as “dude” in the course of his half-hour interview with Obama. (Obama is the first president to appear on the show.) 

Read liberal Washington Post writer Dana Milbank’s slam on Obama and his appearance (“On Comedy Central, the joke was on President Obama Wednesday night”) HERE, and watch the “dude” reference in context starting at about 1:45 on Part 3 of the videos of the Daily Show interview HERE.

I agree with this comment responding to a YouTube critical of Obama’s Daily Show disaster: “Obama has diminished himself so many times enough already that even liberals don’t treat him with presidential respect.” We at AFTAH are not nearly as cool as Jon Stewart, and don’t have anything approaching his cultural sway (especially with young people), but here are some questions and comments we wish he would have delivered to the Dude-in-Chief:

• Dude, stop undermining our military by using illegal means to homosexualize it (under the existing law that only Congress can change, homosexuals are barred from serving in the Armed Forces; see www.cmrlink.org); 
• Dude, abortion is the murder of an innocent life; stop promoting it and don’t make taxpayers subsidize it;
• Dude, aren’t you trashing the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution by granting via Executive Order marriage-type benefits to homosexual “spouses“?;
• On the same point: dude, you really pulled the wool over America’s eyes (and Rick Warren’s…) with all that talk in the 2008 campaign about how you believe marriage should be preserved as between a man and a woman. If that were true, why didn’t you use your Bully Pulpit to criticize the homosexual activist judge who recently single-handedly overturned California’s Proposition 8 — even though this marriage-defense amendment had passed in a statewide referendum?
• Dude, homosexuality is a sin, according to the Big Guy Upstairs (the real Annointed One) who created the world, so could you stop celebrating homosexual “pride” and stop promoting “gay” identities to impressionable young people?
• Speaking of which: dude, do you get to change God’s transcendent moral code just because you’re the coolest cat who ever sat in the Oval Office (the pro-homosexuality-obsessed Jon Stewart also might ask that of himself…);
• Dude, fire Kevin Jennings. He hates Bible-believing Christians (at least those who object to his homosexual lifestyle) — and the organization he founded, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), promotes reckless sexual behavior and gender confusion to minors; what message are you sending by stubbornly keeping this bigoted extremist on the Obama Team?
• Dude, stop making a sham of your public profession to be a Christian by using your tremendous executive powers to distort historic Christian teachings – and promoting sexual immorality as a “right” and abortion-on-demand as a “choice”;
• Dude, before you made that YouTube video about bullied gay youth, shouldn’t you at least have looked into the massive health risks linked to gay sex? Is the proper response to bullying to promote dangerous lifestyles and identities based on unnatural and unhealthy behaviors?
• Dude, we get it: you respect Muslims, but enough with the “America is not a Christian nation” comments already;
• Dude, since you respect Muslims so much, why not learn from their strong moral disapproval of homosexuality and abortion?
• Dude, a federal bill granting “civil rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion (ENDA, the Employmen Non-Discrimination Act) will be used to take away the rights of other citizens who disagree with homosexuality. What about their “civil rights”?; in fact, the woman you appointed to the E.E.O.C., Chai Feldblum, has essentially affirmed that the courts will grant superior rights to homosexuals at the expense of Americans’ religious liberties; “Gays win, Christians lose,” she says; is that fair in a nation founded on religious liberty?
• Dude, why don’t you expand your vision by “vetoing” Political Correctness and inviting some EX-”gays” to the White House? Wouldn’t that be consistent with your commitment to “diversity”?
• Dude, why did one of your “gay” appointees urge his fellow homosexual activists visiting the White House to lobby for coverage of transsexual “sex-change” operations under Obama-care? I feel sorry for these terribly confused people,  but should Americans be forced to pay for their grotesque, body-disfiguring operations with their hard-earned tax dollars?…. 

We could go on and on, but there is too much work to be done to spend time pondering the degree to which Obama has degraded the Office of the Presidency, and harmed the United States of America with his left-wing agenda (after running for office posturing as a moderate). There’s a big election Tuesday. Change is coming. Yes, we can, dude — er … Mr. President. Yes, we can. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Would Ann Coulter speak at an event for “Republicans For Responsible Porn Use,” or “Republicans for Higher Taxes,” or Republicans for Choice (Abortion) -- if such groups took legitimately conservative positions on other issues like gun rights?

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; e-mail: AmericansForTruth@gmail.com ; August 10, 2010

CHICAGO — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera today urged conservative pundit Ann Coulter to reconsider her appearance at “Homocon,” a September event for the homosexual Republican group GOProud. 

LaBarbera said: 

As a fan of Ann Coulter, it pains me to see her cave in to political correctness and lend credibility to the phony homosexual “conservatives” over at GOProud. Worse, Coulter is sending a dangerous message to young Americans that homosexuality is OK. (It’s actually a sin.) Fully half of GOProud’s top 10 federal priorities center on using the Government to advance homosexuality, including: 

#4 – “Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” – Homosexualizing the military is reckless, especially in wartime. GOProud claims to defend “individual liberty,” but what about the privacy rights of normal soldiers who don’t want to bunk and shower with men who lust after other men? Moreover, if DADT is repealed, the military will become a massive government bureaucracy for pro-homosexual “diversity” – subjecting millions of tradition-minded servicemen to Orwellian, same-sex propaganda to enforce its new lavender crusade. (Chaplains: beware.) 

# 7 – “Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.” Coulter must know that America might be just one Supreme Court justice away from legalizing oxymoronic homosexual “marriage” – which would undermine religious freedom in every state in the nation. A Federal Marriage Amendment could be the only way to stop this Roe v. Wade-like disaster. And since when did state-enforced homosexual “marriage” – with its corrosive effect on liberty and linkage to Homosexuality Promotion in schools — become “conservative”? 

GOProud's flier for Ann Coulter appearance Sept. 25 in New York City.

GOProud is non-committal on ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), which would federalize workers’ “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion. A truly conservative organization would fight this federal power grab — and GLBT lawyers’ dream legislation — tooth and nail. Ann, are you aware that these days it’s Christians like Julea Ward and Matt Barber who defend biblical truth – not “gays” – who are victims of corporate discrimination? 

One must ask Coulter, who professes Christianity: 

• Would you speak at an event for “Republicans For Responsible Porn Use,” or “Republicans for Higher Taxes,” or Republicans for Choice (Abortion) — if such groups took legitimately conservative positions on other issues like gun rights?
• Does God condemn only Democratic “men who lie with a male as one lies with a woman” – while giving Republican sodomists a pass?

Homosexual practice may be hip in New York City, but objectively it is always wrong and unnatural, and often unhealthy. Thankfully it’s also changeable, as proved by thousands of ex-gay men and ex-lesbians. Ann: why don’t you speak instead at a conference for former homosexuals? It’s not PC, but it would be far more consistent with your conservative principles than celebrating GOProud – which works directly against the Republican Party’s pro-family and pro-marriage platform. 

Please reconsider and nix your GOProud talk — in the name of true conservatism.­

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has a radical pro-abortion record.

“Pro-choice” liberals are a bunch of phonies with all their puffed-up talk about “justice” and “compassion” and looking out for the little guy. What we have with Elena Kagan is a just another hypocritical liberal who can’t see the justice of coming to the aid of the most defenseless, at-risk Americans among us: unborn children. Little guys (and gals), indeed. This is a human rights issue. Click on the Americans United for Life link below for their “Kagan File” on abortion. Below that is an AUL excerpt analyzing Kagan’s actions on Partial-Birth Abortion legislation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

“The Kagan File”

________________________

…First, Kagan thought the President was “too lenient” on what he would accept in a partial-birth abortion ban, even though the ban he was willing to accept would not necessarily prevent any woman from having an abortion.

She also argues that “the [pro-abortion] groups will go crazy” if Clinton does not do what they want… In other words, she did not want to disappoint the pro-abortion groups.  Instead, she recommends that the President’s ban have an even broader “health” exception, which would have the effect of limiting even fewer abortions.

Second, Kagan was undeterred in her opposition to meaningful limitations on partial-birth abortion even after discovering that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) could not find a legitimate need for it. She opposed the release of a truthful proposed statement by ACOG that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, stating that “the release of the statement, of course, would be [a] disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.”…

– AUL’s Kagan File: The “Week Six” Memo

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

World Congress was launched by The Howard Center, based in Rockford, Illinois, a leading conservative, pro-family research institute under the guidance of the esteemed Dr. Allan Carlson. (If you are not reading The Howard Center’s publication, “The Family in America,” you are missing out.) AFTAH greatly appreciates and benefits from the tremendous work that Dr. Carlson, The Howard Center’s able staff, and the World Congress of Families do, and we look forward to working with them for years and decades to come. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

The following “Partner Profile” for AFTAH appeared in the World Congress of Families April-May 2010 newsletter (link added for AFTAH Academy):

WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES NEW PARTNER PROFILES

World Congress of Families welcomes two new Partners to the international pro-family movement

Started in 1996, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is a single-issue organization devoted to countering the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender (GLBT) movement. Led by Peter LaBarbera, a long-time pro-family activist and author, AFTAH exposes the radical agendas of “gay” lobby groups, opposes GLBT legislation, and corrects the movement’s misinformation and disinformation.

AFTAH debunks so-called “queer” theology (the notion that homosexual conduct is somehow compatible with Judeo-Christian religion), educates on the grave threat that GLBT laws pose to free speech and religious freedom, and upholds a Biblical ethic on the issue within the pro-family and conservative movements. Its firsthand reports expose the reality of the homosexual subculture – e.g., the nudityfilled “street fairs” that occur with police protection in San Francisco every year.

In August 2010, AFTAH will launch its “Americans For Truth Academy,” which will offer intensive training on countering the homosexual-activist agenda. The three-day academy, featuring pro-family experts in various fields, will be offered at no charge to youth and at a cost to adults.

For more information, go to www.AFTAH.org, contact americansfortruth@comcast.net or call: 630-717-7631. Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522

_______________________________

The following are the 29 current World Congress of Families Partners:

American Family Association
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Alliance Defense Fund
Alliance for the Family
Americans United for Life
Associazione per la Difesa Dei Valori Cristiani – Luci sull’Est, Italy
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
Concerned Women for America
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Family First Foundation
Family Watch International
Family Research Council
Father Peter Skarga Institute (Poland)
Fellowship of St. James
Focus on The Family
Grasstops USA
HazteOir.org
His Servants
Home School Legal Defense Association
Human Life International
Media Research Center
Parents Forum Switzerland
Population Research Institute
Real Women of Canada
Red Familia (Mexico)
Tradition, Family, & Property
United Families International
Western Center for Journalism

Pro-family Christian Julio Severo fled his home country of Brazil to avoid state prosecution and harassment on "homophobia" charges. Would Severo be granted U.S. asylum like Brazilian homosexual Augusto Pereira de Souza?

By Peter LaBarbera

Homosexual websites are celebrating that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has granted asylum to 27-year-old Brazilian homosexual Augusto Pereira de Souza, who claims he would face torment and violent attacks if forced to return to his country.

I wonder what would happen if Julio Severo (right), the outspoken Brazilian Christian advocate who fled his country due to escalating oppression against critics of homosexuality, were to apply for applied for U.S. asylum. An article in the “Queerty” blog claims that Brazil is “one of the world’s most violently anti-gay countries … with 180 reported LGBT murders in 2008 alone.” I do not know the accuracy of this information. But here is the problem: already Queerty and other pro-homosexuality activists are citing the case of Souza (whose asylum claim was secured by three students at Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic,” Queerty reports) as good news for Ugandan homosexuals who might want to make similar claims.

Is the United States of America under President Obama going to become the magnet for foreign homosexuals and “queer” activists the world over? AFTAH has condemned draconian punishments against homosexuals (such as “solutions” prescribed by radical Islamists). However, America and the West have no right to impose their decadent, perversion-celebrating values on the rest of the world, and other countries certainly have the right to criminalize homosexual behavior just as it was criminalized in the United States prior to the Supreme Court’s activist Lawrence v. Texas decision. (Anti-sodomy laws remain on the books in many states and laws that do not solely ban homosexual sodomy have NOT been struck down; here is a Wikipedia article which — despite that website’s strong pro-homosexual bias — describes the sodomy law situation in all 50 states.)

Here in America, we realize that sodomy may never be criminalized in San Francisco, where men are allowed to walk the streets fully naked. But if more conservative locales or states choose to do so according to their local community standards, that SHOULD be their prerogative (ditto for legislative attempts to ban abortion or “partial-birth” infanticide). And if liberals are concerned about the death penalty being imposed against homosexuals, and rightly so, they should also be concerned about public policy that promotes homosexual behavior with all its attendant, even life-threatening, consequences.

A good place for America to start “re-criminalizing” would be to ban all bathhouses and sex clubs were sex is allowed to go on in a commercial establishment. “Gay” and straight. See this AFTAH article about ex-”gay” Christian advocate James Hartline’s successful campaign in San Diego to close down a local homosexual bathhouse.

Augusto Pereira de Souza (center)

For more on Brazil: go HERE to read a LifeSite article about the socialist Brazilian President’s “hate speech” plans. And go HERE to read Julio Severo’s blog. To subscribe to LifeSiteNews’ daily news feed, go HERE, and to subscribe to OneNewsNow’s daily news brief, go HERE. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

One News Now reports:

__________________________________________

Asylum for Homosexual Perverts U.S. policy
By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/6/2010

A homosexual from Brazil has been granted asylum in the United States because he fears mistreatment in his home country over his sexual orientation.

According to LifeSiteNews.com, 28-year-old Augusto Pereira de Souza — as a result of the ruling — will be allowed to work and receive Social Security benefits in the U.S., and eventually will be permitted to apply for permanent residency. De Souza had submitted testimony that he had been verbally harassed by a policeman and, on a separate occasion, been chased by “skinheads” who were armed with baseball bats.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality finds the case astounding because Brazil, he notes, is one of the most pro-homosexual countries on the map. He says Christians are the target of animosity in Brazil if they speak out against homosexuality.

Peter LaBarbera”I happen to have a friend, Julio Severo, who left Brazil in fear for being prosecuted as a Christian under the anti-homophobia mechanisms that are being set up in that country,” he explains.

The Americans for Truth spokesman admits he finds it hard to believe that de Souza had anything to fear in Brazil over his choice in favor of homosexuality.

“It’s not becoming a friendly place for people who believe homosexuality is wrong,” he says, “and so this is just preposterous that the United States is accepting a Brazilian homosexual on that basis.”

LaBarbera adds that since Brazil is becoming “a homosexual dream country,” it is a perversion of U.S. asylum policies to grant Brazilian homosexuals the privilege of coming to America over fears of persecution for their lifestyle.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)

Stupak’s U-turn No Surprise

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 3/22/2010

Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak did an about-face Sunday night and voted for the healthcare reform bill — and at least one pro-life Michigander isn’t surprised.

Stupak has been touted by the national media as a leading combatant against using tax dollars for abortion. But when the bill was finally put to a vote and Stupak voted in favor, many of his constituents were not surprised. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan explains why.

“We issued a news release months ago calling Bart Stupak a fraud, because what happened at the last minute from a national perspective was no surprise at all to those of us actually here in Michigan,” says Glenn.

The AFA-Michigan spokesman explains that reaction is because of a town hall meeting last fall in Cheboygan with Stupak facing his constituents on the issue.

“[Let's say] I offered an amendment that says no public funding for abortion — that’s been the law of the law for many, many decades — and [let's say] we lose that vote: would I vote against healthcare?” Stupak asked rhetorically. “If I had a chance to vote my conscience on it, I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the healthcare bill at the end of the day.” (Watch YouTube video HERE)

The meeting continued as some in attendance sought a clarification from the congressman. “And finally when he had persuaded them that that’s what he really meant, the crowd booed him,” Glenn recalls. As depicted on the YouTube video, they booed him more than once.

Glenn said pro-life Democrats in his state will take note of the vote because Michigan is a pro-life state. Experts say the fact that President Obama issued an executive order banning use of federal dollars for abortion means nothing because it can be rescinded.

Rep. Stupak’s 2009 townhall meeting YouTube video link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL): only pro-life Democrat who didn't cave in.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

We should have seen Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak’s sellout on abortion and ObamaCare coming. Here is a video of Rep. Stupak, a Democrat, at a townhall meeting with constituents in Cheboygan, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2009. Other “Profiles in Cowardice” abound, as pro-life advocate Jill Stanek reports:

The only pro-life Democrat to change his vote from a yes to a no due to the failure to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment was Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), pictured [right]. (Lipinski is the congressman for the district in which Christ Hospital, my former employer, is located. His father, Congressman Bill Lipinski, was a co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)

Remember: the same dynamic (bogus “rights”) that will expand taxpayer funding/subsidies of abortion will also be at work expanding taxpayer funding of gruesome transsexual “sex-change” operations — unless we as Americans act to stop it. To read more of Stanek’s ObamaCare analysis, go HERE.

And once again, we see evidence of how the Homosexual and Abortion Lobbies work hand in hand, with the nation’s largest homosexual pressure group (Human Rights Campaign) fighting the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment. One would think that homosexuals — with seemingly no interest in normal sex and its consequences — would not have much interest in the abortion issue. But here they are crusading for a bill change that will result in federal subsidies for abortion under the rubric of “health care” and “fairness.” (HRC President Joe Solmonese was once a senior staffer at the pro-abortion pac EMILY’s LIST.)

Click HERE for a copy of the Senate health care bill, HR 3590, and HERE for a Table of Contents page — with actual page numbers! — for the same bill, that was written by a Texas citizen.  (Apparently Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t have time to put one in as he rushed the monstrous bill to the floor.) A vote on cloture for the Senate bill is planned for tomorrow, Saturday.)  Click here for an excellent Family Research Council alert on Saturday’s cloture vote. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

From the Coral Ridge Ministries’ website:

WASHINGTON, D.C.  Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 — As the Senate works behind closed doors to combine the newly passed House health care takeover bill with two Senate versions that have already passed separate committees, special interest groups are rallying their members to lobby for favored provisions. The House bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (3962), passed on Nov. 7 by a vote of 220 to 215. The Senate’s timetable is unclear, with Majority Leader Harry Reid pledging to complete a bill before Christmas, but many observers say that this is unlikely because of the sheer immensity of the proposal and the growing opposition.

Among the biggest winners in the House version were homosexual activists. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest “gay” pressure group, the House bill contains several key elements that “have been part of HRC’s legislative agenda as free-standing bills for many years,” says the group’s Website, which boasts that HRC lobbied hard to have them included. The only negative aspect in HRC’s eyes is the Stupak-Pitts amendment barring federal funding for abortions, which passed 240 to 194. HRC pledges to “work with our pro-choice coalition allies to help see that it is removed or revised as health care reform moves forward.” That’s a good bet, since President Obama promised Planned Parenthood that abortion subsidies would be part of health care reform.

Key pro-homosexual provisions highlighted by HRC include:

• Special treatment: A section designating “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as special categories would open up “health data collection and grant programs focused on health disparities related to sexual orientation and gender identity.” The “gay” lobby, which has been promoting the fiction, especially among schoolchildren, that homosexual behavior is natural and poses no health risks, admits here that the behavior involves unique health problems. Unmentioned are astronomically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS among homosexual males, and increased rates of domestic violence, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and mental illness among both sexes.
• Domestic partner tax benefits: HR 3296 incorporates the language of the proposed Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would apply marital-type tax advantages to same-sex couples. Currently, employer-provided health insurance costs for a married couple are excluded from gross taxable income. This is a way that companies and the tax code historically have supported marriage, which is regarded as a key factor in attracting the most stable, loyal employees. Under the bill, employees who have domestic partners would be treated the same as those with spouses.
• More HIV funding for the states: The bill incorporates the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which, according to HRC, “would permit state Medicaid programs to provide HIV treatment to individuals before they develop AIDS. The act would amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide states with the option of covering low-income, HIV-positive people as ‘categorically needy.’ States taking advantage of this option would be provided with an enhanced federal Medicaid match.” This is the only provision that might make some sense—getting aid to people before they develop full-blown AIDS. But it needs more examination in light of its impact on Medicaid, etc.
• Pro-homosexual, comprehensive sex education: HR 3962 provides funding for comprehensive condom-focused sex education programs, while leaving out abstinence programs, which HRC dismisses as “discriminatory” because they don’t facilitate “safe” gay sex. Given that after three decades of “comprehensive” sex ed, that homosexual males are still by far the largest category of AIDS cases and deaths and represent the lion’s share of syphilis and other STDs, the claim to be able to teach “safe” gay sex should be regarded as an oxymoron. The HRC also does not like the emphasis that abstinence programs put on delaying sex for marriage and supports programs that sexualize children at younger and younger ages.
• Non-discrimination: The bill “prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care.” HRC sees this as elevating “sexual orientation” to a civil rights category within the health care system.

The two Senate versions so far “do not contain the important provisions for LGBT people incorporated in the House-passed bill,” HRC notes, promising to lobby for final inclusion of its list.

TAKE ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose HR 3962 and the two Senate health care takeover bills, S1796 and S1679. Click here for an excellent Family Research Council alert on Saturday’s cloture vote. The Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121 [you can also call 202-225-3121 or write your representatives through www.congress.org].

Robert H. Knight is Senior Writer and Washington, D.C., Correspondent at Coral Ridge Ministries. He is the author of Fighting For America’s Soul (Coral Ridge Ministries, 2009).

The following is reprinted from Gary Bauer’s “End of Day Report” put out by the Campaign for Working Families [sign up for Bauer's excellent email report HERE]:

President Misleads Again

By Gary Bauer

President Obama ran into a problem from an unlikely source yesterday during his television marathon of five Sunday talk shows. ABC host George Stephanopoulos confronted the president on whether the large penalties in the bill ($3,800 per family) for those who refuse to buy health insurance constitute a tax. The president, understandably, was adamant in denying it was a tax. If it is a tax, then he is violating his pledge not to raise taxes on middle class families –– a political disaster.

As Stephanopoulos pressed the point, Obama said, “No. That’s not true, George.” A few minutes later, he objected again, and said, “No, but, but, George, you – you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.” Stephanopoulos then cited a Webster’s dictionary, which defines “tax” as “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” Obama objected again, and told Stephanopoulos that by looking up tax in the dictionary, he was “stretching a little bit right now.” Stephanopoulos gave up and asked, “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?” President Obama responded, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

The president may reject that notion, but right about now Congressman Joe Wilson might again need to yell “You lie!” Several news outlets took a look at the Senate bill to see what it called the penalties. There it was in black and white on page 29: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.” According to Politico, the legislation goes on to state that the tax would be collected: “through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of federal tax owed.”

So what should we conclude? Does the president not know what is in the bill he is pushing? Did he know, but chose to intentionally mislead Stephanopoulos and the millions of people watching the interview? Does President Obama think he can still get away with distortions and half-truths?

By the way, HERE is another $1,800 middle class tax increase the administration is pushing and trying its best to deny.

Sen. Kennedy: Hero of Homosexual Agenda: after his death, a homosexual activist reveals that Ted Kennedy used his massive influence in Massachusetts to pressure legislators to deny the state’s citizens a chance to vote on “same-sex marriage.” After the 2007 vote that blocked a traditional marriage amendment in his state, Kennedy congratulated a leading “gay” activist with these words: “What you accomplished for the people of Massachusetts is tremendous.” What about “the people’s” right to decide whether marriage should be radically redefined? At left is a cartoon published in the Boston homosexual newspaper Bay Windows.

_________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Now that the eulogies are over, it’s time to tell the truth about the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s unprecedented anti-pro-life and anti-family legacy. Last week I heard FOX’s Bill O’Reilly describe the late Kennedy as a “committed Catholic.” (His guest, talk show host Laura Ingraham, a conservative Catholic, was taken aback.) Certainly, Kennedy was committed, but not to the social positions of his own church. He was a leading crusader for abortion-on-demand — after flip-flopping from being pro-life (so much for compassion and helping the “little guy”). And he used his considerable power to advance the full, radical homosexualist agenda; click HERE to read the praise he received from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, an extremist homosexual organization if there ever was one. Kennedy was one of just 14 Democrats to vote against the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), which President Obama is now trying to undo.

Tragically, Ted Kennedy was a central figure in helping set American liberalism and the Democratic Party on their current trajectory of celebrating a culture of death and deviance in the form of state-sanctioned abortion and homosexuality.  In fact, so egregious were Kennedy’s departures from Church teachings that many Catholics, to quote Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International, were upset that he was being extolled “with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event.” Also read the Catholic Action League press release: “Kennedy Funeral Mass a ‘Scandal,’ Says Catholic Action League of Massachusetts.”

Oddly, after his passing, we are learning that Kennedy was even more extreme than most conservatives knew. In 1983, he even secretly approached Soviet Communist dictator Yuri Andropov with a traitorous quid pro quo offer to help Andropov confront U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy; the media dutifully ignored Kennedy’s treachery when it was exposed by a British researcher in 1992. And now self-described “queer” activists are revealing the full extent of Kennedy’s efforts to advance their God-defying agenda. How strange that a Catholic would be so committed to denying the people of his own state a chance to vote on whether marriage should be redefined to accommodate homosexual relationships, which his own Catholic Church describes as sinful and disordered. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

MassResistance reports:

__________________________________________

August 28, 2009

Major homosexual activist reveals Ted Kennedy’s crucial role in defeating Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts Legislature

By Brian Camenker

Sen. Ted Kennedy was the secret critical force in the background that caused the Massachusetts Legislature to deny the people the right to vote on the Marriage Amendment, it was revealed this week.

Less than 48 hours after Kennedy’s passing, the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows published an article by Marc Solomon, who at that time ran MassEquality, the main homosexual lobby group trying to stop the amendment.

Ted Kennedy personally pressured enough conservative Democrats (and even “libertarian-leaning” Republicans) who the homosexual lobby was targeting, to change their votes on that the measure to allow a public vote would be defeated. Kennedy also worked on the overall strategy to defeat it. Without Kennedy’s involvement, it would likely not have been defeated the Legislature — and the people would have been able to vote.

Here’s what Solomon told Bay Windows:

Our cause was lining up the votes to defeat an anti-gay constitutional amendment that would strip same-sex couples of the right to marry. A final vote was scheduled for July 14, 2007. Our opponents needed the votes of only 25 percent of the legislature to advance a citizen-led amendment to the ballot. We had lined up two-thirds of the legislature through fieldwork, lobbying, media, literally everything we could think of. But getting those last 15 legislators-those conservative Democrats from working class Massachusetts communities and a few libertarian-leaning Republicans-was very tough. We needed all hands on deck to keep a Massachusetts version of Proposition 8 off the ballot. We needed Ted Kennedy.”Could you get me a list of your targets?” one of Kennedy’s key staffers finally asked me. “Don’t tell anyone I’m asking you for this,” he said. He meant it, and I didn’t.

A few days later, as I was doing my rounds in the State House, a bewildered conservative legislator stopped me. “You’ll never guess who left me a message about gay marriage,” he said. “Ted Kennedy.” And then I started to hear similar refrains again and again. We’d get word that he’d spoken to the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, the chair of the Democratic Party, asking for updates, strategizing, figuring out exactly what he could do and how he could be most helpful.

In the end, on that July 14, we won. We won what many thought was an impossible victory, by a vote of 151 – 45, keeping our opponents just below the 25 percent threshold. We shocked our opponents. They were sure they had the votes. Just the kind of come-from-behind, unexpected victory for the little guy that Kennedy relished so much.

Later that day, after rallies, celebrations, and parties, I sat down at my desk and listened to voice messages of congratulations, one after the next. One moved me to my core.

“Marc, Ted Kennedy calling from Washington, DC. Congratulations on what you did today. What you accomplished for the people of Massachusetts is tremendous. Good work, my friend.”

Click HERE to read the entire Bay Windows article

Kept secret until now

It’s interesting — and pretty shameful — that Kennedy obviously wanted to keep this a secret. If he was so proud of his “principled” stands, why not make them public? The truth is that Ted Kennedy was much more radical than most people realized (on this and other issues). A lot of insiders knew that. But if the public found out it’s pretty clear that there would be a backlash that would be very unnerving, even for Kennedy.

Flood of praise in Boston media

In the Boston media it was a week of nonstop Kennedy adulation. Interestingly, the Boston Herald, which Kennedy once tried to shut down by passing a special federal law, out-did the Globe in gushing coverage.

Obama likes to play basketball, and the head fake is an important part of the game. You try to get your defender to commit with a head or body fake, throwing him off balance so you can move in to take the real shot (or get a clear shot at the basket). “Both Sides” Barack, the candidate, made some pretty good head fakes on abortion and homosexual “marriage” during the campaign, and many Americans were fooled. He said he wanted to “reduce the number of abortions” and pretended to be a strong supporter of preserving traditional marriage. (Remember the Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren?)

Then the real Obama went to the hoop: he championed the radical Freedom of Choice Act to rally his pro-abortion base as a candidate, expanded taxpayer-funded abortions worldwide as president, and now is moving to destroy DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996). But the double-game is getting much tougher for Obama: a growing number of Americans are seeing him for what he is: the most radically left president ever to occupy the Oval Office. Shame on the gullible Christians and religionists who went for his head fakes. We’d be fools to rely on them again to “defend” life and marriage. — Peter LaBarbera

P.S. I wonder if Obama is aware of Planned Parenthood’s racist origins.

[This YouTube video had only 85,371 hits as of Aug. 30, 2009.]

You know, it’s pretty hard to play the victim when propagandistic “gay” images and characters saturate the airwaves. But leave it to GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) to try. I wonder though: what about Hollywood and EX-”gays”? (GLAAD fails to see the hypocrisy of its ongoing “defamation” of them.) It took decades after Roe v. Wade for Hollywood to produce movies like Juno that are unapologetically pro-life. How long will it take for the entertainment industry to catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic former homosexual character who is content with his sexuality? — Peter LaBarbera

P.S. A reminder to Mr. Link: five percent exceeds the homosexual population in society.

——————————–

David Link writes for the Independent Gay Forum:

We’re Here, We’re Queer, We Were on Primetime Network TV 647 Hours Last Year (Not Counting Cable)

Posted on IGF: July 26, 2009

I’m really wondering whether we need GLAAD anymore.  They’ve just released their Network Responsibility Index for 2008-09 to “serve as a road map toward increasing fair, accurate and inclusive LGBT media representations.”  ABC led the pack among networks; of its 1,146.5 total hours of primetime programming, 269.5 hours (24%) included LGBT impressions.  The CW came in second with 138 LGBT-inclusive hours, or 20% of its primetime offerings.  CBS gave us the back of their hand, devoting only 60 hours — 5% of its schedule — to us.  For shame.

In 1985, when GLAAD was a startup, this kind of monitoring was not only valuable, but necessary.  Back then, the New York Times had a specific editorial policy against use of the word “gay,” to describe us.  GLAAD is the reason that changed, and they can claim credit for much more.  They’ve helped us change the world.

But now we are in the position where we can complain when one network only shows us five percent of the time — a number pretty close to our actual percentage in the population.  Anyone tuned only to ABC would have had to put up with 269.5 hours of us.  How helpful is it, really, that we know, to the decimal point, total network hours, percentages (subdivided by race, as well; Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives lose serious GLAAD-cred on that point) and year-over-year differentials of GLAAD-approved achievement?  Are we studying stuff now, not because we need to, but just because we can?

I don’t know how much it cost to do all this monitoring, and slicing and dicing of the data, nor how much was spent to produce the 39-page, very glossy report.  But in a world where we have some important and expensive political work to do in (for example) Maine, New York and possibly Washington (and let’s not forget California), is this really the best use of $11 million?  Do we really need GLAAD as an institution any more?  More important, if we ever decided we didn’t, would it be possible to get rid of them?

Folks, I will be speaking on the defense of marriage in Illinois at the Americans For Life rally in downtown Chicago on Friday, May 22nd, at the State of Illinois Building, from 11:30-3:00. The rally is being organized by my friend Dick Walsh, a tough, veteran cultural warrior if there ever was one. WYLL’s Sandy Rios — another great friend of life and marriage — will be emceeing the event. Come to the rally, stand up for the unborn, whose lives are slaughtered for convenience. Bring your family and have a wonderful time standing up with fellow pro-life and pro-marriage Americans! — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

Here are the details:

Please join Americans For Life at the May 22, 2009 March for Life
11:30 a.m.  to 3:00 p.m. in downtown Chicago

11:30 am to 12:15 pm    Rally at the State of Illinois Building 100 West Randolph Street (between LaSalle and Clark Streets):

Speakers:

• Dick Walsh, Chairman, Americans For Life
• Sandy Rios, FOX News contributor and Radio Host from Chicago radio station WYLL
• Mary Anne Hackett, Illinois Right to Life Committee
• Tom Morrison, Illinois Family Institute
• Jim Finnegan, License Plates For Life (fighting for Illinois to approve “Choose Life” license plates)

12:15 p.m. to 1:00 pm    March For Life from the State of Illinois Building to the Federal Building Plaza

1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.   Rally in the Plaza north of the Federal Building at 50 West Adams:

Speakers:

• Joe Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League
• Jill Stanek, Born Alive Infant Protection Act; see www.jillstanek.com
• Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

… and religious leaders for pro-life causes.

This rally is being co-sponsored by WYLL Radio AM 1160 and WIND AM 560. For information on co-sponsorship opportunities, please contact Bea Sutkis at WYLL at 708 256 2851 or by email at bea@salemradiochicago.com.

Send To Phone

See our adjoining story: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Talks of ‘Moral Leadership’ while Honoring Homosexual S&M Pornographer

Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says her movement shows “moral leadership” to the nation — even as the Task Force presented its “Leather Leadership Award” to a homosexual pornographer. The Task Force’s “Creating Change” conference in Denver ran supportive workshops on: transsexuality; prostitution (“sex workers’ rights”), “polyamory/nonmonogamy”; and – most disturbing – pushing a “sexual freedom” (read: sexual license) agenda on youth.

Dear AFTAH Reader,

If you are reading this website, you are seriously concerned about the homosexual activist agenda.  So I have an assignment for you.  Please print out the enclosed “State of the Movement” speech by the Rea Carey, the new executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and read it all the way through (it’s about 8 printed pages with my introduction).  Now, why would a Christian pro-family organization send out a speech by a radical homosexual activist?  Because we need to know what our Culture War enemies are saying and this speech is very instructive for OUR cause of defending traditional morality and marriage in America.

If you can’t find time to read the whole “Creating Change” speech, at least read the parts of it that we have bolded below.  Note how Ms. Carey talks about “moral leadership” even as the Task Force gave its ‘Leather Leadership Award” to a hard-core homosexual pornographer at the same “Creating Change” conference.  (Talk about chutzpah!)  And note also how she refers to the Bush administration as the “Evil Empire” – Ronald Reagan’s famous description of expansionist Soviet Communism – just as Iraqi citizens were preparing to vote in another free election made possible by the U.S. liberation of their country from the grip of dictator Saddam Hussein.  Nobody lies like the Left, yet the liberal media rarely challenge groups like the Task Force on their many falsehoods and slanders.

Several observations about Carey’s speech:

• The sheer organization of the anti-Christian Left:  thousands of left-wing, grassroots activists attend these annual “Creating Change” conferences; there is no parallel on the social Right for this scale of people and groups working closely together toward common goals.  There are precious few organizing and political “how-to” conferences for pro-family conservatives.  The Left eats and breathes politics; the Right is more distrustful of government, worse at politics, but more oriented toward God, family and church (the latter is obviously a good thing).  All this helps explain why so much destructive social “change” has come to America, where political organization is rewarded in our democratic system.  (That said, we would not see such a progression of evil in our nation were our culture not so deceived, and its once-Christian character so worn down by faithless secularism.)  In the coming days, we will shed more light on the extremist Task Force agenda, which now includes sadomasochism, prostitution (“sex workers’ rights”), “polyamory/nonmonogamy,” and – most disturbing – pushing a “sexual freedom” (read: sexual license) agenda on youth;
• We must acknowledge homosexual-agenda “victories” before we can move forward:  the pro-family movement must take a sober look at where we are in the battle over homosexuality, and it’s not pretty.  While it is tempting to point to pro-marriage victories in November (California, Florida, Arizona) as evidence that our movement is healthy, underneath the surface we are losing the critical public-policy and cultural argument over the legitimacy of and government endorsement of same-sex relationships.  Homosexual activists are making steady, incremental advances, often with little pro-family opposition – e.g., passing “domestic partner” legislation like the bill currently moving through New Mexico’s legislature – as part of a longterm strategy for bigger victories ahead.  Many of the “gay” gains came in states targeted by homosexual moneymen like Tim Gill, who has successfully knocked out pro-family state legislators in Iowa, Colorado and other states.  This begs the question: why do such hardball efforts seem to succeed only on the Left and not the Right?  When will the pro-family Christian “Tim Gill” step forward to help our side?
• The dedication of evil:  if Christians were as devoted to defending God’s truth about sex and marriage as homosexual and transsexual activists are to promoting their destructive lies, we would be in a much better place.  The sad reality is that many Christians remain opposed to engagement in politics and public policy and are ambivalent about this cultural battle.  Some Christian leaders have made key concessions to pro-homosexualist ideology – or declared their neutrality on the issue – while they point judgmental fingers at the few groups that are trying to resist the “gay” juggernaut.  Meanwhile, there are no corresponding doubts on the Secular Left, which works unapologetically to radically redefine family and marriage and destroy the Judeo-Christian moral consensus that helped make this country great.  Ultimately, if the Left succeeds, Christians could see their faith-based freedoms to disagree with sexual sin disappear.
• Stealing “morality” (why not? The homosexual activists already stole the word “gay” and are trying to redefine “marriage,” “family,” “equality,” and “civil rights”):  Homosexual activists realize that to achieve total victory, they must separate Christianity from traditional (Christian) morality.  They aim to redefine right and wrong apart from God’s will for people’s lives, as clearly revealed in Scripture and nature with God’s beautiful, complementary design for man and woman united sexually in marriage to produce children.  “Queer” theologians are busy redefining the Bible and now brazenly claim that homosexuality is a “gift from God.”  The homosexual militants’ game plan is to reinvent Christianity by spouting religious-sounding yet subversive ideas for a nation that is still very religious, but largely ignorant of the Bible;
• The progression and unity of sexual sin … Face the evil:  at Americans For Truth, we’ve come face-to-face with homosexual extremism and have no problem labeling the overall GLBT movement as evil.  But many people are in denial about the nefarious homosexual agenda.  We need to admit that the media “soft sell” of homosexuality does not match what the GLBT Lobby has in store for our nation.  We ask: why does Rea Carey advocate for abortion (seemingly a non-issue for homosexuals) and against “useless” abstinence-focused education?   Why does the Task Force – which receives lots of corporate support — give an award to a purveyor of hard-core homosexual porn?  Why do they teach gender confusion (“transsexuality”) and “sexual freedom” to youth?  (The latter is a code term for no-limits sexuality including S&M.)  Why does the Task Force champion “nonmonogamy” even as it seeks to homosexualize “marriage”?  Because the Left unites around “mainstreaming” perversion and an anti-life, anti-nature, anti-God agenda.  Homosexuality.  Abortion.  Pornography.  Casual and deviant sex outside marriage.  The Task Force supports them all in its decidedly anti-moral quest.  This isn’t about “civil rights” but using the government to promote destructive, immoral and changeable behaviors.

Christians and moral traditionalists need to wake up: the other side is dead serious about “transforming society,” to quote Carey, and “imposing its morality” on us all.  It’s time for us to get serious in the Culture War, too.  God bless you.

Sincerely in Christ,

Peter LaBarbera
www.americansfortruth.com

________________________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING IS THE SPEECH BY REA CAREY, HEAD OF THE HOMOSEXUAL “TASK FORCE”:

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009
Subject: State of the Movement Address by Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
From: “The Task Force”  …

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey delivers State of the Movement address at 21st National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change

DENVER, Jan. 30 — National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey presented the annual State of the Movement address today at the 21st National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change, where 2,000 activists have gathered to strategize on how to advance LGBT equality in this new political climate. What follows below is the text of her speech:

I know many of us may be questioning the state of our movement, and I’ll get to that in a bit, but first, I can’t resist saying that we now live in a country with a community organizer in chief and since the Task Force literally has the trademark on Creating Change, we know that our moment has arrived!

I am honored to serve as the executive director of the Task Force following my friend Matt Foreman. In fact, pretty much since I came out at the age of 16 here in Denver I have watched, learned from and been inspired by the Task Force, so I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate to be part of it. I have come up through this movement and many of my teachers are here with us today, including a couple of former Task Force executive directors — Urvashi Vaid and Lorri Jean.

You’ve already met Russell Roybal, and I want to call up to the stage my other new partner in running the Task Force — a woman who you will be hearing a lot from — our new deputy executive director, Darlene Nipper.

I want to thank each and every one of you for being here. These are incredibly tough economic times and the fact that you have spent your precious time and limited dollars to be here — to gather with your fellow activists and allies from across the country and others who have joined us — speaks to your commitment to social change, to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, and most importantly, to each other.

This gathering is the public square of the LGBT movement and our time together is made richer and more valuable because each of you is here.

First, let’s talk about the past year. You know, there are years when our movement for full equality jumps by leaps and bounds and other years when we toil to gain every inch of ground. This year has been a bit of both in which we made progress on the local and state level and our country elected its first person of color to the presidency! Yet our love for each other was attacked again by the majority at the ballot box; our right to marry was taken away in California; our transgender brothers and sisters were denied much needed protections; and federal policy continued to elude us under the evil empire — I mean the Bush administration.

It has been a bittersweet year, but the state of our movement is engaged!

This year, we made many gains — gains made because of your hard work, your strategic thinking, your long hours, and your dollars funding state and local efforts. With all of the attention paid to marriage, it would be easy to miss the progress made at the local and state level that improves the lives of LGBT people. And so much of this progress has happened not on the coasts, but in the middle part of the country.

This weekend we will invite you to text to screen all the accomplishments you’ve had this year but I will mention just a few of the many achievements for LGBT people in 2008:

Here in our host state of Colorado, Amendment 46, a Ward Connerly initiative that would have ended affirmative action in public employment, public education or public contracting was defeated.

In Arizona, voters rejected Proposition 202, which would have penalized businesses that hire undocumented workers. And in Oregon, voters rejected an English-only proposal.

In three states — California, Colorado and South Dakota — voters considered initiatives related to reproductive freedoms. And we won in every state.

Also, here in Colorado we expanded progress by passing a law protecting LGBT people from discrimination in housing and public accommodations.

Eight localities passed and held onto nondiscrimination laws: Gainesville and Broward County, Fla.; Columbus and Oxford, Ohio; Kansas City, Mo.; Detroit, Mich; Columbia, S.C.; and Binghamton, N.Y.

We also — with incredibly hard work — successfully defended one of our victories from last year: a transgender rights ordinance that passed in Montgomery County, Md., where the combined efforts of the Task Force, Equality Maryland, Lambda Legal and a host of other organizations came together to defeat the referendum and prevent it from even reaching the ballot.

In the area of family recognition, Connecticut joined Massachusetts in becoming a freedom-to-marry state and then beat back efforts that would have threatened it. Those of you from Connecticut and our great partners Love Makes a Family and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, congratulations and thank you.

We won marriage in California and over 18,000 couples are now legally married — and we plan on keeping them married. Even though we lost that right temporarily, our community and allies rose up in the days after the election to say, “Enough!”

We have with us today one of the founders of Join the Impact, Willow Witte, who along with her fellow organizer Amy Balliett, used the power of online organizing to fill the streets! We’re proud that some of the Join the Impact crew cut their organizing teeth at Creating Change in Portland, Ore., a few years ago and are now sharing their skills with thousands across the country.

Cities and towns in many states including Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Utah, established domestic partnership or similar registries in 2008. There were domestic partnership expansions in Washington state and Washington, D.C. Maryland established limited domestic partnership recognition and New York has decided to respect out-of-state same-sex marriages. Maine had an unprecedented year of victories in 2008 culminating in an Election Day action that surpassed their wildest dreams. After waiting in line for an hour to vote, voters were waiting in line to sign pro-marriage postcards. When EqualityMaine ran out of 30,000 postcards, voters signed scraps of paper, jotting their names and addresses down on anything they could find.

Building on the momentum, EqualityMaine and its coalition partners recently introduced a marriage bill and they have a solid plan for winning marriage in the Legislature in 2009 and then protecting it in the inevitable referendum campaign.

And finally, this last year’s accomplishments include a record 450 out [homosexual] elected officials serving in local, state and federal offices including Colorado’s very own Jared Polis, who became the first openly gay man to run for and be elected to Congress, joining Reps. Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin in the House.

For each and every one of you in this room who contributed to any of those victories and the many others we had, thank you!

What we continue to accomplish as a movement is electrifying. And, yet, some of this year’s results were bitter — extremely bitter — pills to swallow.

At the outset, let me say that I tend to be a glass-half-full person, so I can’t help but see this year’s anti-marriage and anti-family ballot measures as deeply painful but temporary defeats that demonstrated just how far we’ve come. But, it isn’t just my gut feeling that this is temporary, it is based on the concrete progress we have made. For example, just four years ago, we lost 13 anti-marriage ballot measures by huge margins — by an average of 67 percent, and as high as 86 percent. In California alone, the last time we faced a similar anti-marriage measure, we lost by over 20 points. This year, we lost by less than four. I know it doesn’t feel like it sometimes, but this is progress.

However, this was a particularly painful year because we lost the fundamental right that we had worked so hard to secure — the right to marry in California.

In the days and weeks after the election, so many in our community were searching for a quick answer as to why we lost in four states. My fellow activists, there is no easy answer.

The days and weeks after the election were some of the most painful I’ve experienced in my 24 years in this movement. I know they were painful for many of you and for our colleagues around the country, particularly in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas.  It was hard and painful enough to have lost four statewide ballot measures. But pain turned the corner into agony when we all started lashing out at each other, our allies and our would-be allies and didn’t let up.

Did the other side run excellent, although lie-filled campaigns? Yes it did. Could we all have done more or done things differently that might have moved us closer to defeating the four measures? Certainly. We at the Task Force are a particularly analytical and reflective group and we’ve been taking a hard look at what we could have done better to fight against these measures.

But our winning on any of the four statewide measures was always far from being a slam dunk. We need to learn what we can from this last year and we must move forward, as we have before in times far worse than this.

I want to specifically address the blaming of African-American voters for the passage of Prop. 8.

Sadly, shamefully, an incorrect statistic was put forth in the media and many people both in and outside of our community ran with it. I want to be clear — the blaming of African-American voters was wrong, despicable and inexcusable.

The Task Force released a study with authors Ken Sherrill and Pat Egan that included actual voting data that showed that party affiliation, conservative ideology, frequent church-going and the voter’s age trumped all other factors in the Proposition 8 vote — including race. The Task Force was criticized by some for being “politically correct.”

It is not politically correct to conduct sound research. It is not politically correct to challenge racism.

Have we done enough as a community to deal with our own racism and to make sure that our movement is one that reflects the true diversity of LGBT people? We sure haven’t. But the finger pointing and scapegoating was an affront to the many people of color and others who worked on and with the campaign and to our allied organizations. Furthermore, it avoids the complexity of the work we still have to do to win equality.

I have had enough. WE have had enough. Let us dig deep in ourselves and show others that we will not stoop to scapegoating, we will not turn our backs on our allies, and we will not give up.  There is a big difference between blaming and learning. Let us be learners so that we may be leaders.

As we look back on this year, our confidence has been shaken and our anger has been roused — but now is the time to turn our anger into action and our action into long-lasting change. We must now refocus on regaining marriage equality in California and winning across the country. But we need to remember that these anti-marriage ballot measures are fundamentally about the larger right-wing assault on the ever-expanding diversity in the United States, our freedom to live openly and to create and define our sexuality, our selves and our families.

I urge us not look at our movement as if it is only about this last election or only about marriage equality. Let us recall that our movement for liberation and equality has created much change since the police brutality in New York and other cities gave rise to the Stonewall riots, the activism of black and Latino gay men, and the birth of the modern LGBT movement.

If we do not come together again to fight another day, we can’t win our full equality. As the magnet on my grandmother’s fridge says, “Fall down seven times, get up eight!”

The state of our movement is resilient and we will win!

So, where are we headed as a movement? In order to take a look at where we are headed as a movement, we must first take a look at the broader social and political context in which we work for full equality. This context has now shifted radically.

The most obvious change is that for the first time in our nation’s history, we have as president, a black man, Barack Obama.  Candidate Obama recognized and affirmed a grassroots hunger for change. This year saw record numbers of young people, people of color and progressive people coming out to vote and we are now a better country for it.

This does indeed feel like a new political era for our country and our movement.  I believe the power of this historic moment is the seismic shift in this country from a culture of “I” to a culture of “We.” Obama ran with a mantra of “Yes we can!” Obama didn’t say, “Yes I can” or “Yes YOU can.” He said, yes WE can.

This mantra, of course, carries on the organizing legacy of the United Farm Workers and Dolores Huerta. This unifying WE invites each of us into the work ahead; into the reclaiming of a government that has turned its back on so many; into challenging the long held beliefs and practices of who holds power; how power is used; and who benefits from the use of power.

Obama’s “WE” challenges the culture of “I” that has been so core to this country’s identity — the image of rugged individualism, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. This imagery has been bolstered and perpetuated by scenes like Ronald Reagan riding his horse and by George Bush clearing brush on his ranch. This iconic imagery is finally being challenged. We are now off the ranch and have moved back into the WE of urban energy and creativity, the WE of close family ties and community in rural areas, the WE that has been at the center of the farm workers, civil rights, feminist and labor movements.

We are only just beginning to see the manifestations, the benefits of this cultural shift. And, our community — the LGBT community — is expert at showing the nation just what is possible when WE come together. This historic moment plays to our strengths.

After all, our community built an entire infrastructure of service and support for people with HIV when our own president did not have the decency to speak the syndrome’s name.  Our community overturned sodomy laws in a nation that possesses an intense fear of sexuality.  And our community put gender identity legislation and family protections on the political map.  WE have much to offer this country.

So, now it is our time to contribute again — to express moral leadership and creative fortitude. It is our time to hold steady as we are attacked at the ballot box and on the streets. To hold steady as we share our talents and ideas and are pushed back. To hold steady as we assert how we create family.

The state of our movement is expansive.  In fact, the success of our aspirations will only be limited by the expansiveness of our vision and the assertion of what is in our hearts. There are a few things we must do to make the most of this moment in history and to navigate the waters of this new era.

First, this moment calls for a new kind of leadership in the LGBT movement — not the leadership of one, but the collaborative leadership of many. Don’t get me wrong, the Task Force and I will assert leadership — but at the Task Force, we believe that strength comes not from hoarding power but by building power and sharing power and using power for good. It is why so much of our work is done through coalitions or convenings like Creating Change.

We are leaders in what is good and right and just in this country.  When we insist that LGBT people be involved in the policy conversations about the economy, about health benefits, about tax policy, about immigration — as we have been doing with the Obama transition team and administration — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we win marriage equality in Maine, Iowa, New Jersey and other states — and we will — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we pass a gender identity-inclusive ENDA — and we will — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we continue to work to get rid of useless abstinence only education, we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends in labor and women’s groups as the Task Force did yesterday morning at the White House for the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we promote, sustain and maintain people of color leaders — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

The second thing we must do is to think differently about who our playmates are. I was a Girl Scout when I was growing up and there was this song “make new friends but keep the old, one is silver and the other’s gold.”

We will certainly keep our LGBT organizational friends. But, it is time for us to make new, substantive and strategic friendships with non-LGBT organizations with which we share common concerns. The time for isolating ourselves as a movement is over. We will never win on our own.

So, in the coming years, you will see the Task Force partnering with some perhaps surprising organizations. We will ask them to show up for us and we will show up for them, as we have in our work with AARP on national policy and with Planned Parenthood and NAACP on ballot measures.

Third, so many of our straight friends and family are with us and we must find ways for them to make a difference in our pursuit of equality. They are near and dear to us. They’re willing to work with us; they’re wanting to work with us; they’re waiting to work with us. Among the most striking experiences for me in the last year have been my conversations with straight people across the country, not the least of which was with my own 92-year-old grandmother who has been my cheerleader and was crushed when she was not able to make it to our wedding.

Next week the Task Force will be a partner in launching a new campaign called, “Tell 3″ headed up by the ACLU and Join the Impact, along with other organizations. This campaign is simply about talking to the people in our lives about issues that matter to us as LGBT people.

We ask each and every one of you to go to our Web site next week and take part in what could be — with your help — the most massive friends and family education effort ever launched. If every one at Creating Change has meaningful, real conversations with three people about our lives, about the things we care about, we will have made progress in changing the hearts and minds of thousands of people — people who will be voting on our rights next year and the years after that.

Finally, organize, organize, organize — however you do it, walking door to door, talking to friends, going to meetings, sending tweets — I just did — connecting on Facebook or MySpace, or getting people elected.

Just organize!

For 35 years, the Task Force has been the home for people like you, like me, like hundreds of thousands of people across this country who know that we are part of a larger community of people reaching for full equality.

As you experience the Creating Change conference, you can’t help but see and hear and feel and know in your heart that the state of our movement is engaged, it is resilient, it is expansive and expanding, and it is stronger and more inspirational than ever before!  With all of us together –

We will win complete equality!
We will protect and defend our families!
We will change our communities and
We will transform society!

Thank you.

____________________________________________________________

Help Support Americans For Truth!

Will you help Americans For Truth stand as boldly for the Truth as homosexual activists do for their lies?  We appreciate your support:

TO GIVE TO AFTAH: Go to our user-friendly giving page — www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ — to make your tax-free donation using PayPal or your MasterCard or Visa.  Regular mail: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567.

TRUTH TEAM MEMBERSHIP:  To sign up as a Truth Team member by pledging $25, $50, $100, $250 or more per month to sustain AFTAH’s critical work, go HERE or copy http://www.americansfortruth.org/membership.php on your web browser.

_____________________________________________________________

I stumbled upon this interesting seminar about American evangelicalism on the Ethics and Public Policy Center website. The event was put on last year by the Pew Forum. A brief excerpt is below and the full transcript is HERE. Note Michael Lindsay’s dichotomy — not “left vs. right” but “cosmopolitan vs. populist” evangelicals.

The question with regard to homosexuality is this: insofar as acceptance of homosexuality (or, in politically correct jargon, the “gay and lesbian community”) has become a defining feature of modern big-city culture, how will the “cosmopolitan evangelicals” react as they seek to retain their influence in “elite” circles? So far we have seen left-leaning evangelicals like Jim Wallis embrace a “rights” framework regarding the pro-homosexual agenda — while still claiming fealty to the Bible. (Wallis favors “civil unions” laws for homosexual couples.) Homosexual activists have applauded the leftward evangelical shift, but Christians who take the Bible’s proscription of homosexual acts seriously view the Evangelical Left’s posturing on this issue as a capitulation to worldly forces, and a violation of Scripture.

Given the media’s unprecedented subservience to the homosexual activist movement, pressures will only grow on “elite”-sensitive evangelicals to water down their opposition to homosexuality as a sin — thus chipping away at a longstanding assumption of Bible-believing Christians. But can they do that and keep their evangelical “brand”? After all, evangelical Christianity is defined to a great extent by a strong allegiance to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and even most “gay”-affirming evangelicals do not try to argue biblically that homosexual sex is not sinful (not yet, anyway).

Will a more “gay”-friendly “Christianity” coming out of younger and “emergent” Christian quarters have staying power, or will orthodox views on sexual morality regain strength — just as pro-life momentum is on the rise after many cultural and political observers began writing off that virtuous movement over a decade ago (how wrong they were)?

Politically speaking, if you factor in a Republican Party with a very strong strain of libertarianism that naturally butts heads with “religious right” moralism, and it appears likely that the internal battles over homosexuality within evangelicalism (and the GOP) will only grow more intense in the coming years. — Peter LaBarbera

____________________________________

[Click HERE for full transcript of the seminar]

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Publication Date: May 6, 2008

Some of the nation’s leading journalists gathered in Key West, Fla., in May 2008 for the Pew Forum’s semi-annual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life.

TRANSCRIPT: American Evangelicalism New Leaders, New Faces, New Issues By Michael Cromartie

Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2008

EVENT TRANSCRIPTS Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; publication date: May 6, 2008

Some of the nation’s leading journalists gathered in Key West, Fla., in May 2008 for the Pew Forum’s semi-annual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life. D. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, described eight fallacies or misconceptions he held as he began his book. In the three years of his extensive research, he made surprising discoveries about the true power brokers and centers of power in American evangelicalism. He also found that the deep divisions in this movement are not between the political left and right, not between young and old, but between “cosmopolitan” and “populist” evangelicals. Lindsay discussed the implications of his findings for this election year as well as the future of the evangelical movement. David Kirkpatrick, Washington Correspondent for The New York Times, added some history about “old-school” evangelicalism and ways of categorizing the changes that are occurring within the American evangelical movement.

[Michael Lindsay:]

And I began to realize that there is a whole segment of the evangelical movement –many of those folks who are in the elite — who were trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of the evangelical subculture. And so I began to think more about this and pay more attention to it. And the real divide, in my opinion, in evangelicalism is not between the left and the right; it’s not between the young and the old. It is between a group that I call the “cosmopolitan” evangelicals and “populist” evangelicals. And these are very, very significant divisions.

You see, populist evangelicals are what we oftentimes think about evangelicals. These are the folks who are culture warriors, who say that they want to take back the country for their faith. They see themselves as embattled against secular society. They are very much concerned that they are in a minority position, and they’ve got to somehow use very strong-arm tactics to win the day.

So that populist evangelicalism is alive and strong, especially in the evangelical subculture: the music, the publishing, the entertainment segment of the evangelical subculture. But there is a whole other segment. The people who I interviewed, by and large, fit more this cosmopolitan outlook. They are less interested in taking back the country for their faith. They really are more interested in their faith being seen as authentic, reasonable, and winsome. So they still have an evangelistic impulse, but their whole modus operandi looks quite different. Because of that they have different ultimate goals of what they are actually trying to achieve. They want to have a seat at the table. They want to be seen as legitimate. They are concerned about what The New York Times or TIME magazine thinks about evangelicals because they [the cosmopolitan evangelicals] are concerned about cultural elites. They want legitimacy. Legitimacy is actually more important to them than necessarily taking back the country. And so that cosmopolitan-populist divide I find to be quite significant.

President Ronald Reagan demonstrated his true pro-life credentials by instituting the Mexico City policy. Obama demonstrates his anti-life phoniness by eviscerating the policy. Some more pro-life reaction can be found in this report by the Catholic News Agency. And we reiterate our point about the link between the abortion and homosexuality agendas: where there is a war against life, there is usually one against traditional marriage. — Peter LaBarbera

National Right to Life Committee issued this statement yesterday:

Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama Abortion Agenda Launched Today with Order Promoting Abortion in U.S. Population-control Program

WASHINGTON – President Obama today signs an order that will put hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of organizations that aggressively promote abortion as a population-control tool in the developing world.

Obama’s order overturns the “Mexico City Policy,” under which funds in the U.S. “population assistance” program go only to overseas organizations that pledge not to “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), commented, “This is the first in an anticipated series of attacks on longstanding pro-life policies, as the new administration pushes Obama’s sweeping abortion agenda. That agenda includes repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which would result in tax-funded abortion as a birth control method in the U.S., and imposition of sweeping pro-abortion mandates on private employers through health-care reform legislation.

“One effect of Obama’s order will be to divert many millions of dollars away from groups that do not promote abortion, and into the hands of those organizations that are the most aggressive in promoting abortion in developing countries. President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control.”

Contrary to some misunderstandings, enforcement of the Mexico City Policy did not reduce the amount of money spent on the program, nor will Obama’s order increase the amount (which is $461 million in the current fiscal year). Rather, the policy affects what type of groups qualify for grants under the program. “Obama’s order will predictably result in a redirection of funds to groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which are ideologically committed to the doctrine that abortion on demand must be universally available as a birth control method,” Johnson said.

Although Obama’s order will result in major subsidies for organizations that promote abortion overseas, the direct use of the U.S. funds to perform abortion procedures will remain unlawful under the Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. “The Helms Amendment can be changed only by an act of Congress, but because the Obama Administration is joined at the hip with the abortion lobby, we will be watching carefully for any evidence that the Administration is failing to enforce the Helms Amendment,” Johnson said.

The details of the Mexico City Policy are spelled out in an official handbook issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is available on request from NRLC (in PDF format). Basically, the policy required grantees to refrain from performing abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), or lobbying to legalize abortion, or otherwise promoting abortion as a family-planning method. The policy explicitly allowed responding to questions about where abortions may be obtained, in countries in which abortions are legal.

The National Right to Life Committee is the nation’s largest pro-life group with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

For more information: Derrick Jones, (202) 626-8825; mediarelations@nrlc.org

Below are policies favored by the Obama Administration dealing with abortion and embryonic stem cell research, taken from the new White House website. To contact President Obama and the White House on this and other matters, go to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/.

I apologize for the mistake. Thank you. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
____________________________________________

From the White House website:

Supporting Stem Cell Research: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics. These embryos must be deemed in excess and created based solely for the purpose of fertility treatment.

Reproductive Choice: Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy:  President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.