The liberal media just eat it up when a sin movement (in this case, organized homosexuality) officially goes “bipartisan.” Check out this excerpt from (the giddy) The Atlantic. I suspect that The Atlantic’s (and CBS News’) Marc Ambinder — while sympathetic to the Stupid Republican Party’s current pro-homosexuality tack — wouldn’t agree with our description of homosexuality as sinful. Just a hunch, though. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. I just learned that a group of carefully-selected, right-leaning theologians are working on a version of the Bible (RSV – Republican Standard Version) that reinterprets all passages dealing with homosexuality so that only Democratic same-sex erotic behavior is proscribed. Whew. For a moment there, I thought these Republicans had decided that they were smarter than God.

Ambinder writes (emphasis added):

Top GOP Party Strategists Attending Log Cabin Event

Suddenly, it’s becoming less of a stigma for bigwigs to associate with gays in the Republican Party. Not only has former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman’s 9/22 fundraiser for gay marriage rights attracted numerous high-octane Republican donors and activists, but Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee will help the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, raise money for its political action committee. (Part of this story was first reported last month.)

A glossy pamphlet advertising the Log Cabin Republicans’ national dinner at the Capitol Hill Club highlights an hour-long cocktail gathering with the two party committee chairs, both strong opponents of gay rights. But their attendance will add to the coffers of the LCR’s political action committee, which endorses Republicans who support gay rights.

The LCR national dinner, which follows the private fundraiser, will include Sessions, Rep. Judy Biggert, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. The Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson will serve as Master of Ceremonies.

The Log Cabin Republicans’ Mission Statement proclaims fidelity to conservative principles like a “strong national defense” and “limited government” before it discusses marriage rights and an “inclusive definition of the family.” But in practice, the group does not endorse candidates who oppose gay rights…. [continued HERE]

Read the rest of The Atlantic article HERE.

UPDATE/Note to Readers: I have just called Sen. Lugar’s D.C. office (July 7, 2010) and an aide said that he has NOT issued a statement on the congressional effort to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military – despite the Washington Blade report cited below. Now is the time for all conservatives — but especially those in Indiana — to contact Lugar and urge him to stay true to conservative principles on this issue. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org

___________________________________

TAKE ACTION: Contact Sen. Dick Lugar [202-224-4814; e-mail him HERE] and urge him to oppose the homosexualization of the U.S. military, in a time of war — and to STOP pandering to the Homosexual Lobby. Lugar’s statewide office contact information is at the bottom of this email. Urge Sen. Lugar to support a filibuster of the Defense spending bill, with its provision to repeal the Armed Forces’ sensible homosexuality ban. Please pass this alert on to your friends and family living in Indiana.

A repeal measure passed by the House and contained in the Senate Defense spending bill would inject open homosexuality into the military without even waiting to hear from a (biased) review of the policy by Defense Sec. Robert Gates, which is slated for completion in December. Respectfully urge Sen. Lugar to respect the military by resisting the reckless experimentation with the Armed Forces. For the best information on this issue, go to the Center for Military Readiness website.

__________________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Well, it appears veteran Sen. Dick Lugar [(202) 224-4814; e-mail him HERE; see statewide office contact info at bottom] is another Republican who has “grown” on homosexual issues — leaving wholesome, conservative Indiana values far behind. If the Washington Blade is to be believed, Lugar is not even willing to wait for Defense Sec. Robert Gates’ biased review on how (not whether) to implement President Obama’s homosexuals-in-the-military plan.

The Blade, a newspaper for homosexuals, reports that Lugar will not support a motion to strike language repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military (“Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”). Here is an excerpt from the Blade (emphasis added), followed by statewide contact info for Sen. Lugar:

U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told the Blade last week that he isn’t concerned about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and wouldn’t support an effort to rid the legislation of the provision.

Asked whether he would support a substitute amendment or a motion to strike, Lugar replied, “No. I would just leave it as it is.”

Lugar said he would “presume” that he would vote against any filibuster of the defense bill as a whole, but expressed concern about the legislation being used as a vehicle for other costly programs unrelated to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“The defense bill, as it stands, seems to me to be a good piece of legislation, but I think the issue was the additions that were not paid for in various other ways,” Lugar said.

Often regarded on Capitol Hill as a centrist Republican, Lugar voted in favor of hate crimes protections legislation after twice backing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Lugar’s comments on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “good news.”

“That is consistent with what we have been hearing from his staff,” Sarvis said. “My view is that Sen. Lugar’s response is very encouraging.”

Lugar’s support for allowing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language to stay in the defense bill could be a sign the provision would survive the legislative process once it reaches the Senate floor.

On May 27, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to attach language leading to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the defense bill. But while the repeal language has been attached to the defense bill, a number of obstacles remain that could prevent the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language from passing in the Senate.

One such obstacle is a filibuster of the defense bill as whole. Additionally, a substitute amendment or a motion to strike could strip the legislation of repeal language.

Mounting a filibuster of the defense bill would take 41 votes in the Senate. Such an effort would be politically challenging because pay for troops and defense programs are included in the larger bill….

_____________________________________

Statewide Offices of Sen. Dick Lugar

Southern Indiana

101 NW Martin Luther King Boulevard
Room 122
Evansville, Indiana 47708
(812) 465-6313 p
(812) 421-1883 f

Northeast Indiana

6384 A  West Jefferson Boulevard
Covington Plaza
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804
(260) 422-1505 p
(260) 424-1342 f
 
Central Indiana

1180 Market Tower
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 226-5555 p
(317) 226-5508 f
 
Northwest Indiana

175 West Lincolnway
Suite G-1
Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
(219) 548-8035 p
(219) 548-7506 f
 
Washington, D.C.

306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1401
(202) 224-4814 p
(202) 228-0360 f

[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

“It is important to say that under Rehoboth law this was not against the law … In this case, they had male genitalia; therefore, they are not guilty of a crime.” - Rehoboth, Del., Police Chief Keith Banks

If transgender 'she-males' go topless, is it public nudity? Cops in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, say "No." Above, a male-to-female transsexual bares his presumably hormone-induced breasts while riding atop a float at the 2007 Chicago Gay Pride parade. The "she-male" rode for blocks in the parade as police took no action against him. Covered photo: Americans For Truth.

God help us. We have become a sick and very weird culture. In the good old days (before “she-males” existed), they would just call such people “perverts.” America was better off then. Check out in the piece below the anger of the local homosexual activist at the end of this story: no, Steve, what is truly “horrific” is that men are pretending to be woman, growing hormone-induced “breasts,” demanding “rights” based on their twisted gender choices, and then making even a bigger circus out of it all by going “topless” in public.

Can you see the misogyny in action here? In many ways, male transsexuals create in their reconstructed image a crude and deviant caricature of women (what they imagine being a woman is all about). I suppose in this case (and that of the “gay pride” photo above), we see men attempting to “live out” their fantasy — or delusion — of “being” slutty women. Too weird. Besides, in our depraved culture, aren’t there enough slutty women out there already that we don’t need men to “create” some more?

Only a nation that has kicked God to the curb would be on the verge of creating federally-guaranteed employment “rights” based on such unbelievable gender confusion. (That’s what ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would do.) Imagine all the trouble that activist “trannies” could cause for employers once they figure out the special treatment they can get merely by crying “discrimination!” Heck, they might show up at the company picnic in a low-cut halter top with lots of (fake) “cleavage” showing — just for the fun of it. The rest of us will have to bite our tongues or risk a Lambda Legal lawsuit. Don’t tell me this is what Martin Luther King died for! – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Big surprise: Rehoboth is a popular “gay” destination.

____________________________________

WUSA9.com reports:

Transgendered Men Go Topless In Rehoboth

(delawareonline.com) June 3, 2010– Rehoboth Beach and the local Internet have been buzzing for days after a few transgendered men caused a stir on the beach over the holiday weekend by removing their tops and revealing their enhanced breasts.

Police there were called to the beach after lifeguards requested that the sunbathers replace their tops.

“Passers-by came up to the lifeguard and said they were alarmed and unhappy with the females showing their breasts,” Police Chief Keith Banks said. “The lifeguard responded and saw that they were males.”

Banks said police were called because the men originally refused to put their tops back on, but had consented before police arrived. Officers made sure the situation was under control, and no citations were issued.

Banks said it could have been difficult to issue a citation because Rehoboth law defines indecent exposure two ways:

“A male is guilty of indecent exposure if he exposes his genitals or buttocks under circumstances which he knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person.

“A female is guilty of indecent exposure if she exposes her genitals, breasts or buttocks under circumstances which she knows her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person.”

So the men’s behavior may have been upsetting, but it was not illegal.

“It is important to say that under Rehoboth law this was not against the law,” Banks said. “In this case, they had male genitalia; therefore, they are not guilty of a crime.”

Banks said police only enforce the laws and want to make sure that people who visit the beach are comfortable. Police have not had previous problems with this kind of behavior, and there is no need for a specific law to address it, Banks said.

Not all are so sure.

“We’ll see if we need to address it,” said Kathy McGuiness, one of Rehoboth’s commissioners. McGuiness said this will be a topic at a town hall meeting next week.

“I can’t speak for the mayor or anyone else. I can speak for myself because I am a commissioner. I hardly see us reversing the topless law. I don’t think we are going to repeal it and allow women to go topless. Now if someone is going to go through the process of having implants, then they probably should think about following the laws of the person they would like to become,” McGuiness said.

Steve Elkins, executive director of CAMP Rehoboth, a nonprofit based in Rehoboth that aims to promote a positive environment for the gay and lesbian community, essentially agreed.

“Technically it wasn’t against the law. However, there are situations where people who — because of feelings about their birth, because of who they are — perceive themselves as females. I think we have to respect that, but on the other hand since they chose to identify themselves as females, they have to respect the law.”

Elkins said he also thinks that it is horrific that some people who voiced outrage through radio talk shows and the Internet only have a problem because they were transgendered.

“Whoever called and complained [initially] complained about a woman having her top off,” he said. “The people now trying to make something about the fact that they were also men, they are trying to have it both ways. You can’t have it both ways.”

May 27, 2010

Joint Chiefs’ Letters Should Deter Reckless Vote for Gays in the Military

In response to reports that both the House and Senate will rush to repeal the 1993 law regarding gays in the military, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“Some members of the House and Senate reportedly are prepared to capitulate to President Barack Obama’s latest push for gays in the military—made desperate by the ticking of the electoral clock.  This is not a ‘compromise’– Repeal is the whole deal. The price will be paid by military men and women whose voices have yet to be heard.”

On Tuesday all four uniformed service chiefs─Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, and  Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey─wrote separate letters imploring Congress to defer any legislation to repeal the 1993 law until the Defense Department completes its review.

Donnelly continued, “If Congress betrays the military during the current war and on the eve of Memorial Day, history indeed will be made, but the legacy will be one of which Congress will not be proud.”

Commenting on the May 24 letter announcing the president’s “Repeal Deal,” which was signed by Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, Donnelly noted, “Mr. Orszag’s official responsibilities do not include policy-making for the military.  A letter signed by the president’s helicopter pilot would have been more credible.   If the Budget Director is now a military leader, perhaps he will take the place of President Obama at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day.

“I doubt that there has ever been an incident in history comparable to this.  Military leaders have the duty to follow orders from civilian authorities, but Congress has a corollary responsibility to give appropriate respect to the professional opinions of uniformed leaders on a matter of policy that is still unresolved.

“Nothing has changed since Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said in a strongly-written letter that a hasty vote to repeal the law would “send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform” that their views “do not matter.”  For these reasons and more, we trust that members of Congress will take this issue seriously, and decline to take any action rushing to repeal the 1993 law.”

Brief summaries and detailed information on this issue are available in a specific section of the CMR website titled “Problems with Gays in the Military.” To schedule an interview on this subject, call Elaine Donnelly at 734/464-9430 or CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears at 202/347-5333 (Washington, D.C. office) .

_____________________________

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.  More information on this and related topics is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is reportedly planning to attach a repeal of the law banning homosexuals in the U.S. military to a Defense Authorization vote Thursday.

TAKE ACTION: contact your members of Congress and urge them NOT to repeal the ban on open homosexuals in the military. (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121).

Folks, Barack Obama and his media sycophants sure sold the American public a bill of goods in the last election about the Anointed One being a “moderate” Democrat. (Which is another way of saying: they lied.) Do you remember Obama and McCain even debating the end of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”? Of course you don’t because there was no serious general election debate on this issue. (Some might recall CNN’s and Anderson Cooper’s sneaky GOP primary debate trick promoting homosexuals in the military.)

The proudly “Queer” Lobby and its left-wing enablers like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — who truly seeks to impose her San Francisco district’s beyond-decadent values on the nation — know that now is their best chance to overturn America’s Judeo-Christian values system in the law. So they are in a frenzy to enact as much of the “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) agenda as possible. Only the American people can stop them. Demand that your Congressman and Senators tell you how they plan to vote on this issue. You can use American Family Association’s online e-mail form to contact your members of Congress. (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121.) — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org

Here is AFA’s E=Alert:

_______________________________________

More Chicago-style politics to ram unpopular vote through Congress Thursday

Repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” resorts to using Obamacare tactics…again

May 25, 2010

Dear Concerned American,

Once again, an unpopular piece of legislation is on the verge of being forced down the throats of the American people.

The Center for Military Readiness reports the House of Representatives plan to undermine the political process (again) and repeal the current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military.

President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are again using arm-twisting and backdoor deals in order to force open their laboratory for trendy experiments in the social engineering of our military.

And again, they want to pass a law, and then decide what’s in it…and how to implement it.

Forget about good government protocol of going through the proper committees. Forget about bi-partisan cooperation between political parties. And, especially, forget about Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urging Congress not to work on repeal until the Pentagon’s year-long study of the issue is complete.

This Thursday, Speaker Pelosi will attempt to circumvent the will of the people by ramming through an amendment to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” straight from the floor of the House of Representatives!

Allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military will decimate military morale and unit cohesion, introduce sexual tensions into same-gender accommodations and damage rather than enhance military readiness. Read our detailed report here.

Also on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Defense Appropriations bill, and Chairman Carl Levin appears determined to ram through a repeal of the law. The vote will be very close, so your action is critical!

TAKE ACTION
Homosexual activists are ratcheting up pressure as they see their window of opportunity closing. The stakes are high, and it’s never been more important than right now for your voice to be heard on Capitol Hill.

We have prepared letters for you to send to your Representative and Senators. The time is critical, as Thursday is D-Day in Congress for homosexuals in the military. Please, stand with our military and against liberal social engineers in Congress!

Email your members of Congress now!

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family

With the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, the question of homosexual judges is back in the news. Monday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said he could accept a nominee who is openly homosexual to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. On March 24, well before the announcement of Stevens’ retirement, AFTAH received this statement from Tom Minnery, Vice President of Public Policy at Focus on the Family. Minnery emphasized that the Focus clarification has been available to anyone who inquired about the controversial statements made last year by a Focus analyst to The Plum Line.

“This is not a new statement,” Minnery told AFTAH. “And we were quick to correct this mistake.”

The following is the clarification by Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family:

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

_______________________

Related Articles:

The Hill [Monday, April 12]: “[Sen.] Cornyn: Openly gay SCOTUS nominee might be acceptable”

By J. Taylor Rushing  -  04/12/10 06:59 PM ET

An openly gay nominee to the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court might be acceptable, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Monday.

Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on President Barack Obama to make a measured choice in filling the pending Supreme Court vacancy.

Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, was initially reluctant when asked if he would support an openly gay nominee — as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said last year he might.

“I’d have to think about that,” he said. “As long as it doesn’t interfere with their job, it’s not a particular issue.”

AFTAH: “Flashback:  Gary Glenn Assails Focus on the Family’s ‘Moral Retreat’ on Openly Homosexual Judges”

The Plum Line: Top Religious Right Group: We Won’t Oppose Gay SCOTUS Pick

In a move that will surprise gay activists and liberals, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, a top religious right group, tells me that his organization has no problem with GOP Senator  Jeff Sessions‘ claim today that he’s open to a Supreme Court nominee with “gay tendencies.”

The spokesperson confirms the group won’t oppose a gay SCOTUS nominee over sexual orientation….

AFA’s OneNewsNow: “Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?”

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus [on the Family], says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.” ….

Politico.com: “[Sen.] Sessions Could Support Gay Justice”

“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.)

Navy Capt. Jim Jefferis in uniform shortly before his retirement. He says the inevitable homo-sexual relationships that would occur in a homosexual-welcoming Navy would lead to preferential treatment that "can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale."

Folks, the following letter from Ret. Navy Captain Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis to Admiral Mike Mullen — President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a proponent of his plan to allow open homosexuals in the military — is one of the most compelling documents I have ever read against that terribly misguided idea. In an e-mail to AFTAH, Capt. Jefferis verified his authorship of the letter, which has been making the rounds via e-mail. He said that he had sent it to a few people with no intention of it going public, but now that it has, he is willing to have it published online.

Like me, I’m sure you feel a deep sense of sorrow that men of principle and common sense like Capt. Jefferis are being replaced in America’s military leadership by a new cast of politically correct officers like Adm. Mullen, who put dubious trends and expediency above principle and morality. Please read this letter carefully and then share it with your children, all of your elected representatives, and as many people as possible. God bless you, Capt. Jefferis, and thank you for your service to our country. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.com

TAKE ACTION: Send a copy of this letter by regular mail or fax (or e-mail) to your Congressman and Senators; go to www.congress.org to get their information.  Or call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and urge them to oppose President Obama’s attempt to do an end-run around Congress to force open homosexuality on our Armed Forces. Also urge your elected representatives to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, which we’re calling the Homosexualize Our Military Act –a dangerous bill that would impose a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination order on the military.

WRITE SEN. McCAIN and ADM. MULLEN: Also please write/call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) to thank him for speaking out against Obama’s radical ”gay” military plan. You can write Adm. Mullen and/or Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the addresses below or by clicking HERE.

We reprint this letter as it came to us (with minor editing changes and explanations); Capt. Jefferis (Ret.) writes:

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services.  I seriously question the wisdom of your position.  As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue.  Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain.  I enlisted in the Navy in 1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnel man, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program.  In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron.  I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships.  I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College.  After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law.  Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life.  Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

My experience is Naval.  I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps.  Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities.  In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties.  But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison.  There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell.  That is one of the differences between your position and mine.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot.  They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder.  Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.  The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances.  Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer.  There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement.  Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale.  If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command.  Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s.  At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center.  She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks.  I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment.  Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew.  Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in  the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders.  Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se.  Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct.  But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals.  Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies.  However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.

In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual.  I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.

So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law.  But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion.  As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him.  He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public.  However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse).  It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron).  In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse.  The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia.  I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today.  And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal.  I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage.  There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment.  Again, I must ask “why?”

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles [pro-homosexual advocates] is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual.  That can’t be true.  It isn’t the “policy,” it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy.  But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?

Adm. Mike Mullen, Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used "gay" activist rhetoric to affirm the idea of open homosexuals in the military. But Capt. Jim Jefferis asks: why is Mullen singling out homosexuals for special consideration?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED [General Equivalency Diploma] holders for enlistment.  Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment.  Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted.  Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy?  Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards.  The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun.  But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals!  Why is that, Admiral?

Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals?  If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument?  If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore?  Carnal Knowledge?  I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual.  At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost.  Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions?  When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct.”  We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis.  Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV?  Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources?  Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits?  Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits?  And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex-change procedures?  I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex-change therapy or surgery.  It made using heads [restrooms] confusing for both genders.  Sex-change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense.  But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well as their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”?  Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ [Basic Allowance for Quarters], military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges?  Will they be entitled to military housing?  Would they be entitled to sex-change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex “marriage” be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the “marriage”?  Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution?  Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police.  While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio [oral sodomy] on another male was discovered.  The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me.  During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring.  They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco.  They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego.  CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors.  Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships?  I hope not!

Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s.  An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the [British] Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy.  When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge.  After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem.  Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory.  I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source.  I have not walked the mile in your shoes.  But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine.  I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you.  In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals.  It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance?  I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination.  Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye.  Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.

In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect,

Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

The Hon. Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 21201-1400

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

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

From the Coral Ridge Ministries’ website:

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

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

Key pro-homosexual provisions highlighted by HRC include:

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

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

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

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

Obama’s Expanding Anti-Christian Agenda: Photo of President Obama appearing on the website of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s most powerful homosexual lobby group. Obama was the keynote speaker at the group’s annual fundraising dinner. He echoed HRC’s talking points by claiming that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal and natural relationships between a man and a woman.

CHICAGO, Illinois — President Obama used the bully pulpit tonight to defy the Creator, by brazenly declaring before a homosexual activist audience that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal relationships between a man and a woman.

Here is how influential one homosexual activist — Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, whose annual fundraising dinner Obama keynoted tonight — reacted to the president’s unprecedented endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle:

“Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President:  ‘You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’

“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.”

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued this response:

President Obama has taken his ‘audacity’ to new levels tonight, equating sin-based ‘relationships’ to the normal and natural male-female relationship that finds its best fulfillment in God-ordained, procreative marriage.

During the presidential campaign, Obama once punted on an abortion-related query as to when life begins, saying that was above his “pay grade.” Too bad he didn’t attempt a similar evasion on  homosexuality. The president has gone way over his pay grade on this one. Homosexual practice is a moral issue, settled by the Creator and His clear design of nature since the beginning of time. Obama can no more declare with any authority that abnormal, homosexuality-based relationships are as “admirable” as normal relationships than he can proclaim that each day will now have 30 hours instead of 24 to increase American productivity.

The president could not be more wrong. Homosexual relationships are not to be admired, they are to be pitied, as immoral “unions” that can only pretend to copy real marriage. Moreover, when the government treats such aberrant relationships like marriage, it risks placing hundreds of thousands of children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design, through “gay adoption” — another misguided homosexual demand advanced by Obama.

Perhaps the president needs to meet at the White House with some “ex-gays” — former homosexuals who now live in natural, man-woman marriages — people like Steve Bennett, Yvette Schneider, and Alan Chambers — to see the error of his ways.

We have yet to analyze Obama’s entire speech, but his declaration about admiring immoral homosexual relationships alone is the latest in a series of acts of spectacular hubris that have marked his political career. But Obama has a problem: he sold himself to the American electorate as a moderate Christian who believes deeply in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Yet the more he panders and postures to his impatient homosexual allies, the more Obama’s supposed embrace of husband-and-wife marriage becomes a farce — one apparently designed to fool voters who knew next to nothing about his real, radically pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual agenda.

We don’t blame Obama’s “queer” allies for asking: if you truly believe same-sex relationships are as “real and admirable” as male-female relationships, then why NOT support “gay marriage”? Equal is equal, right? The truth, of course, is that homosexuality-based relationships are anything but equal to the real thing: they cannot produce children; they are based on destructive and changeable behavior that has been condemned by Christianity and other major religious throughout most of civilized human history; and in celebrating their particular sin and attaching it to the noble institution of marriage, they force the teaching of homosexuality and counterfeit “marriage” as normative to schoolchildren in the name of tolerance and equality.

Barack Obama is a man whose “audacity” and pride seem to know no bounds — he even distorts the Bible to justify his “gay” advocacy. In his mind, he knows better than God, or so it would seem. Yet in this respect Obama is not unlike other pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians — mostly Democrats but some Republicans — who take it upon themselves to redefine right and wrong based on their subjective “feelings.” As the prophet Isaiah said long ago, they call good evil and evil good (Is. 5:20).

We hope that Obama’s cynical habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth on the homosexual issue (like other issues) will be his undoing. Now it is time for moral-minded Americans — especially those who voted for Obama  — be they Christian, Muslim or Jew; black, white or brown — to let the White House and Congress know that they will oppose all of the Obama Administration’s legislative efforts to create a bogus “civil right” out of the human wrong of homosexuality.

TAKE ACTION: Below are the main homosexual/trans activist bills that we urge you to stand against (call Congress at 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org):

• Hate Crimes (“Thought Crimes”) — STATUS: passed House and Senate attached as amendment to DoD appropriations bill: HR 1913: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1913&tab=summary; now in House-Senate conference;
• Federal “Special Workplace Rights” Based on Homosexuality and Gender Confusion — ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3017; S 1584) — 40 co-sponsors in Senate (all but 2 are Democrats): www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1584; 181 co-sponsors in the House (all but 5 are Democrats): www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017. More info on this Top Priority bill for “gay” activists: http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-homosexual-opm-chief-calls-enda-top-priority-keystone-that-will-propel-rest-of-gay-legislation.html
• Allowing Admitted Homosexuals in the Military — HR 1283, audaciously entitled, “Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009″; 176 co-sponsors: all but one are Democrats: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017.
• Homosexuality Indoctrination in Schools via “Bullying”/”Safe Schools” Funding — HR 2262, innocuously titled, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act”: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2262; 88 cosponsors (all but 1 Democrats); more info: www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34545
• Federal Domestic Partner Benefits for Homosexuals: (HR 2517); sponsored by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-WI); “Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act”; 110 co-sponsors, all but 1 are Democrats: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517
• Repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act); HR 3567: mischievously named the “Respect for Marriage Act”  it would repeal DOMA, which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages”; homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) opposes this bill due to timing. See: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3567; “Gay” Blade account here: www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27207
• Homosexual “Couples” Immigration Expansion — “Reuniting Families Act” (HR 2709): “would allow homosexuals to sponsor their “permanent partners” for residency in the United States”;  www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2709; more info: www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=49464

Peter LaBarbera

Check out FoxNews.com’s first major piece on the controversy surrounding Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s “Safe Schools” Education Department appointee and the nation’s leading activist promoting homosexuality in schools. Much of the article’s information against Jennings — including Brian Burt’s firsthand piece from a GLSEN conference exposing Jennings’ open desire to “promote homosexuality” in schools — came from Americans For Truth’s work (and that of our previous publication, Lambda Report).

What the FOX report left out was that Jennings used the F-word in 2002 to convey his hatred of the “religious right,” in a church no less. He says he can’t recollect” making the comment. Back in 2002, Americans For Truth and this writer (then writing for Concerned Women for America), obtained the audio tape from Jennings talk at the liberal Marble Collegiate Church in New York City — which I transcribed for the 2002 report by CWA below. (The tape has since been misplaced and FOX won’t report Jennings’ church expletive until an audio of the speech is produced.)

Here’s our AFTAH article highlighting the CWA paper exposing Jennings and GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, which he founded :

GLSEN’S JENNINGS: !&%#! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Addressing a church audience on March 20, 2000 in New York City — just days before “Fistgate” — GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings offered a stinging (and quite intolerant) assessment of how to deal with religious conservatives:

“Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle]   over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F—] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!” — Kevin Jennings speech to Marble Collegiate Church, March 20, 2000.

“[It should be noted that GLSEN and Jennings make heavy use of the words “respect” and “tolerance” in their public rhetoric and in descriptions of their programs. GLSEN’s also sponsors a “No Name Calling Week,” which includes “No Dissing” in its advice to kids as part of a school-based program to “eliminate bullying.”]

Now you would think that telling conservative Christians to “Drop dead!” and using the F-word to describe your hatred of them is something you’d remember. But according to the liberal website Think Progress:

There appears to be no full transcript available of this 2000 speech; it seems to first appear in a 2002 article on the right-wing website Concerned Women for America. The same day that article was published (4/10/02), Jennings told NPR that he had “no recollection of [that] quote whatsoever.”

Note how Jennings did not flat out deny making the nasty anti-Christian comments, but just said that he cannot recollect making them. It could be possible that Jennings — whose paper trail of “religious right”-bashing is extensive — is the type of profane liberal whose habit of cussing is so entrenched that even doing so in church would not be memorable.

We are searching Americans For Truth’s research archives for the tape of the Jennings speech — to jog his memory. The tape is apparently no longer available from the pro-homosexual Marble Collegiate Church, based in New York City. Calls by AFTAH to the church requesting the tape went unanswered, and FOX News also was unsuccessful in its attempts to secure a copy.

____________________________

The following is excerpted from the FoxNews.com report, “Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man for the Job,” by Maxim Lott:

Conservatives are up in arms about the appointment of Kevin Jennings, Obama’s director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, saying he is too radical for the job.

Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student. …

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

At the time, Jennings said he had concerns about events at the conference, but he also criticized attendees who filmed it.

“From what I’ve heard, I have concerns as well,” Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000. “GLSEN believes that children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner.

“What troubles me is the people who have the tape know what our mission is, they know that our work is about preventing harassment and they know that session was not the totality of what was offered at a conference with over 50 sessions,” he said.

But Peter LaBarbera, President of “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, said Jennings’ reaction was weak and unacceptable.

“He never really apologized. If a conservative group had done that, they would be out of business,” LaBarbera said.

The religious right is also alarmed by Jennings’ personal views about religion. In his memoir, he wrote of his views while he was in high school:

“What had [God] done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy — I don’t need you around anymore, I decided.

“The Baptist Church had left me only a legacy of self-hatred, shame, and disappointment, and I wanted no more of it or its Father. The long erosion of my faith was now complete, and I, for many years, reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion. Decades passed before I opened a Bible again.”

Terkel said Jennings was writing about a “low point” in his life, and he now considers himself a religious person.

“Since then he has been involved in the Union Theological Seminary,” she said. “He does consider himself religious. He tithes — I just don’t see any evidence that he is hostile to religion.”

Jennings is on the board of the Union Theological Seminary, which describes itself as “progressive and evangelical.”

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’” [Audio is available on the professor's Web site.]

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

GLSEN spokesman Daryl Presgraves told FOXNews.com that all the attacks on Jennings were hate-motivated smears, but he declined to address individual issues.

“From falsehoods to misrepresentations to things taken out of context to outright smears — all of which have been fully debunked — these groups will stop at nothing to ensure that no effective action is taken to address bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in America’s schools.

“They have failed to derail and slander GLSEN’s well-respected work in the education world, which includes partnerships with numerous national education organizations, and they now seek to tarnish Kevin Jennings’ highly regarded career as an educator.”

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA; HR 2981) as a Big Government bill that would empower the federal government to force small businesses to subsidize homosexual and gender-confused lifestyles. 

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Just in case you are still relying on establishment liberal media like the Associated Press (AP) to get your news, here are some startling photos and links documenting the mammoth, conservative “Tea Party Express” march in our nation’s capital Saturday, September 12th. This was a grassroots taxpayers’ protest of historic proportions — not in the “tens of thousands,” as AP misreported, but between one and two million people coming to make their voice heard in Washington.

I have been to a few big marches on Washington — including the annual March for Life and (as a critical observer) the homosexual activists’ March on Washington in 1993 (Click HERE to watch a very revealing YouTube video about that radical event). Based on the photos of Saturday’s tea party in D.C., this march appears to have dwarfed those past mobilizations. And try as the liberals will to paint Saturday’s marchers as a bunch of extremists, these are regular Americans, many of which had never attended a D.C. mass rally before. (But try this for a glimpse of the extreme 1993 “gay” rally, which had much smaller numbers.)

The Left is already moving to discredit the massive conservative turnout — jumping all over a false claim that ABC News reported the march as drawing between 1 million and 1.5 million. (We hope the Park Service will come up with a fair estimate, but even if they don’t aerial photos tell the story.) When even the left-wing MSNBC (NBC reporter Tom Costello) goes off script and reports that “hundreds of thousands” took part in the rally, you know something very significant has happened in Washington [watch Costello's MSNBC report HERE]. The New York Times reported:

“Many came on their own and were not part of an organization or group. But the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours.”

Here are some important websites that tell the real story about this huge rally in D.C.:

• Obviously moved by the enormity of the 9/12 march, the British newspaper Daily Mail  — hardly sympathetic to American conservatives — reported (emphasis added): “A million march to US Capitol to protest against ‘Obama the socialist.’” However, the Daily Mail’s original headline was: “Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama’s spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration” (it appears that the DM’s editors made some politically correct revisions);
• Michelle Malkin’s original story on the 9/12 march: “Yes, the picture is real, nutroots” [see photo at right]
• Malkin’s follow-up web article: “Celebrating the 9/12 rallies; Turnout estimated at 2 million” ;
• WorldNetDaily.com story on 9/12: “A million or more rock Washington: Taxpayer march could be biggest rally ever in capital”;
• WND founder Joseph Farah’s column: “The shameful non-coverage of 9/12″;
• 9/12 elapsed-time footage of D.C. protesters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjvc6baor8
• Glenn Beck web page with more photos of 9/12 march: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30493/

It deserves remembering that smug, out-of-touch media types like Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s resident lesbian leftist,  her über-obnoxious fellow MSNBC talker Keith Olbermann, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper viciously mocked the initial mass “tea party” protests with smirking jabs attaching them to “teabagging” — which, as it turns out, is a twisted oral sex act popularized by homosexual activist filmmaker John Waters’ movie “Pecker.” It was certainly a low point in the history of U.S. media to watch highly paid TV celebrities airing their inside dirty joke that compared decent, concerned Americans to a modern perversion. (Thankfully, most normal Americans didn’t know what “teabagging” was.)

Perhaps the liberal media elite’s snide condescension toward everyday Americans simply voicing their discontent — including suggestions that the protesters are racist because President Obama is black — accounted for an extra few hundred thousand protesters arriving in D.C. Saturday to make their presence felt. And that they did: even Maddow, Olbermann and the Huffington Post will have a tough time explaining away these seven-figure crowd numbers.

What does all this have to do with the fight against the Homosexual Lobby? Well, for one, beyond the health care debate, the Obama Administration is pushing to enact a comprehensive “gay” agenda that would greatly expand the government’s power to effectively force businesses and individuals to approve of or subsidize immoral homosexual and “transgender” lifestyles. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) — slated for a House hearing Wednesday, Sept. 23 — would create federal homosexuality- and transsexuality-based “rights” for employees. This would invariably circumscribe the liberties of business owners who oppose homosexuality as a matter of conscience. Our religious and First Amendment freedoms are at stake in this debate.

We trust that the same people who oppose Big Government intruding into our lives will resist the idea that the Government should be forcing businessmen and businesswomen to support homosexual behavior and gender confusion or risk getting sued.

NBC reporter Tom Costello reported that “hundreds of thousands” took part in the rally; the actual number was likely over a million.

 The AP photo above belies the news organization’s own reportage that numbered the massive crowd in the mere “tens of thousands.”

“Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [oral-anal stimulation] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.” — Homosexual writer Jack Hart, Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men (Allyson Publications: 1998), pp 212-213.

Government: Regulate this!  The homosexual bathhouse Steamworks -- an anonymous sex club for men who have sex with men that operates in Berkeley, Chicago, Seattle, Toronto and Vancouver — offered “student discounts” during Spring Break 2009 ($5 off to 18-and-older young men who presented a student ID). Why is the government allowing the open promotion — even to youth — of behavior that is a causative factor in a number of sex diseases including HIV? “Gay” web sites are blasting AFTAH for calling for a comprehensive federal study into the health risks of homosexual sex.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, as we could have predicted, pro-homosexual websites are blasting AFTAH’s call for a comprehensive federal investigation into the health risks of homosexual behavior — and our comparison to how the government has warned Americans about the dangers of smoking and taken direct action against it in the name of public health (bans against indoor smoking, etc.). I even got named “Creep of the Week” by the Michigan homosexual newspaper Between the Lines. (Talk about creepy: offering teenage boys “student discounts” at homosexual bathhouses, and taking innocent children to raunchy “gay pride” parades — now that’s creepy.)

Homosexual activists are petrified of taking a serious, objective look at the health risks surrounding “gay” sex — it’s almost as scary to them as the public becoming informed of the many satisfied “ex-gay” men and ex-lesbians living happy lives free of homosexuality. Their own writers occasionally acknowledge the disproportionate risks of “gay” sex (see quote above) — and the early deaths of homosexual men, especially well-known homosexuals who could afford the best health care money can buy, are an obvious indicator. This is one of the Pink Elephants in the room that policymakers must address, and we think an impartial, authoritative study is long overdue.

Here’s a People for the American Way report attacking AFTAH that says that I have called homosexual sex more dangerous than smoking, which I did not claim in our original report. In fact, I think some “gay” behaviors like sodomy are more dangerous than cigarettes — although there are many variables here that make comparisons difficult. But the point here is not what Peter LaBarbera thinks — or making a direct comparison to smoking — but to get the government or at least some academicians who are not in the tank for the “gay” lobby to objectively assess the health risks of homosexual sex (especially among MSM, men who have sex with men). The FDA’s explanations of the ban on homosexual men from donating blood are the closest thing approximating that. (And by the way, note that the “gay” “Creep of the Week” article advocates ending the sensible homosexual blood donation ban.)

Certainly, many homosexual ideologues and straight fellow travelers are in denial of the obvious link between homosexual male sex and STDs, and they have a special political interest in covering up this reality. But the rest of us have a right to know the facts, and there’s a whole nation out there that is largely ignorant on these matters. Meanwhile, public school educators, counselors and bureaucrats are promoting “GLBT” — homosexual, bisexual, and transgender — identities to impressionable youth, who certainly deserve the full truth about the health risks of these behaviors — political correctness be damned.– Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

__________________________________

AFA’s One News Now reports [click HERE and click on "Hear Report" button to listen to the report]:

Info on Homosexual Health Risks Squelched
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 7/30/2009

Americans for Truth about Homosexuality president Peter LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow it only makes sense because the government will investigate the dangers of such habits as smoking and work to curb it. He cites information released by the Food and Drug Administration.

“[Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have] an HIV prevalence rate 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors,” LaBarbera says.

The pro-family activist also notes an increased level of STDs and hepatitis.

“The people have a right to know about the health risks of homosexual activity just like they had a right to know about the health risks of smoking,” he contends. “There was a huge effort to cover up the risks of smoking, just like there’s a massive politically correct effort today to hide the true health risks of homosexual sex — and the people have a right to know about that.”

LaBarbera especially wants to warn school children who are being taught to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal and healthy.

He did not have to die so young: Homosexual activists and websites became irrational when AFTAH linked Russell Groff’s premature death from HIV/AIDS at age 26 to his practice of homosexual behavior. “Gay” power in society, abetted by the liberal media, must not stop the truth of the immense health risks of male homosexual sex from reaching the public.

MEDIA NOTE:  I will be the guest on Liberty Counsel’s outstanding new radio program, “Liberty Live” – airing today at 4:00-5:00 PM Eastern Time (3:00-4:00 Central).  The host (in Liberty Counsel Founder Mat Staver’s absence) will be my good friend, Matt Barber, LC’s Director of Cultural Affairs and an AFTAH Board Member.  (Matt is the guy who was fired by Allstate a few years back after writing a private web article against “gay marriage”– on his own time; this was God’s way of launching him into full-time pro-family work!)  “Liberty Live” airs on more than 150 stations through the American Family Radio Network.  You can also stream the show live and take part in the interactive blog discussion at www.afr.net or www.lc.org.  We’ll be discussing the Obama Administration’s and Log Cabin Republicans’ shared homosexual agenda.  Click HERE to listen to the archived show shortly after the program, and HERE to find AFR radio stations in your area.

TAKE ACTION AGAINST OBAMA’S “QUEER” AGENDA:  Meanwhile, please understand when you read the story below this one on AFTAH’s front page (“So Many Gender Identities, So Little Time”) that all major “queer”-oriented legislation on Capitol Hill – i.e., President Obama’s pro-homosexuality agenda, which was barely discussed in the general election – has a radical transsexual component.  That means, for example, if ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) becomes law, federal “discrimination” lawsuits and government prosecution could be brought against businesses and faith-based business owners and entrepreneurs who oppose using their private company resources to promote and subsidize gender confusion (and homosexuality).

Call Congress at 202-224-3121 (www.congress.org) to oppose:

1. “Hate Crimes” (Thought Crimes) bills HR 256 and HR 262;
2. Transsexuality-Promoting ENDA (think men in dresses entering corporate female restrooms);
3. Allowing open homosexuality in the military (Obama’s plan to overturn “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”); and
4. The pro-homosexual immigration bill euphemistically called the “United American Families Act of 2009” – which would allow Americans caught up in immoral homosexual relationships to sponsor their foreign-living homosexual lovers for immigration into the United States.  We might rename this last bill the “Foreign Homosexual Lovers Importation Act of 2009.”

Thanks for taking action!  And thanks for the thousands of supportive phone calls and e-mails that have poured into the office of RNC Chair Michael Steele (202-863-8700; chairman@gop.com) urging him to reject the divisive “Log Cabin Republicans” homosexual agenda! (See this incredible article highlighting one LCR leader’s extremism and anti-Christian bigotry, and the other Log Cabin stories below on the main page of the AFTAH website.) God bless. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

DATE: January 21, 2009, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Lynchburg, VA – Literally within minutes after President Obama took the oath of office yesterday, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of “The Agenda: Civil Rights” – to detail Obama’s wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.”  His stated plans include the following:

• Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage;
• Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton – the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
• Repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy;
• Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights – denied other Americans – based on changeable sexual behaviors;
• Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law; and,
• Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel [and a Board Member of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH)] released the following statement today in response to Obama’s stated pro-homosexual agenda:

“Well, the high-sheen veneer and ‘cult of personality’ euphoria surrounding Barack Obama looks to be dissolving rather quickly.  While millions had hoped for a political ‘messiah,’ it’s rapidly becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of ‘change we can believe in’ is, in reality, ‘change we never imagined.’

“For all the talk of ‘hope,’ ‘change’ and ‘coming together,’ it’s becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama’s administration will likely be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory.  I suspect the immediate, stark and ‘in your face’ changes made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of policy, from his administration.

“The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated.  Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.  The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space.  It’s a zero-sum game.  When 1 – 2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority.  People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it’s going to be a bumpy four years,” concluded Barber.

Marc Rotterman, senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation and a GOP consultant, writes:

Jesse Helms: American Hero

From Human Events, July 5, 2008

One of my fondest memories of Senator Helms was election night 1990 — when Senator Helms just defeated former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gant.

Let me set the scene…

All the major networks had just “called the race” in Helms’ favor. My wife and I, along with other Helms loyalists and aides, were in a hotel suite in downtown Raleigh watching the returns with the Senator and his wife “Ms. Dot.”

Helms’ supporters had gathered in the first floor ballroom along with all the NC press corps and other media from across the country and the world. As Dan Rather of CBS reluctantly “called the race” for Helms — I recall seeing a big grin coming over the Senator’s face.

By now, the time had arrived to exit the suite and head downstairs so Senator Helms could once again graciously accept another six year term and thank the people for their supported. We all crowded into the elevator.

When we disembarked and we were immediately swamped by a phalanx of reporters and cameras. I, along with several members of Helms staff, formed a cocoon around the Senator and his wife — working to get them through the crowd to the stage and the awaiting microphones. The crowd was at “fever pitch” crying Jessse, Jesseee!

Helms — who understood the art of seizing the moment” better than almost any other public figure I have been associated with — paused after getting to the stage. He waited for the crowd to quiet down. Then, at precisely the right moment, Senator Helm’s said in his Southern drawl…“I’d have been down here sooner — but I was watching the grieving face of Dan Rather as he announced my re-election to the United States Senate.”

The crowd in the ballroom went nuts.

Click HERE to read the reast of Marc Rotterman’s tribute, “Jesse Helms: American Hero”

The arrogance of the pro-homosexuality-in-the- military forces has escalated to unbelievable levels — a product in part of the huge political mobilization by anti-Don’t-Ask/Don’t-Tell forces compared to their pro-family opponents. Once again we see the play for sympathy based on the false and unproven idea that people are “born gay.” Get out your violins: the homosexual victims are coming … to Capitol Hill to demand more “rights” based on their aberrant sexual inclinations. Straight soldiers’ rights? Forget it! And no need to hire a PR agency for the “gay” side: the liberal media is taking care of that (more on Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s hit-piece against Donnelly later).–Peter LaBarbera

____________________________

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council writes in his July 24 “Washington Update”:

Rude Congressmen Tell and Don’t Ask at Hearing

For the first time since Congress beat back Bill Clinton’s effort to bring homosexuals into the military in 1993, there was a hearing on the topic yesterday on Capitol Hill, which FRC’s Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg and several Witherspoon Fellows attended. The Democrats in Congress are laying the groundwork for action next year, when they hope [a Democrat will be] president … to overturn the law which codified the military’s longstanding policy excluding homosexuals. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, and Sgt. Major Brian Jones, a veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force, ably defended the law in the face of shockingly disrespectful and even abusive questioning by members of the House Military Personnel subcommittee. Particularly egregious was the behavior of Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), who said that Donnelly’s concern about the impact of HIV-positive soldiers was “dumb” and that her testimony about behaviors common among homosexuals was “bonkers.” Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) used the silly line, “When did you decide to be heterosexual?” The false assumptions that people are “born gay” and can never change, and that homosexuality is equivalent to race, permeated the questioning. Yet no one explained how it would benefit the military to recruit service members who plan to commit acts which are criminal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Additional Resources
AP: Vigorous debate held on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Americans For Truth is featured in this story on American Family Association’s One News Now news website. Some readers are wondering: now that Congress is in the business of sin-based “caucuses,” when will the House Adultery Caucus will be formed? Actually, that might hit a little too close to home for some philandering Members. The One News Now story — which you can listen to HERE — is excerpted below:

Homosexuality takes Congress by storm
Jeff Johnson – OneNewsNow – 6/13/2008

The two openly homosexual members of the U.S. House of Representatives have recruited 50 of their colleagues to officially join them in promoting the homosexual agenda in Congress.

Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are the only open homosexuals serving in Congress. They have joined with Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and 50 other Democrats to create the House Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says it is a sad day when Congress enshrines official promotion of sexual immorality.

“How interesting that we now have a homosexuality, transsexual caucus – I guess you could call it – at the congressional level. It’s just unbelievable that there are this many congressmen who are promoting homosexuality and transsexual perversion,” LaBarbera laments.

While LaBarbera criticized the two Republicans for lending the appearance of bipartisanship to the group, he reserved his primary wrath for the Democrats.

“I think what this shows is that the hard-core Democratic Left is extremely pro-homosexual,” he states. “Big city populations have many homosexual activists, and they’re disproportionately powerful compared to the rest of the people in the district. Do I think that the average person in the district knows that these members are promoting homosexuality in this way? No way! But there are probably powerful homosexual constituencies in each one of these districts,” LaBarbera explains.

Click HERE to read the whole story on OneNewsNow or listen to it online.