Americans for Truth

From the Family Research Council publication, “Washington Update,” by FRC President Tony Perkins (Dec. 7, 2009):

New Jersey Pops the Question
Less than a week after New York’s same-sex “marriage” bill went down in flames, neighboring New Jersey didn’t seem to learn its lesson. Today, the Trenton statehouse is packed for a six-hour debate in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee over a bill to redefine marriage in the Garden State. More than 300,000 people have signed a petition urging their leaders to reject the measure, but the Left is intent on staging a vote before Gov. Jon Corzine (D) is replaced by pro-marriage Republican Chris Christie. Liberal Democrats have until January 19 to get something done, and their first key vote is this evening. If the bill, S-1967, passes out of the 13-member committee, the entire Senate will vote on the proposal as early as Thursday. If you have friends or family in New Jersey, please ask them to contact their state senators as soon as possible.  [Go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/.]

Read the rest of this article »

The New York Times reports:

ALBANY — The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and passionate divisions surrounding the issue.

The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure….

The defeat, which followed a stirring, tearful and at times very personal debate, all but ensures that the issue is dead in New York until at least 2011, when a new Legislature will be installed.

Read the rest of this article »

Former homosexual Pete Lines shares about his life at AFTAH's banquet last month.

“[I]f my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land….“

“But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now so imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them.’ “ — 2 Chronicles 7

Dear Readers,

I want to wish each of you a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for your support of Americans For Truth this year, and for standing up for God’s Truth in an era (and in a country) in which true biblical values have fallen out of fashion.  America is the most spectacular nation every formed –  with blessings from God too great to quantify.  But like the Israelites, we will be judged if we continue to reject the will of our Creator.

This has been a good year so far for Americans For Truth, despite the challenges brought by the severe economic downturn.  We opened a new office in Carol Stream, where we have hosted several fine pro-family speakers (please note that our scheduled Laurie Higgins dinner-lecture has been postponed until January).  Our banquet a month ago was a great success, and our website continues to draw readers who are frustrated by the media’s incessant cheerleading for homosexuality and gender confusion (the “transgender” “T” in the “GLBT” movement).

Read the rest of this article »

Star Parker, founder and president of CURE, says legalizing homosexual "marriage" is like offering a glass of wine to a drunk.

Folks, I wish more conservative leaders: a) understood the truth about government-celebrated homosexuality as Star Parker does; b) had the guts to take a strong public stand on the issue like the column below. We encourage you to check out Star’s organization, CURE (Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education) at www.urbancure.org. — Peter LaBarbera

Parker writes (emphasis and web links added):

____________________________________

Sodom in the nation’s capital

There is a centrality of the traditional family to the American dream of opportunity and a centrality of family breakdown to poverty

At a time when our country is sick, it shouldn’t surprise that one our sickest places is our nation’s capital.

The poverty rate of Washington, D.C., almost 20 percent, is one of the highest in the nation. Its child poverty rate is the nation’s highest..

D.C.’s public school system, with a graduation rate of less than 50 percent, is one of the worst in the country.

According to D.C.’s HIV/AIDS office, three percent of the local population has HIV or AIDS. The Administrator of this office notes that this HIV/AIDS incidence is “…higher than West Africa…on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.” And the principal way that HIV is transmitted continues to be through male homosexual activity.

Amidst this dismal picture, the D.C .City Council, perhaps on the theory that serving up another glass of wine is the way to help a drunk, is scheduled to vote on December 1 to legalize same-sex “marriage” in America’s capital city.

Read the rest of this article »

New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.

Read the rest of this article »

The following statement was released by the Sutherland Institute, a conservative, pro-family public-policy organization based in Salt Lake City, Utah:

Sutherland Statement on Salt Lake City Nondiscrimination Ordinances and LDS  [Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] Support

In response to the November 10, 2009 decision of the Salt Lake City Council to adopt changes in Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinances, and to comments presented that evening by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Sutherland Institute issued the following statement:

Read the rest of this article »

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Dear Readers,

We may be witnessing the “official” split of the American pro-family movement against homosexuality into two camps: the principled groups and churches that oppose all efforts to recognize and approve homosexuality as normal (AFTAH is in this camp); and “soft” family organizations and churches that oppose homosexual “marriage” (and sometimes “civil unions”) but which support other parts of the homosexualist agenda. Below is a version of an e-mail I sent yesterday to pro-family leaders across the United States upon learning of this misguided decision by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to support special legal “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion.

The pro-”gay” decision by the LDS Church to back a local “sexual orientation” law — widely reported by the media — is very bad news for our side.  The proliferation of newfangled laws granting special protections based on objectively disordered sexual/gender behaviors created the basis for punishing dissenters and people of faith long before the “gay marriage” debate became the dominant issue that it is in the “culture wars.”  I think I speak for us all in saying that we are very grateful to the Mormon Church for all it has done to defend against same-sex “marriage” (I personally am astonished by the LDS’ huge contribution to the cause). But “protecting marriage” while legitimizing government-backed preferred status based on changeable, wrong, and very unhealthy (even deadly) behaviors is a Pyrrhic victory if there ever was one.

Moreover, allowing homosexual special rights will only be used by liberal judges to rationalize their imposition of “gay marriage,” anyway (as has already happened), so what’s to be gained by such concessions? [See Gary Glenn's article on this point HERE]

Read the rest of this article »

Jervis takes down post, falsely claiming advocate of “well organized terrorism” against Christians was joking

WARNING: OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE

The following is the complete text of the Nov. 4, 2009 post, “Haters vs.Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand for Marriage,” by homosexual activist Joe Jervis on his “Joe.My.God.” blog (he took down the post yesterday). The post contains violence-oriented and -threatening comments against me and AFTAH, Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel by some of Jervis’ readers. We have not changed a single word, so you will read some vulgar and obscene comments.

After the story broke open yesterday, Jervis took down the post [at http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/11/haters-vs-haters-peter-labarbera.html], claiming the threatening posts were a “joke” and that our and Matt Barber’s efforts to expose the threatening post was an “obvious attempt to intimidate me and my readers.” Actually, we just sought to expose the extremist rhetoric that could lead a deranged homosexual to kill. We would not fault homosexual advocates to do the same regarding irresponsible and threatening “conservative” rhetoric.

Jervis claims that the comment posted by “Tex” is “clearly a joke,” but as you can see from his two comments below, Tex clearly is serious about the need for violence against Christians to advance the “gay rights” agenda.

Jervis also writes that he’s taken down the controversial only “for the time being,” but “After I’ve thoroughly reviewed all the comments, it’ll go back up.” AFTAH would never post anything encouraging violence against homosexuals — in fact we have denounced such rhetoric; we don’t understand why Jervis feels the need to rationalize comments that endorse homosexual violence against Christians. (Click HERE to read about the phone-in death threat against Maine pro-family veteran Mike Heath, who is also the Board Chairman of AFTAH.)

Yes, Ft. Hood changes everything because it is proof that Political Correctness can end up killing lots of innocent people. Actually, that’s nothing new: liberalism’s naivete and “softness” toward Communism contributed to the deaths of untold millions.

Read the rest of this article »