AFTAH has launched a “Keep the Gay Blood Ban” campaign to oppose the renewed Homosexual Lobby push to end the FDA ban on “men who have had sex with men” giving blood. Cliff Kincaid discusses the extraordinary health risks associated with gay male sex.

The following is excerpted from a presentation by Cliff Kincaid [click HERE to listen; see listening instructions below] at the debut Americans For Truth Academy in August 2010. Kincaid discusses the risks of opening up the blood supply to men practicing homosexuality. The talk by Kincaid — Director of Accuracy in Media’s Center for Investigative Journalism and founder of America’s Survival – is titled, “The Battle over Blood: Gay Health Risks and Public Policy.” He focuses on the homosexual-related health threats to our military and spoke before the law was changed to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. AFTAH Radio Hour replayed this excerpted speech August 6, 2011.

Order Truth Academy Sets: DVDs of Chicago 2010 or CDs of Columbus 2011 – A DVD-video set of the entire three-day Truth Academy is available for $89 (including postage). Other speakers include: Rena Lindevaldsen, Robert Knight, Matt Barber, Greg Quinlan, Ryan Sorba, Laurie Higgins, Robert Gagnon, Arthur Goldberg and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera.  Columbus 2011: A CD-audio set of this year’s two-day Truth Academy in Columbus, OH — co-sponsored by Mission America – is also available, for $49 postpaid; speakers include: Lindevaldsen, Quinlan, Barber, Linda Harvey, Gary Glenn, Gagnon, LaBarbera and David Kupelian. Order BOTH Truth Academy sets (the Chicago DVD and the Columbus CD) for a discount price of $129. Send your check and specify your order to AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522; or give online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (please use PayPal if possible).

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Do not use Real Player. It is not supported and there may be difficulty when listening 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.

8-6-11, Cliff Kincaid

RIMMING: Section on "Rimming" from flier produced for the California HIV/AIDS Hotline. "Rimming" is a slang term for oral-anal sexual stimulation, as depicted by the drawing above. The text reads: "You cannot get HIV from rimming. You can get Hepatitis A (but you can get vaccinated against it), shigella, herpes, and intestinal parasites. To reduce your chances of getting sick, clean ass before you eat it, or use a dental dam as a barrier between your mouth and your partner's ass."

TAKE ACTION: Share this disturbing information with your adult friends, family and co-workers — as well as your U.S. Senators and Congressman [Senate 202-224-3121; House: 202-225-3121; www.congress.org].  Urge your representatives in Congress to put the safety of Americans — and a pristine blood supply — ahead of the demands of the selfish Homosexuality Lobby.  Also urge your representatives to launch a Congressional investigation into the health hazards of homosexual behaviors (just as the government studied the dangers of smoking).  We need the government to regulate the commercialized “gay” sex industry (e.g. bathhouses) – which fosters anonymous perversions and a reckless culture of promiscuity that spreads diseases and ultimately endangers innocents.

________________________________

“Infection with these parasites was a likely effect of anal intercourse, which was apt to put a man in contact with his partner’s fecal matter, and was virtually a certainty through the then-popular practice of rimming, which medical journals politely call anal-oral intercourse.” – Homosexual reporter Randy Shilts, who died of AIDS at 42,writing in his book, And the Band Played On, pp. 18-19.

By Peter LaBarbera

Here we reproduce portions of a flier produced by the Asian Health Services and funded by the California AIDS Clearinghouse — as AFTAH launches its “Keep the Gay Blood Ban” (KGB²) campaign against renewed lobby efforts to open up the U.S. blood supply to homosexuality-practicing men. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), one-time Democratic candidate for president, has stepped up his efforts to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current ban on blood donations from any ‘man who has had sex with a man’ (MSM) since 1977 (and any woman who has had sex with such a man).

In the House, Sen. Kerry is being aided by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), who represents the homosexual Boystown neighborhood in Chicago, and the two recently applauded Obama’s HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) for taking steps toward lifting the homosexual blood ban.

Sadly, Sen. Kerry and others crusading against the homosexual blood ban do so on the basis that the ban is mainly about ”anti-gay discrimination” rather than preserving public health. Kerry previously cited the advent of legalized homosexual “marriage” as mitigating against the lifetime homosexual blood ban. Yet few seem interested in investigating — much less restricting — the actual high-risk homosexual practices and deviant behaviors depicted and described in this (pro-”gay’) flier, which crassly helps explain the immense heath risks of male homosexuality. We excerpt this flier — vulgar slang references and all — to help educate the public as to how this lifestyle is so dangerous that men who practice it must be kept from the nation’s blood supply.

The politically incorrect reality is that male-on-male sex and the “gay” sexual culture are extremely high-risk due directly to the dangerously perverse and unsanitary acts – and unprecedented promiscuity — practiced by “men who have sex with men.” Such behaviors fueled the AIDS crisis in the first place, as documented by homosexual reporter Randy Shilts in his book “And the Band Played On” (1987) [Click HERE to see excerpt from Shilts at bottom.]

AFTAH will present raw homosexual reality

As part of our “Keep the Gay Blood Ban” (KGB²) campaign, AFTAH will present the reality of homosexual BEHAVIOR  – using “gay” and pro-homosexual sources (largely uncensored). Much of it — like this California AIDS flier – will be shocking to the uninitiated, but we hope to provide an alternative to the dominant pro-homosexual political culture narrative that invariably excludes the single-most important factor in this debate — and any discussion surrounding homosexuality: homosexual behavior.

RISKS OF ANAL SEX. Click on graphic to enlarge. California AIDS flier discusses risks of anal sex. TOP PANEL READS, in part: "Can I get HIV as a top? It's less likely but, yes, it's possible to get HIV by topping, especially if you regularly f**k without a condom. Studies show that men with foreskins -- ED. NOTE - READ: uncircumcised men -- are more likely to contract HIV than men without." BOTTOM PANEL READS, in part: "Anal sex is the riskiest sexual activity for getting/spreading HIV. That risk goes up if you have more sex partners, if you f**k without a condom, or if you have sex with someone who has HIV. Of course, you can't always know if your partners have HIV. That's why some men choose to assume that all their sex partners are HIV-positive....If you're using drugs like poppers or meth, you should know that f**cking while high can increase the likelihood of anal tearing, which also puts you at higher risk for HIV and other STDs."

Why aren’t teenage boys being warned?

One other point: this flier and similarly frank homosexual literature conveys the harsh, shocking realities of homosexual sexual behavior. When teenage and even pre-teen boys idealistically embrace “being gay” as “who they are” — encouraged by pro-homosexual adults and the ubiquitous pro-”gay” messages in pop culture – do they have any inkling of the serious and even deadly health repercussions of this lifestyle choice?

When Hollywood elites glamorize homosexual teen male romances on programs like “Glee,” [see Glee's infamous teenage boy homosexual kiss HERE] shouldn’t they include warnings about the far less glamorous side of same-sex conduct? Shouldn’t boys embracing homosexuality be forewarned about the disproportionate risk of HIV, hepatitis, anal warts, herpes, etc., — all linked to unnatural homosexual behaviors?

Also, although many homosexual activists surely will object to this report on the basis that not all homosexual men are promiscuous or practice dangerous behaviors like sodomy and rimming — what is curious is that the United States government – even when led by Republicans — has taken precious little action against the “gay” sex industry and LGBT activism that facilitate the very promiscuity that has a long history of causing and spreading disease. Concerned more with decrying “homophobia” than encouraging public-health-promoting action against homosexual sex clubs, the the federal CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has left the “gay” bathhouse and sex-club industry untouched, and so it flourishes. Indeed, even in the CDC’s home city of Atlanta, three anonymous homosexual sex establishments operate without fear. Some ‘control and prevention.’…

FDA explains homosexual blood ban

The following are excerpts from an FDA fact sheet explaining the homosexual male blood donation ban (emphasis added):

• Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
• A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.
• Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

What will Obama’s HHS do?

ANAL SEX AND BLEEDING. Panel reads: "Is it normal to bleed after anal sex? Bleeding immediately after anal sex is common for many men. Blood may come from hemorrhoids, a tear in the anal lining, polyps or tumors in the colon, or some type of infection. The seriousness of anal bleeding can only be assessed by a doctor. If you continue to bleed for more than a few days after anal sex, contact a clinic."

Sen.  Kerry plans to work closely with the Administration on repealing the “gay” blook donation ban. In his statement against what he calls the “outdated” homosexual blood ban, Kerry states: “It’s a very positive step that HHS is meeting this week to reconsider the lifetime ban on gay Americans donating blood.  The medical and scientific communities have been crystal clear that there is no longer any scientific evidence to warrant this policy…I’ve been working closely with members from both chambers, and we look forward to hearing HHS’s recommendations and working with the Administration to ensure that an outdated policy is brought into line with the world we live in today.”

The FDA contradicts Kerry’s claim that there is “no longer any scientific evidence” supporting the ban. It continues:

• Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
• Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
• Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called “window period”. The “window period” is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.
• FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the “window period” of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.
• Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
• Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
• No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.
• Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA’s first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
• Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

The past is prologue

ANAL WARTS, HPV and ANAL CANCER. Click on graphic to enlarge. Panel reads, in part: "What are anal warts? They're fleshy, painless growths that can appear in and around the anus. Warts are caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It's estimated that the majority of sexually-active gay men have already been exposed to HPV. You can't get tested for HPV, but there are a few things you can do. If you have warts, get them treated -- you'll be more comfortable, and you'll be less likely to spread the virus to your partners. HPV has also been found to be associated with anal cancer. Even if you don't have warts, you can still care a strain of HPV that causes cancer. If you bottom -- ED. NOTE: this means serving as the recipient "bottom" in anal sodomy -- ask your doctor for an anal Pap smear every few years to check for early signs of cancer (yes, men can get Paps too!)...."

The connection between disease and unnatural — and bizarrely perverse — homosexual acts goes back to the roots of the “gay revolution” in America. Randy Shilts, who himself died of AIDS at 42, wrote of pre-1980 “gay-liberated” San Francisco in his book, And the Band Played On:

The fight against venereal diseases was proving a Sisyphean task….In San Francisco, two-thirds of gay men had suffered the debilitating disease [hepatitis B]. It was now proven statistically that a gay man had one chance in five of being infected with the hepatitis B virus within twelve months of stepping off the bus into a typical urban gay scene. Within five years, infection was a virtual certainty.

Another problem was enteric diseases, like amebiasis and giardiasis, caused by organisms that lodged themselves in the intestinal tracts of gay men with alarming frequency. At the New York Gay Men’s Health Project…30 percent of the patients suffered from gastrointestinal parasites. In San Francisco, incidence of the “Gay Bowel Syndrome,” as it was called in medical journals, had increased by 8,000 percent after 1973. Infection with these parasites was a likely effect of anal intercourse, which was apt to put a man in contact with his partner’s fecal matter, and was virtually a certainty through the then-popular practice of rimming, which medical journals politely call anal-oral intercourse.

What was troubling was that nobody in the gay community seemed to care about these waves of infection…

[The] commercialization of gay sex was all part of the scene, an aspect of the homosexual life-style in which the epidemics of venereal disease, hepatitis, and enteric disorders thrived. The gay liberation movement of the 1970s had spawned a business of bathhouses and sex clubs…[S]ex was part and parcel of political liberation. The popular bestseller The Joy of Gay Sex, for example, called rimming the “prime taste treat in sex,” while a leftist Toronto newspaper published a story on “rimming as a revolutionary act.” – Shilts, “And the Band Played On,” pp. 18-19

Revolutionary, indeed. And as you can see from this current AIDS flier, the revolution lives on.

]]> http://americansfortruth.com/2011/08/05/keep-the-gay-blood-ban-california-aids-flier-exposes-extreme-risks-of-homosexual-sex/feed/ 0 http://americansfortruth.com/2010/11/11/hutch-will-inspire-you-to-be-a-better-christian-and-a-better-citizen/ http://americansfortruth.com/2010/11/11/hutch-will-inspire-you-to-be-a-better-christian-and-a-better-citizen/#comments Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:15:37 +0000 Peterlab http://americansfortruth.com/?p=7893 Dear Readers,

Our nation just had a momentous election in which many politicians who were pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion were thrown out. Still, our work defending God’s Truth will only become more important after a new Congress is sworn in.  So why not get energized on Saturday, Nov. 13 by coming to the Americans For Truth banquet at Christian Liberty Academy in Arl. Heights, IL, to hear our keynote speaker, Pastor Ken Hutcherson?  “Hutch” will psych you up to stand boldly for Truth in the Culture War — but more important than that, he will motivate you in your spiritual life to pursue godliness through Jesus Christ!

EARLY SIGN-UP DISCOUNT: Tickets for the banquet are $75 per person (after Nov. 8) and at the door. Married couples (one man, one woman only!) get a discount and can attend for $100 per couple. Please RSVP to americansfortruth@gmail.com and let us know you are coming — or that your pastor is coming for free.  You can make your gift online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate  or send your check to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

I greatly enjoyed my three AFTAH Radio Hour interviews with Hutch (see link info below to listen), but I was also humbled, and even a bit shamed at one point in the exchange.  Here’s a guy with cancer weakened by daily ‘chemo’ treatments — and he still spends a lot more time in the Word of God than I do.  I barely know Hutch, but already he has caused me to reevaluate my priorities in life and inspired me to more diligently pursue godliness.

And when it comes down to it, isn’t that what America needs?  Time spent to learn God’s will and then the humble obedience to follow it.  Politics can only take us so far, especially in a deeply morally compromised and “proud” nation that is leaving God behind. 

So please come to our AFTAH banquet.  Tell a friend about it.  Bring your children.  (Pastors can come for FREE; sponsor your pastor with an extra $50 gift!)   If you are a homosexual, come (as long as you don’t plan on disrupting our event)!  But most importantly, bring your brain and your heart and have them ready to be challenged!  As anyone who has attended our events knows, they are not schmaltzy affairs but are loaded with Truth — because we try to live up to our name, Americans for TRUTH About Homosexuality.  In a way, AFTAH with its uncompromising message is the conscience of the pro-family movement on the homosexual issue — that’s why we seek out leaders like Hutch who have shown that they value Truth more than Political Correctness, and loyalty to God more than worldy praise. 

I hope to see you at CLA in Arlington Heights on Saturday, Nov. 13.  You will be blessed by coming, I can assure you of that. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Please read the WND column below by Hutch, who asks why — if America cares about teaching our kids to be healthy — we don’t educate them on the massive health risks associated with homosexual behavior!  

______________________________________________

Online links to Americans For Truth Hour Radio interviews with Pastor Hutcherson (links contain short descriptions of each show):

• Week 3 (aired Oct. 23, 2010); http://americansfortruth.com/news/part-three-interview-with-dr-ken-hutcherson.html
• Week 2 (Oct. 16): http://americansfortruth.com/news/part-two-interview-with-pastor-ken-hutcherson.html
• Week 1 (Oct. 9): http://americansfortruth.com/news/part-one-aftah-interview-with-dr-ken-hutcherson-aftah-banquet-speaker.html

Americans For Truth Hour Archive page: http://americansfortruth.com/americans-for-truth-hour ; other interviews: Dawn Stefanowicz, Matt Barber, Bob Knight, Linda Harvey, Laurie Higgins, Pete Lines, Linda Jernigan, Pastor Calvin Lindstrom and Lynn Thomas, Col. Dick Black, Prof. Rob Gagnon, Ryan Sorba, Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, John McCartney and Wayne Lela, Amy Contrada, Brian Camenker, Mike Heath and Michael Glatze.

_________________________________________

Info on AFTAH Banquet:

Who: Pastor Ken Hutcherson, Pastor, Antioch Bible Church, Redmond, WA, former NFL linebacker (Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks)

When: Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010; 6:00 PM; doors open at 5:30

Where: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004.

Tickets: $50 per person if purchased by Mon., Nov. 8; $75 after that and at the door. Pay online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate. Or mail your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Pastors attend FREE; sponsor a pastor with your extra gift of $50!

RSVP: Send us an e-mail at ameicansfortruth@gmail.com. Phone: 630-717-7631.

Extra info: Don’t be intimidated by the announced protest at our banquet of the Gay Liberation Network — a Chicago-based, Marxist homosexual hate organization.  They picket all of our events.  GLN hates AFTAH because they know that we will never give in to their lies and intimidation, and that we will always proclaim the truth: that homosexual practice is wrong but changeable and forgivable through Jesus Christ!

Background on Hutch: Ken Hutcherson is a former NFL football player, but most importantly he is a man of God who has proven himself a faithful ambassador for his Savior, Jesus Christ.   You may have heard him interviewed on the Rush Limbaugh Show.   “Hutch” founded and pastors Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Washington (home of Microsoft).  He organized two massive “May Day for Marriage” rallies – in Seattle and Washington, D.C. – to defend traditional marriage.  He took on the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” in his child’s school by sponsoring a large counter-rally – which led to him and his family being persecuted by homosexual activists.  That did not deter Hutch, who continues to speak out boldly against the homosexual agenda while extending the Gospel to people trapped in homosexuality.
 
Come hear how the Lord delivered Hutcherson from his racism and hatred, and how this godly man looks to everything — even his current battle with cancer — to conform himself to the image of Jesus Christ.  Bring your pastor (for free) to hear Hutch’s challenge never to back down from God’s Truth in the fight against evil!

________________________________________________

Column by Hutcherson in WorldNetDaily.com:

‘Transgender, Transsexual and Trans fats’

WorldNetDaily, Posted: August 18, 2010, 1:00 am Eastern

By Ken Hutcherson

In June I bought a full-page ad in our local gay newspaper during gay-pride week to bring attention to a lifestyle that is protected even though proven to be dangerous and unhealthy. If something is deemed unhealthy, it does not take a public vote before school boards, cities, the federal government and many parents take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate access to that danger.

How many times have you heard the unfairness, hatred and the mistreatment of trans fats? It is thought that trans fats may be unhealthy, along with sugar and salt. And the list of unhealthy food choices grows daily.

The Centers For Disease Control has said and proven that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and dangerous to those who participate in it. I will prove that point a little later in this article. The evidence cannot be argued – ignored, yes, but not debated.

Where is the public outcry when this dangerous lifestyle choice is promoted by schools, cities, states, courts and the federal government? Where is the evidence that we care about homosexuals when a judge overturns the decision of 7 million voters who passed Proposition 8, and is applauded for encouraging many to marry while living this hurtful lifestyle? We stand strong on the danger (albeit highly debatable) of certain foods that we suspect might be injurious to our health but turn a blind eye to homosexuality, which inarguably kills its participants.

The National Day of Silence, sponsored by GLSEN, took place at schools across the country again in April. According to GLSEN’S website, “On the National Day of Silence hundreds of thousands of students nationwide take a vow of silence to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and even harassment in their schools.” In other words, the purpose of the day is to stand in solidarity with homosexual victims.

The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons and by the pseudo-science alleging a “gay” gene. Evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims – but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others. Why do cities, states and our federal government help these victims by celebrating with them in gay-pride events, and why do schools celebrate an entire day during the National Day Of Silence? For those who are so health conscience, if you are truly interested in removing those things that are dangerous to society, you need to examine the question of why the deadly homosexual lifestyle is protected.

Why is the lie about the existence of the gay gene and the falsehood that homosexuals are not able to change because they were born that way so widely promoted? Think about this common-sense scenario: If a man ever got pregnant, could anyone say from that day forward that it is impossible for men to get pregnant? The answer is a resounding “no.” You would never again be able to say it is impossible. Using the same logic, if one homosexual ever changed and got out of that lifestyle, can the statement be made that it is impossible for homosexuals to change?

The answer is again a resounding “no!” You would never again be able to say it is impossible. We know of many homosexuals, and I am friends with many, who have gotten out of the homosexual lifestyle by one decision – to stop. One of the most famous ones is the breakup of Ellen Degeneres and Ann Heche. Ann broke it off with Ellen and married a man and is living a heterosexual lifestyle at this very moment. I am black, was born black and will die black – I assure you of that. I can’t even take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, because it is obvious who I am. I have never met an ex-black man (even Michael Jackson could not accomplish that), but I have met countless ex-homosexuals who are living a victorious heterosexual life. Why do we allow the lie to continue to be perpetrated, and why do we keep encouraging homosexuals to stay in this deadly lifestyle?

I have read the Constitution and cannot find anywhere that it protects same-sex marriage. If the Constitution does not protect same-sex marriage, then how can a judge in California declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional? It is a perversion of the Constitution to give protection to a group that can move in and out of that group just by making a conscious decision.

According to the Centers For Disease Control website as of June 12, 2010:

• The No. 1 risk factor for contracting HIV/AIDS is and always has been homosexual sex.
• 56,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS are diagnosed each year in the U.S.
• As of 2006, there were 1 million people living with HIV/AIDS, up 11 percent from 2003.
• Homosexual/bisexual individuals are seven times more likely to contemplate or commit suicide.
• Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals.
• Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to 500 or more sex partners, and nearly one-third admit to 1,000 or more sex partners in a lifetime.
• Individuals who have ever engaged in homosexual sex are prohibited from donating blood.

Legislators around the country are considering banning sugar and fatty foods in schools, removing salt and butter from restaurants and want to control what temperature you can have in your own homes, because they fear the potential of health problems. Perhaps they should consider banning the promotion of a lifestyle that the Centers For Disease Control has determined actually causes HIV/AIDS. On the Day of Silence, an entire school day is set aside to ensure every young, impressionable student is exposed to homosexuality. Does this really make sense to you?

As parents, school board members, city councilors and judges, why are we excited about promoting this lifestyle?  If any other lifestyle produced the previously quoted statistics, would we be having a day to celebrate it?

The most important reason this lifestyle is such a concern is because it keeps those living the life from accepting the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I am so very concerned about our nation because God will turn a nation over to judgment for sexual sin. With the recent court decision in California and with our nation embracing and celebrating this dangerous and unnatural lifestyle, we are courting disaster. I think we are close to judgment my friends, and I love this nation too much to stay silent.

Oh, by the way, God wants His rainbow back!

__________________________________

Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson is the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Wash. He is also a former NFL linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys and Seattle Seahawks.

Tentative Speakers Schedule

Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010

Location: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004;

Cost: Adults: $149 for 3-day conference; Single day rate: $50/day; Married couples discount: $199 for full conference; Youth: $99 (scholarships available to attendees ages 14-25)

Contact info/queries/RSVP: E-mail americansfortruth@gmail.com ; phone: 630-717-7631; more background information HERE.

Truth Academy Instructors:

• Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel ; Board Member, AFTAH
• Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media
• Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author, The Bible and Homosexual Practice
• Arthur Goldberg, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
• Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute
• Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism, keynote presenter
• Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
• Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law
• Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network
• Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California

_______________________________________________________

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5 (Day One)

All presentations are 45 minutes followed by 15 minutes of Q & A.  There will be a panel discussion and Q & A on Thursday and Friday, and a special evening presentation each of those evenings.

8-9:30 – Light breakfast;  Registration

9:30 – 10:00 – Opening Prayer, Calvin Lindstrom, pastor, Church of Christian Liberty;

Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

“From gay pride to gay tyranny”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”

11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH:

“Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”

12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“The ‘born gay hoax”

2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”

3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change:

“Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”

4:50-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, and Greg Quinlan, Cliff Kincaid; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Thursday evening presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network:

“An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”

__________________________________________________________________________

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6 (Day Two)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media:

“The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”

11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”

12 :20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality:

“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”

2:30 – 3:30 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law:

“The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

5:00-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid, Robert Knight, Robert Gagnon, Gregg Quinlan; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Friday evening keynote presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism:

“From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

__________________________________________________________

SATURDAY, AUGUST 7 (Day Three)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“’But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries:

“Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network:

“The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”

12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media:

“Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’”

2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

6:00-6:20 – Closing remarks, Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

[NOTE: Corrected contact info for American Red Cross below]

“Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.” – Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

In the book And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic, homosexual journalist Randy Shilts documents how homosexual activists originally fought the effort to ban "gay" male blood donations, saying it was discriminatory. This caused a delay in starting the ban, which led to the needless deaths of many innocent people. Shilts himself died of AIDS.

Folks, thankfully, sanity has prevailed and the political attempt to weaken the FDA ban on blood donations from “men who have had sex with men” (MSM) failed in a 6-9 vote Friday by the FDA committee mentioned in Cliff Kincaid’s article below. (Note the American Red Cross’ condemnation of the vote, along with “gay” activist organizations; contact the Red Cross HERE.) I only wish the homosexual activists and their liberal allies (most importantly the CDC) would redirect their energies toward shutting down homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs — i.e., the venues that encourage the anonymous hyper-promiscuity that facilitates the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. (See our story: “CDC: Gay Men’s HIV Rate 44 Times that of Other Men; Syphilis Rate 46 Times Higher.”) But this would run contrary to the history of homosexual activism, which elevates deviant sex and “rights” based on same above the public health and other interests of the public. TAKE ACTION: Contact the Food and Drug Administration HERE; Contact the Red Cross HERE; and you can reach Congress at 202-224-3121. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org,

____________________________________

The Battle Over Blood

By Cliff Kincaid, Reprinted with permission of Accuracy in Media, www.aim.org |  June 9, 2010

With the public focused on the calamity of the Gulf oil spill, another disaster that could affect millions of lives is in the making. The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is holding meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban on gay blood.

In this battle, if the gays win, you lose.

Gay activists, who are expected to dominate the proceedings and intimidate federal policy makers, insist that the ban is discriminatory and homophobic and are demanding the “right” to donate blood. The lifting of the ban on gay blood is seen as a necessary prerequisite to lifting the ban on open gays in the military. After all, how can gays be on the battlefield, where they could be called upon to provide a blood transfusion to a fellow soldier, if they cannot legally donate blood?

What this means, if politics is played with the blood supply, is that that the five million Americans a year who receive blood transfusions, in addition to soldiers on the battlefield, could be exposed to the AIDS virus or other infections in the diseased blood of sexually active homosexuals.

Tragically, despite the life and death nature of this issue, news organizations are spreading deliberate lies.

For example, The Desert Sun of Palm Springs, California, reports that “Gay advocates in the Coachella Valley say now is the time to change the ban they consider discriminatory.” It then quoted David Brinkman, executive director of Desert AIDS Project in Palm Springs, as saying, “There is no scientific or medical evidence that supports the need for the ban anymore. All blood is tested twice and there’s 100 percent accuracy to insure no HIV gets into the blood supply.”

I informed Nicole Brambila, the author of the story, that the claim she featured in her story was absolutely false. But she refuses to correct the record.

In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with jurisdiction over the blood supply, says, “Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.”

This is one reason why gay males, or men who have sex with men (MSM), are prohibited from donating blood.

The FDA also says, “Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.”

These critical facts are being carefully omitted from media coverage of the pending change. And because the major media are influenced or intimidated by such groups as the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the gay-run Media Matters organization, reporters can find themselves targeted as “haters” and “homophobes” if they tell the truth about the gay lifestyle. As a result, many writers and commentators decide to avoid the topic.

The truth is so sensitive that when the Obama Administration tapped a Washington University professor by the name of Jonathan I. Katz to serve on a scientific panel to review the handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he was immediately attacked because of his article, “In Defense of Homophobia,” on the dangers of homosexual behavior.

As a result of the outcry from the homosexual lobby, Katz was dropped from the panel, even though the article had nothing to do with the Gulf matter. This is how they operate—protest and intimidation. As we recently saw with George Will’s capitulation to the gay lobby, very few conservatives have the intestinal fortitude to go up against them.

Despite the controversial title, the Katz article is well-researched and touches on the gay blood problem, noting that the homosexual activists have been campaigning for a lifting of the ban for several years and that their position is that “In order to satisfy their demand for full acceptance by society, the homosexual movement demands to kill some transfusion recipients by infecting them with AIDS…”

Do you or your loved ones want to die in order to advance the gay rights agenda?

In advance of the Thursday and Friday meetings on blood safety, a federal notice has reiterated that male homosexuals “have an increased incidence and prevalence of several currently recognized transfusion-transmitted diseases”—Hepatitis B virus, HIV, syphilis, and cytomegalovirus.

It also says, “There is a theoretical concern that MSM populations may also be at increased risk for other unrecognized transfusion-transmitted agents.” That means another infectious agent could be lurking in the blood that they want to have the “right” to donate to the nation’s blood supply.

The move to lift the ban is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby which contributes to the campaigns of liberal Congressional candidates. It reports “progress” in this effort, based on the fact that Senators John Kerry and Al Franken have done the organization’s bidding and pressured the federal government to hold the June 10 and 11 meetings to consider lifting the ban on gay blood. The FDA commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is a political appointee of the Obama Administration.

The pressure campaign has already forced the American Red Cross and two other blood groups to previously argue for lifting the ban. But the FDA, after reviewing the policy in 2006, reiterated the prohibition, which has been in effect since 1983 and applies to MSM since 1977, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.

Randy Shilts’ book, And the Band Played On, and the movie by the same name that was based on it, documents how gays at that time of the discovery of AIDS and the virus causing it, HIV, were even then arguing that a ban on gay blood was discriminatory. The blood industry was then resisting the testing of the blood, mainly because of the cost.

The result was an unconscionable delay in banning gay blood and the unnecessary deaths of many people.

The gays even objected to the original name for AIDS as GRID, standing for gay-related immune deficiency. Another name for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,  the “gay cancer,” was also jettisoned because of its obvious association with the gay lifestyle.

Upset at the delay in responding to the dangers to the blood supply, one official of the Centers for Disease Control, reported Shilts, attended a meeting on blood safety and pounded his table with his fist, shouting, “How many people have to die? How many deaths do you need?”

A representative of hemophiliacs, dependent on blood transfusions for their day-to-day survival, objected to all of the talk at the time about the rights of gays not to be discriminated against, asking, “What about our right to live?”

Once again, as we have seen in the gays in the military debate, the gays are constantly screaming about their rights, oblivious to the point of madness about the rights of others. In this case, it’s our right to be free of infected blood when our loved ones get a blood transfusion.

But unless the public quickly offers its comments and raises an outcry with the federal authorities coming under the influence and intimidation of the gay rights lobby, the “right” to donate blood could soon be extended to a politically-connected special interest group that has a demonstrated propensity to acquire life-threatening and deadly diseases.

* CONTACT: Jerry A. Holmberg, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8803, FAX (240) 453-8456, e-mail ACBSA@hhs.gov; Contact the Red Cross HERE and the the FDA HERE. Call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or go to www.congress.org.

Additional Red Cross information:

American Red Cross National Headquarters
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 303-5000

General Red Cross Contact Page: http://www.redcross.org/contactus

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

Matt Barber's unapologetic approach toward the Culture War over homosexuality is the answer to wimpy evangelicals who seem to have forgotten that they are defending God's clearly-revealed Truth on this moral issue.

Here is Part Two of AFTAH’s June 12, 2010 interview with Matt Barber (CLICK HERE). (Listen to Part One HERE, or any other past interview HERE.) Barber is the Director of Cultural Affairs for the Liberty Counsel and an Associate Dean at Liberty University’s School of Law — where he will be teaching a course on “Sexual Behavior and the Law” this Fall. Barber and AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera discussed the upcoming Americans For Truth Academy and the hysterical opposition to it by homosexual radicals like Joe Jervis (who claims the Academy will “foster violence” against homosexuals). At the Truth Academy, to be held outside Chicago Aug 5-7, Barber will be lecturing on, among other things, a “Non-defensive approach to the issue of homosexuality.” Speaking of which, the two discuss the current malaise of evangelicals on the homosexuality issue — including Andy Marin’s preposterous call for a “moratorium” in churches on preaching against the sin of homosexuality.

Toward the end of the interview, Barber, author of the “The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War,” discusses the homosexual activist movement (failed) attempt to open up blood donations to homosexual men — despite the well-documented linkage between male-on-male sex and various sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. You will want to pass this interview on to your friends!

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

6-12-10, Matt Barber, All

“Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross).” –FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration), “Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - Questions and Answers”

War is bloody, yet men who have practiced homosexuality cannot give blood. Writes Barber: "If 'gays' are allowed to serve openly ... how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?"

Another informative piece by Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Studies at the Liberty Counsel. To read about the current FDA policy banning blood donations from MSM (“men who have had sex with men”) — and women who have had sex with MSM — go HERE. Homosexuality is not about “human rights,” but rather (changeable) human wrongs — and human wrongs often have public health consequences. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org; write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose ALL efforts to force open homosexuality on the military. Oppose S. 3065 in the Senate and HR 1283 in the House — bills that would homosexualize our Armed Services and force our nation’s conservative military culture to become one that celebrates homosexual “pride.” 

______________________________

Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed

By J. Matt Barber

The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one’s hope of donning the uniform.

This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.

In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:

• The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
• Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
• The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
• The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
• There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.

So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?

The answer to both is no.

The fact that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline” has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the “settled” anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we’ll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: “['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

The FDA further warns: “['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.”

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

All things considered (and we’ve only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should “gays” be allowed to serve openly: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.” Furthermore, 14 percent warn: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.

When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the “gays in the military” debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.

Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.

In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful “gay rights” rhetoric. However, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who’ve already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.

For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be “tolerated.”

Mr. President, it’s your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It’s high time you begin to take your job seriously.

_______________________________

Matt Barber 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. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. Barber is a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

By Peter LaBarbera

Here is Americans For Truth’s politically incorrect translation of the Democrat Party’s 2008 homosexual “PRIDE Proclamation,” issued June 3 and found HERE on the Democrat Party’s website. Of course, practicing homosexuality or bisexuality, or embracing gender confusion (transgenderism) is nothing to be “proud” of. Our comments are in black and red; the Democrats’ “Pride Proclamation” is in blue:

_____________________________

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today joined Massachusetts Democratic Representative Barney Frank and Wisconsin Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin in issuing the following Proclamation marking PRIDE Month:

“Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society ….

“Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that the following Americans — women who engage in (immoral) sex with other women, men who practice (unnatural and destructive) homosexual behavior, men and women who have sex with both men and women, and men who feel they should have been born as women (even though they have male sex organs) and who like to dress, grow breasts and act like they are women — and their families make to our society ….

“…and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

“Full equality” … meaning we will take laws and rights designed to fix racial injustice and apply them to changeable sexual misbehaviors and gender confusion — even if that means trampling over the freedoms of other Americans to disagree with those behaviors.

“Full equality” … meaning not that homosexual/bisexual/transsexual Americans have the same rights under the Constitution as everyone else, but that they get special legal rights and protections based on their practice/embrace of aberrant sex and gender confusion. Ex-gays — men and women who leave the homosexual lifestyle — lose such special rights. (We try not acknowledge such people, who usually join the Religious Right and vote Republican anyway.)

Important clarification on “full equality”: of course, we Democrats do not really mean “full equality” — in the “gay” activist sense of the word — because if we were to embrace full legal “marriage,” even as the Party of Homosexuality, that would hurt our ability to get Democrats elected to office. (It’s OK for retired Democrat politicians like Al Gore (at right) to back “gay marriage.”) And so we embrace “civil unions” — which are pretty much “same-sex marriage” by another name — for the time being.

In the same way that we continually profess to be “against abortion” (while supporting full legal abortion-on-demand at all stages of pregnancy, even for partial-birth abortions that are really infanticide), we mustn’t as a party move too fast on homosexuality and transsexuality — lest rank-and-file Democrats catch on to our radicalism and vote Republican. So give us a few years — after our friends in the corporate world, media and Hollywood soften up America a bit more — and then we promise to cave in completely to the Pro-Sodomy, Pro-Gender-Confusion Agenda.

“As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive.

When we say “inclusive,” we do not mean inclusive of pro-family Democrats who oppose sodomy-based, counterfeit “marriage” and homosexuality-based “special rights.” After all, the GLBT wing of our Party has made it clear that far from being “pro-family,” these Democrats are actually hateful, homophobic, prejudiced Neanderthals who desperately “cling to their Bibles” to uphold their narrow-minded bigotry. So, although we throw them an occasional bone or two — and of course allow them to profess their “pro-family” credentials to their backwater constituencies — we Democrats will be about as “inclusive” toward our social conservatives as we are toward pro-life Democrats.

Our (two-faced) Diversity & Inclusion Strategy can be cumbersome to administer: for example, we must reject most requests from so-called “pro-life” (that is, anti-women’s-right-to-choose) Democrats who continually pester us for a primetime speaking spot at Democrat presidential nominating conventions. This is something we simply cannot allow lest we alienate our progressive, pro-choice, feminist and lesbian party members.

“Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

By “dignity” and “equal rights,” we of course mean only for the babies who happened to have survived the abortion industry. (We Democrats accord no rights or dignity to innocent unborn children.) The woman’s “right to choose” is preeminent in our Party and we will resist all propagandistic efforts by anti-abortion zealots to remind our constituents that the unborn child has no “choice” whatsoever as to whether or not he or she gets killed through abortion.

As for committed Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others who act on their sincere religious belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, we implicitly encourage all campaigns to label these Americans as “homophobes, haters and bigots” (except in more conservative districts where we need the votes of these people to beat Republicans). At times we as a Party will cynically use people’s opposition to homosexuality for political gain. At the same time, we will make cynical insinuations to the media that “fundamentalist” Republicans are the modern moral equivalent of racists because … well … that’s what our powerful GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) party members and donors tell us to do. And our GLBT donors like Tim Gill give the Democrat Party lots of money and help in beating Republicans.

“These are our country’s and our Party’s core values.

As Democrats, we must never stray from our core social values (we’ll pretend they are the nation’s): the protection of abortion-on-demand right up through the end of pregnancy (and even for babies “born alive” through botched abortions), and the celebration of homosexuality, bisexual and transsexuality – using all available governmental power to impose both on America.

Concurrently, we must always take pains to express our religiosity, stressing that Christians, too, can support “choice” and “GBLT equality.” We have learned to rely on Evangelical consultants for guidance on which “Christian-sounding” words to use to appeal to Christian voters, even as we pursue anti-Biblical policies. (We are told that it is best not to use actual Biblical references when trying to justify these positions — except taking “Judge not lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1) out of context. A far more effective rhetorical strategy is to keep talking euphemistically about rights, equality, discrimination, choice, tolerance, etc. These words intimidate good-hearted but naive Christians from actually examining our Party’s social record.

“Across the country, at every level of government, Democrats have championed sweeping protections in the areas of employment, housing,

Across the country, at every level of government, we Democrats have championed legislation that for the first time in history accords legal rights based on unhealthy sexual misbehavior — conduct revealed by the God of the Bible (never use that phrase) to be “detestable” and which is proscribed throughout recorded human history. (We must remember that the Bible, like the Constitution, is an evolving document; never use the phrase “absolute truth.”)

And even though, due to political correctness, people who identify as “gay” are becoming in many areas the least likely Americans to fired (they are now recruited by major firms and universities based on their homosexual self-identification), we as Democrats are embracing “sweeping” pro-homosexual legislation that will likely trample on the rights of traditionalists who believe homosexuality is wrong. (Do not remind Americans of the Boy Scouts unless in a liberal, big-city environment like Philadelphia, where harassing and demonizing the Scouts is seen as progressive.) We know these stubborn bigots will likely vote Republican anyway, and we are counting on our many friends in the media not to give such cases much publicity. Democrats must continue to extol “faith, family and freedom” even as we support legislation at the federal and state level that directly undermines all three.

On that subject, we strongly support the federal ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) bill — which will be a tremendous boon for our party’s liberal lawyers constituency. ENDA would force all but America’s smallest businesses to adhere to a pro-homosexual orthodoxy at the threat of potential “gay” lawsuits. (Remember that many entrepreneurs vote Republican anyway.) We as Democrats must avoid at all costs questions like the following: Under ENDA, would a Muslim-owned day care business (not tied to a mosque) have the right NOT to hire homosexuals?

Regarding housing “discrimination,” we Democrats know full well that is there is no homosexual housing crisis. Far from it. In fact, in some homosexual enclaves, there is a reverse redlining of sorts by which heterosexual homeowners feel excluded by homosexuals who manage to fill neighborhoods with nothing but “gay”-owned houses. And homosexuals travel abroad at rates higher than the average American.

We must continue to obfuscate on the fact that homosexuals as a group never faced economic deprivation like our African-American party members even though they are stealing the Civil Rights model to advance their pro-homosexual agenda. Avoid at costs cases like [Americans for Truth Board Member] Matt Barber and Crystal Dixon — who were fired for opposing homosexuality and, in the case of Dixon, an African-American, for disputing our liberal “diversity” dogma equating homosexuality with civil rights. Never say the words “Crystal Dixon”: we are counting on the mainstream media’s non-interest in this story to help her case against the University of Toledo die a slow death.

Let us re-double our efforts to affirm that our Party’s pro-homosexuality agenda has something to do with the historic, noble Black civil rights movement when in reality we know that African Americans strongly resist such notions. Carefully avoid calling African-Americans “bigots,” as some overzealous GLBT and progressive Democrats are wont to do, as this message plays poorly to African-Americans and the media.

“… domestic partnerships and civil unions, adoption

[See above point on "full equality"]. We as Democrats support legislation that gives marriage-type benefits to non-marital relationships: both straight couples — the ones the Religious Right Republicans say are “living in sin,” who are unwilling to make the marital commitment — and homosexual “partners” whose immoral couplings (some bigots claim) should not subsidized and rewarded by government.

Many hateful Religious Right propagandists — selectively quoting our Founding Fathers — claim that the purpose of government from a traditional (Biblical) perspective is to discourage sinful conduct through the law (e.g., punish “sins”). We Democrats, our progressive minds expanded by years of Social Left advocacy, (and by pandering to wealthy GLBT special interests), have grown beyond these antiquated notions — actually flipping them on their heads.

We Democrats happily advocate the use of government to reward non-marital arrangements. Personal rights are preeminent. We advise candidates to champion marriage on the campaign trail but then to undermine it with the help of our GLBT friends in Washington, D.C.

We Democrats will continue to seek ways to provide wayward citizens further incentives to practice destructive and sinful sexual behaviors — ultimately to the harm of children who will have even a greater chance to be placed in homosexual-led households where they will be denied (intentionally) the blessing of either a mom or a dad. Special Note: avoid discussing “gay adoption” on the campaign trail as this concept still rankles many Bible- and Koran-toting Americans adhering to idealistic, Norman Rockwell-esque notions of mother-father parenthood and the so-called “traditional family.”

“… gender identity or expression, and hate crimes.

Though as stated above we Democrats do not recognize even the right to life of some in our human family, we do favor the creation of new and creative legal “rights” based on what some transphobic Republican bigots call gender confusion — men and women who choose to live their life as if they were a member of the other sex. “Gender identity” is a far more accurate term for this healthy phenomenon, but we must as a Party tread carefully on this issue as American transphobia is far more virulent — even among minorities — than homophobia. (Biphobia is also very potent.)

With this reality in mind, we must keep men in dresses and high heels far from Democratic campaign events and relegate our transsexual (like homosexual) Democrat convention speakers to daytime or late-night, non-primetime TV times. We also understand that the “T” in the homosexual/bi/trans’ agenda’s “GLBT youth” equation stands for “transgender,” but highly recommend that any discussion of transgender youth — e.g., boys going to school in a dress — be avoided until America “grows” as a nation and sheds its many prejudices. In fact, we advise that all discussions of GLBT youth be avoided — except in Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts — until further guidance from the Party.

“Despite all we have accomplished, our work is not done. We need to fight efforts to write discrimination into our laws and constitutions.

This is the Gayspeak we use to say that we as Democrats oppose all efforts by American citizens to actually preserve the age-old definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Curiously, we do this while we continue to proclaim that we oppose same-sex “marriage,” knowing that our GLBT allies are working day and night to radically redefine it. (The ends justify the means for us progressives.) We realize that the our blatantly heterosexist GOP opponents — who shamelessly exploit pro-marriage referendums for political gain — will say that the Democrat Party has slipped so far in kowtowing to homosexual activists that they now regard people rising up to protect marriage as “discrimination.” But that doesn’t matter, as long as the American people fail to catch on to the truth that the same “discrimination” rhetoric we use to bludgeon Republicans could also be applied to historical American efforts to ban polygamy in this country.

For the most part, our Democrat “gay marriage” strategy is simple: claim we are for defending marriage while we play dumb and enable our GLBT activist party members and activist judges to destroy its meaning. This strategy depends heavily on media non-interest and pro-homosexual reporting.

“We need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, and repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

[See ENDA comments above.] Such is our determination as Democrats to advance LBGT equality (read: do the bidding of the radical Homosexual Lobby) that we will even attempt to force homosexuality into the armed forces, during wartime no less. We regret that ignorant, Republican-sympathizing homophobes will charge that we Democrats are moving America toward the ‘Criminalization of Christianity’ — by supporting legislation like ENDA that will make it illegal for business owners and everyday Americans to live out their religious and moral beliefs about homosexuality. But that’s OK: we’re the Party that takes in the massive “gay” donations — while the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans are still years away from dominating their party (but making headway fast thanks to enlightened Republicans like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger).

We Democrats also favor hate crimes laws despite the exaggerated claims of anti-gay bigots like Gary Glenn and Chuck Colson who accuse us of creating a legal hierarchy of victims so that some victims — say, people practicing homosexuality or — receive more and better law enforcement protection than others — say, average heterosexual guys. Moreover, such hate-mongering homophobes falsely accuse us of moving toward the suppression of “hate speech” — as if we Democrats would ever squelch the ideas of our opponents [see point above on our Party's commitment to "inclusion"].

“We need a comprehensive, science-based strategy for combating HIV/AIDS.

Now, when we say “science,” that does not include the prudish Republican-Christian-Right-inspired idea of a governmental study on the health risks homosexual behaviors — e.g., anal sex and other male-on-male sodomies. Sure, there is ample evidence that certain behaviors fuel HIV and other the sexual diseases. (The CDC reports that in 2005, “men who have sex with men” (MSM) accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents” (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm.) But we must be practical: some science hits too close to home and we can’t risk alienating our wealthy “gay” Democratic base. So we as Democrats vow to perpetuate the national charade that pretends that AIDS is a disease that “doesn’t discriminate” when it clearly does. (See notorious Michigan homophobe Gary Glenn’s handiwork: “AFA-Michigan, AFTAH Welcome Gay Task Force Admission: ‘HIV Is a Gay Disease.’“)

“We must address the socioeconomic problems, including poverty and limited access to health care, that increase vulnerability to this disease.

Read: we’ll do anything but deal honestly with the actual behaviors causing the spread of HIV/AIDS in America: homosexual behavior (men having “sex” with other men) and IV drug abuse.

“To do all of these things we need to put a Democrat in the White House, expand our majorities in Congress, and elect more Democrats at the local and state level across the country. To do that, we need you. Get active, get involved, and join us so we can take our country back.”

No comment. (We can’t.)

NOTE: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (www.aftah.org) is a nonpartisan organization concerned with the promotion of homosexuality in any party — Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, etc. Readers can contact the Democrat Party HERE or the Republican Party HERE.

Folks, we need an official government investigation of the health risks of homosexual practices — especially among men. Until we get one, this Food & Drug Administration (FDA) statement will have to do.

I challenge all those who make the dubious case that there is no disproportionately high health risk for males practicing homosexual behavior (compared to heterosexuality) to read this FDA policy explanation on banning blood donations from homosexual men and then continue to make that argument. Those taking up my challenge can write AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net. I extend my challenge especially to vocal pro-homosexual activists.

For everyone else living in the real world — where those practicing deviant sex put themselves potentially at great risk — I suggest you study this FDA policy and then send it far and wide to your network of contacts. Young people especially — such as those supporting the homosexual-activist “Day of Silence” — need to read this because they have been inundated with pro-homosexual propaganda, including the sort that pretends that homosexuality is no big deal and not inherently more dangerous than normal sex.

True Christian compassion requires guiding youth (and adults) away from homosexuality, not confirming them in it. Emphasis is added in bold below. — Peter LaBarbera

________________________________

FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men

• What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?
• Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?
• What is self-deferral?
• Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?
• What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?
• Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?
• Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?
• Isn’t the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?
• How long has FDA had this MSM policy?
• Doesn’t the policy eliminate healthy donors at a time when more donors are needed because of blood shortages?
• Would FDA ever consider changing the policy?

What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it. (See the transcript of the “FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era” at http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/nat030806t.htm#7 for further information.) This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.

Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

• Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
• Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
• Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
• Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called “window period.” The “window period” is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.
• FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the “window period” of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.
• Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
• Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
• No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.
• Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA’s first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
• Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

What is self-deferral?

Self-deferral is a process in which individuals elect not to donate because they identify themselves as having characteristics that place them at potentially higher risk of carrying a transfusion transmissible disease. FDA uses self-deferral as part of a system to protect the blood supply. This system starts by informing donors about the risk of transmitting infectious diseases. Then, potential donors are asked questions about their health and certain behaviors and other factors (like travel and past transfusions) that increase their risk of infection. Screening questions help people, even those who feel well, to identify themselves as potentially at higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases. Screening questions allow individuals to self defer, rather than unknowingly donating blood that may be infected.

Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

FDA’s deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.

Male to male sex has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection at least since 1977. Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA. MSM continue to account for the largest number of people newly infected with HIV.

Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?

Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.

Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?

Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population. People who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs are excluded from giving blood because of the still largely unknown risks of transmitting unknown or emerging pathogens harbored by the animal donors. People who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries may be excluded because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). People who have engaged in sex in return for money or drugs are also excluded because they are at increased risk for transmitting HIV and other blood-borne infections.

Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men. For information on HIV-related statistics and trends, go to CDC’s HIV/AIDS Statistics and Surveillance web page.

Isn’t the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called “window period” donations. The “window period” exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. For these reasons, FDA uses a multi-layered approach to blood safety including pre-donation deferral of potential donors based on risk behaviors and then screening of the donated blood with sensitive tests for infectious agents such as HIV-1, HIV-2, HCV, HBV and HTLV-I/II.

How long has FDA had this MSM policy?

FDA’s policies on donor deferral for history of male sex with males date back to 1983, when the risk of AIDS from transfusion was first recognized. Our current policy has been in place since 1992.

FDA has modified its blood donor policy as new scientific data and more accurate tests for HIV and hepatitis became available. Today, the risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion has been reduced to about one per two million units of blood transfused. The risk of hepatitis C is about the same as for HIV, while the risk of hepatitis B is somewhat higher.

Doesn’t the policy eliminate healthy donors at a time when more donors are needed because of blood shortages?

FDA realizes that this policy will defer many healthy donors. However, FDA’s MSM policy minimizes even the small risk of getting infectious diseases such as HIV or hepatitis through a blood transfusion.

Would FDA ever consider changing the policy?

FDA scientists continue to monitor the scientific literature and to consult with experts in CDC, NIH and other agencies. FDA will continue to publicly revisit the current deferral policy as new information becomes available.

On March 8, 2006, FDA conducted a workshop entitled “Behavior-based donor deferrals in the Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) era.” The workshop addressed scientific challenges, opportunities, and risk based donor deferral policies relevant to the protection of the blood supply from transfusion transmissible diseases, seeking input on this topic. Participants were given the opportunity to provide scientific data that could support revising FDA’s MSM deferral. The workshop provided a very active, open and broad-based scientific dialogue concerning current behavior-based deferrals and explored other options that may be considered and the data needed to evaluate them.

FDA’s primary responsibility is to enhance blood safety and protect blood recipients. Therefore FDA would change this policy only if supported by scientific data showing that a change in policy would not present a significant and preventable risk to blood recipients. Scientific evidence has not yet been provided to FDA that shows that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors, is as safe as blood from currently accepted donors.

FDA remains willing to consider new approaches to donor screening and testing, provided those approaches assure that blood recipients are not placed at an increased risk of HIV or other transfusion transmitted diseases.

References:

1. Germain, M., Remis, R.S., and Delage, G. The risks and benefits of accepting men who have had sex with men as blood donors. Transfusion 2003; 43:25-33.
2. Busch MP, Glynn SA, Stramer SL, Strong DM, Caglioti S, Wright DJ, Pappalardo B, Kleinman SH; NHLBI-REDS NAT Study Group. A new strategy for estimating risks of transfusion-transmitted viral infections based on rates of detection of recently infected donors. Transfusion 2005, 45:254-264
3. Presentation at FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee Meeting, September 2000.
4. Soldan, K. and Sinka, K. Evaluation of the de-selection of men who have had sex with men from blood donation in England. Vox Sanguinis 2003; 84:265-273.

Published by CWA, April 14, 2008

By J. Matt Barber

Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote “tolerance” for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to “embrace who they are,” pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke?

Neither can I. The public would go ballistic, and for good reason.

But that hasn’t stopped officials in thousands of schools across the country from promoting other politically correct and socially “in-vogue” behaviors that – both statistically and manifestly – are every bit as dangerous as the aforementioned “frowned-upon” behaviors.
That’s exactly what the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” is all about – advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle among children.

Just the Facts Ma’am

By recently admitting that “HIV is a gay disease,” Matt Foreman, outgoing executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death.

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of “gay” activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study – conducted by pro-”gay” researchers in Canada – was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” – more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called “homophobia,” that being “Homophobia: The rational fear that ‘gay sex’ will kill you!”

The fact that we don’t have mandatory Surgeon General warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

Yeah, so?

Of course, that’s all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn’t change reality, nor does it eliminate the study’s disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a “perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation.”

The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood.

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, “have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among “gays,” and Hepatitis C is twice as common.

But perhaps most shocking are today’s syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

The “Day of Silence”

In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or “sexual orientation”).

But instead, the “gay” lifestyle is vigorously promoted in our public schools. Sexually confused children who suffer from gender identity disorder and same-sex attractions are told to “embrace who they are,” and are encouraged to entertain deviant and dangerous sexual temptations. “But always use a condom!” liberal educators bellow. (Forget that condoms have a perilously high failure rate and are incapable of preventing numerous STDs such as the HPV virus.)

On April 25, 2008, the pro-homosexual indoctrination of your children comes to a boil. Homosexual activists and like-minded liberal educators will be pushing the so-called “Day of Silence” on kids in thousands of schools across the country.

The “Day of Silence” (DOS) is organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), one of the most militant and well-funded of the powerful homosexual pressure groups. DOS purports to confront the alleged systematic harassment and bullying of children who self-identify as homosexual, bisexual or “transgender.” (For a sampling of the kinds of things GLSEN teaches children, click here. Be warned, though. It’s pretty graphic.)

To be sure, bullying and harassment should not be tolerated against anyone, anywhere for any reason, and those who engage in such activities should be firmly disciplined. However, DOS has very little to do with “bullying” and has everything to do with propaganda.

During DOS, children and teachers are encouraged to disrupt the school day by refusing to speak, in a show of support to self-described “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” and “transgender” students. Kids are additionally taught that Biblical truth, which holds that human sexuality is a gift from God shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, is “homophobic,” “hateful” and “discriminatory.”

Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It’s the height of impropriety and cynicism for “gay” activists and school officials to use good-hearted but misguided children as pawns in their attempt to further a deceptive, highly controversial and polarizing political agenda.

DOS is pure, unadulterated propaganda and, based on the medical science, amounts to nothing short of educational malpractice. With liberal school officials in tow, these militant homosexual activists are brazenly circumventing and abusing parental authority to further this dangerous political agenda. DOS is also a slap in the face to the many students with traditional moral values.

So, it’s time for the “Day of Silence” to finally live up to its name. It’s time for these radical adult activists to be silent in our children’s schools.

And you can to do something to help.

At DOS-participating schools all over the country, parents are joining with dozens of pro-family organizations, such as Concerned Women for America (CWA), in a “Day of Silence Walkout.” They’re keeping their kids home from school on DOS as a show of protest. (For more information [and a list of pro-DOS schools nationwide] visit www.missionamerica.com).

Parents and children are also strongly encouraged to participate in the Alliance Defense Fund’s non-disruptive “Day of Truth,” which will follow DOS on Monday, April 28, 2008. (For more information visit www.dayoftruth.org).

Children are impressionable. Their young minds are fresh clay ready for molding, and these adult homosexual activists know it. Your child’s spiritual, emotional and physical well-being belongs in your hands, not in the hands of liberal activists and elitist educators with a deceptive and destructive political agenda.

It’s time to shatter the silence with truth.

Matt Barber (right) is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues. Barber (right), a former professional heavyweight boxer, is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.